Facilitating improved writing among students through directed peer review

Abstract

This study contributes to scant empirical investigation of peer critique of writing among heterogeneously grouped native and nonnative speakers of English, now commonplace in higher education. This mixedmethods study investigated the use of directed peer review to improve writing among graduate students, the majority of whom were nonnative speakers of English. Following a modified version of the Optimal Model of peer critique of university coursework, statistically significant gains were realized between the initial draft of a business proposal and its final submission for each of the measured items: support, audience focus, writing conventions, and organization. In addition, during the qualitative phase, students were observed to identify how peer editors naturally engaged in probing and collaborative styles of feedback known as discovery mode interactions. Approximately 80% of the students engaged in interactions to clarify the text and align it with the author's intentions, and approximately 37% sought to enhance and develop the text. Finally, the results suggest that the face-to-face peer review did improve the quality of a business communication assignment and implies a number of essential instructional practices toward improved writing and collaboration.Keywords discovery mode interactions, improved writing skills, nonnative speakers of English, Optimal Model of peer critique of university coursework, peer review, teaching writing, writing

Electronic Peer Feedback, EFL Academic Writing and Reflective Thinking: Evidence From a Confucian Context

“…This could be explained by students' linguistic abilities, the strong emphasis of writing teaching and learning on local aspects (Hanjani & Li, 2014), students' knowledge of global issues and essay topics (Liang, 2010), and the easiness in making comments on local aspects. Regardless of whether global aspects or local aspects are placed centrally in e-PF, this process is deemed to aid students in producing better piece of writing (Crossman & Kite, 2012;Lai, 2010). Without the mediation of peer comments, it may not be easy for each individual student to fully understand and improve such writing issues (Bradley, 2014;Chang, 2012;Liang, 2010).…”

The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: a Meta-Analysis

“…In all three studies, peer feedback occurred in-class, was performed in writing without opportunity for peer dialogue and included some form of guidance with respect to the assessment criteria. In the other five studies adopting a one-group pretest-posttest design (Noroozi, Biemans and Mulder 2016;Cheng, Liang and Tsai 2015;Crossman and Kite 2012;Sampson and Walker 2012;, students engaged with multiple peers during peer feedback. The respective effect sizes for these five studies ranged from small to large (0.34 [0.16, 0.53], 0.35 [-0.05, 0.76], 0.64 [0.56, 0.72], 1.71 [0.95, 2.47] and 2.14 [1.67, 2.62], respectively).…”

Addressing the “My Students Cannot Write” Dilemma: Investigating Methods for Improving Graduate Student Writing

“…However, overall peer revision led to improvement between drafts. This was also found to be true in graduate students whose scores improved significantly from first to final drafts (Crossman & Kite, 2012). The in-person review sessions in their study resulted in reviewers asking probing questions that helped writers further develop texts.…”