The potential of dual-language cross-cultural peer review

Peer feedback in second language writing (2005–2014)

“…A number of recent studies have shown that L2 students can actively take part in peer interactions and produce effective language episodes to enhance their peers’ writing (Hu 2005; Yang et al 2006; Ruecker 2011; Hu & Ren 2012). Focusing on the comparison between teacher and peer feedback, Yang et al’s (2006) study suggests that peer feedback is associated with a greater degree of student autonomy, and there is a role for peer feedback in cultures that are believed to give authority to the teacher.…”

“…Some recent studies have examined the role of peer feedback in intercultural contexts (Ruecker 2011; Bradley 2012). Nguyen (2008a, 2008b) investigated the pragmatic strategies (i.e.…”

“…The researcher concludes that several factors could account for these discrepancies: EFL learners’ L2 linguistic competence and lack of fluency, the insufficiency of L2 pragmatic knowledge, and the impact of learners’ native language pragmatics. Ruecker (2011) explored the potential of dual-language cross-cultural peer feedback between Chilean and US university students and how it improves on traditional monolingual and monocultural peer feedback. His study illustrates that this mode of peer feedback can ensure that students receive quality feedback and comments from more advanced peers and enhance the quality of text revisions while promoting greater cross-cultural understanding.…”

Open and anonymous peer review in a digital online environment compared in academic writing context

“…The concept dates back to Vygotsky's (1978) Zone of Proximal Development in which students learn from each other by interacting. Such interaction is also observable in the process called scaffolding (Weissberg, 2006), where one peer may draw another peer's attention to problematic aspects of a paper that had been overlooked (Ruecker, 2010). The expectation of the FL lecturer is to observe an improvement in the students' writing skills, since this is assumed to be beneficial for both authors and reviewers (Aghaee & Hansson, 2013).…”

“…Despite the theoretical benefits of peer review, lecturers need to be cautious of potential drawbacks. Feedback provided by students with limited FL proficiency may be misleading and result in students not trusting 'weak' peers' feedback (Paulus, 1999;Rinehart & Chen, 2012;Rollinson, 2005;Ruecker, 2010;Saito & Fujita, 2004). In this case, a balanced distribution of asymmetrical feedback, from a proficient student to a less proficient one, and symmetrical feedback, between learners of almost equal skills, should be provided (Hanjani & Li, 2014).…”