The effect of language proficiency on the negotiation in peer review in EFL context
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of language proficiency level on using negotiation
categories in peer feedback in EFL context. Thirty high and thirty low proficient EFL learners participated
in this study and their audiotaped negotiations were transcribed and analyzed based on Mendonça and
Johnson's (1994) category. In four categories of restatement, suggestion, grammar correction, and
explanation of opinion which were generated by the writers and the reviewers, although reviewers
dominated the negotiation in both high and low proficient groups, in low proficient groups, the difference
between the writers and the reviewer was more significant. In comprehension check and explanation
categories used mainly by the writers, there was a significant difference in explanation between high and
low proficient groups, but no such difference was found in comprehension check. In request for
explanation category used mainly by the reviewers, no significant difference was found between the
reviewers in high and low proficient group. The study has pedagogical implication for writing classes as it
suggests audience awareness, critical thinking, and realization of output hypothesis as the pedagogically
beneficial result of negotiation. It also suggests peer feedback as an alternative to teacher feedback.
Keywords: high and low proficient EFL learners, negotiation, peer feedback.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (SeeThe Effect of Open Access).
References
Berg, C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 215-241.
Carson, J., & Nelson, G. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of EFL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 1- 19.
Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Edwards, J. E. (2003). The transcription of discourse. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 321-349). Oxford: Blackwell Publication.
Ehlich, K. (1993). HIAT: A transcription system for discourse data. Talking data: Transcription and coding in discourse research, 123-148.
Fathman, A. K., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing (pp.178-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-87.
Guénette, D. (2007). Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 40- 53.
Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305-313.
Kroll, B. (1991). Teaching writing in the ESL context. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language (pp. 245–263). New York: Newbury House.
Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll, (Ed.), Second language writing (pp. 25-86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, C. (2006). The impact of teacher involved peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Sino-US English Teaching, 3(5), 28-32.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30–43.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1989). Parallels between speaking and writing in second language acquisition. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 134–145). White Plains, NY:Longman.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal, 46, 274–284.
Mendonça, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745-769.
Nunan, D. (2001). English as a global language. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 605-606.
Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback in child ESL classrooms. Modern Language Journal, 87(4), 519. Abstract retrieved June 20, 2011 from: www.jstor.org/stable/1192801
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Riddle, D. (2003). Teaching English as a foreign/second language. London: Teach Yourself.
Smalley, R. L., Ruetten, M. K., & Koshered, J. R. (2001). Refining composition skills: Rhetoric and grammar (5th ed.). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be more effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 217-233.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its development. Input in second language acquisition, 15, 165-179.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
White, R. and McGovern, D. (1994). Writing: A Student’s Book. English for Academic Study Series. Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall Europe.
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to students' writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79-101.