Variation in EFL-ESL Peer Response

Abstract

The present study attempts to answer the need for more focused research on peer response among EFL students and the need to compare the findings with those of ESL students. The paper examines the nature of peer response in foreign language and second language writing of student populations in two different learning settings: Israel (EFL) and U.S. (ESL). Two research questions are addressed by the study: 1) Are there differences in peer responses because of the different learning environments in EFL and ESL? 2) Is there a difference in attitudes toward peer response between students in EFL and ESL learning environments? The following data collection instruments were used: a background questionnaire, pre-tests for language proficiency and writing skills, two peer response sheets, writers' statements, pre- and post-course questionnaires on attitudes to peer review, a classroom behavior profile, and teacher observation reports of students' behavior in the classroom during peer response. Both similarities and differences were found in the revision behavior of Israeli and U.S. students. There were notable differences in the quality and quantity of responses between the two groups as well as in the dynamics of the peer response sessions. Some variation was found between the two groups in the attitude towards peer response and to the authority of the teacher.

Introduction

The widely adopted technique of peer response in both L1 and L2/FL writing classes has enriched the teaching of writing in many ways. It is one of the cornerstones of writing as a process, giving students the opportunity to spend time in class reworking their essays instead of believing that a single draft is adequate. Peer revision has also expanded the concept of audience to include more than the teacher, thus viewing writing as a social construction of meaning. It provides an opportunity for student-writers to discuss and formulate ideas about the content of their writing as well as to help each other in developing writing skills. It also makes students aware of their problems in writing through give-and-take with peers with similar writing problems. [-1-]

A great number of earlier studies carried out by L1 and L2 researchers have dealt with the implementation of peer review and its ability to improve student drafts. More recently, the focus has shifted to the peer process itself and its social dynamics. In L1 studies, Nystrand and Brandt (1989) and Gere and Stevens (1995) found the oral discussion in peer response to be very helpful for young students and adults. L2 studies investigated the social interaction of peers in terms of types of student talk (Lockhart & Ng, 1995; Mendonca & Johnson, 1994; Nelson & Murphy, 1992; Villamil & De Guerrero, 1996) as well as the attitudes of students to peer response in terms of their perceptions of its effectiveness (Linden-Marten, 1997; Mangelsdorf, 1992; Zhang, 1995).

Researchers of L2 writing have noted a variety of behaviors, interaction styles, and reactions among peer group members during peer response sessions. Mendonca and Johnson (1994) found that students use a variety of functions during negotiations: asking questions, offering explanations, making suggestions, restating what their peers have written, and correcting grammar mistakes. The activities reported by Guerrero and Villamil (1994) and Villamil and Guerrero (1996) in peer-response groups consisted of reading, assessing, dealing with trouble sources, and discussing task procedures. These studies also noted different social aspects of students' behavior, categorizing them as control, collaboration, or adopting of reader/writer roles. Villamil and Guerrero (1996) found that the issue of collaboration was highly related both to the social context of the group and to the group dynamics and that social relationships fluctuated during the peer interaction. Nelson and Murphy (1992) discovered that positive social interaction resulted in more effective feedback while aggressive criticism led to negative response. Lockhart and Ng (1995) categorized four reader stances that affected peer response: authoritarian, interpretive, probing, and collaborative. While the authoritarian stance, which dominated the interactions in this study, did not contribute to helpful group dynamics, the probing and collaborative stances did create a more positive and encouraging atmosphere for peer review.

In the ESL context in U.S. classrooms, a number of researchers have focused on questions related to peer-group dynamics among members of diverse cultures. It has been emphasized that students may use culturally diverse rules for how much and what kind of criticism should be expressed. Allaei and Connor (1990) suggested that different communication styles displayed by students from a variety of backgrounds might lead to different responses to writing. Carson and Nelson (1994) found that ESL students from backgrounds with collectivist goals see collaboration as a means to benefit the group, in contrast to the Western concept of group work which isto serve individual needs. Cultural differences were also observed in the Nelson and Carson (1998) study of ESL students' perceptions of peer response effectiveness. While both Chinese and Spanish-speaking students preferred critical comments to help them improve their drafts, and both preferred teacher feedback to student feedback, they differed on the amount and kind of talk that was needed to identify problems. [-2-]

Many comparative studies on peer and teacher comments have been carried out both in L1 and L2. These are summarized in Tsui and Ng's (2000) article which reports on a study of secondary L2 writers who found the teacher to be a "figure of authority that guaranteed quality" (p. 149). A number of researchers have expressed doubts about the capacity of novice writers to help each other in the revising process (Brooks & Donato, 1994; Carson & Nelson, 1996; Nelson & Carson, 1995, 1998; Villamil & Guerrero, 1996). Researchers have also reported significant differences in the extent to which students were able to implement peers' suggestions. For example, in the Nelson and Murphy study (1993) and in the Mendonca and Johnson study (1994), fifty percent of the total revisions resulted from peer comments. In the Connor and Asenavage study (1994), however, only five percent of the total revisions resulted from peer comments.

Students' perceptions of the effectiveness of peer response also play a role. In her study of the attitudes of advanced ESL students toward peer review, Mangelsdorf (1992) found that sixty-nine percent had positive reactions. The students in the Mendonca and Johnson study (1994) found peer review helpful with regard to audience perspective and idea development. Linden-Marten (1997), Sengupta (1995), and Zhang (1995, 1999) found that teacher feedback was preferred.

The mixed results of many of the studies on peer response attest to the complexity of the process. The success of L1 peer response, for example, does not necessarily carry over to L2 writers. According to Nelson and Carson (1998), L1 writers have more knowledge of the English language and more confidence and can thus take time to develop their writing. L2 writers are busy developing both language and writing skills and do not focus on writing skills primarily. Moreover, L1 students share similar communication styles (Allaei & Connor, 1990) and sociolinguistic rules of speaking (Wolfson, 1981) whereas L2 students may not. They come from different cultural backgrounds with different expectations about writing. These differences may lead to discomfort in multicultural peer response groups. An additional difference between L1 and L2 writers is the intercultural communication concept of power distance, where certain non-Western cultures may view the teacher as the holder of truth. All of these place into question the desirability and effectiveness of peer response in L2.

A major issue that has not been adequately addressed is peer response in EFL. Most of the conclusions about peer response for non-native speakers of English come from ESL research. Can it be assumed that EFL students will behave similarly to ESL students in the peer review setting? ESL is typically taught in the immersion context, where English is the language of the environment. The students usually come from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. EFL is taught to students in an environment that is different from the language being taught. The students are usually of the same cultural and linguistic background. As social interaction is such a key component of the peer discussion process, perhaps EFL students with a common language and culture behave differently from ESL students.

The present study attempts to answer the need for more focused research on peer response among EFL students and the need to compare the findings with those of ESL students as a group. The main purpose of the present study is to examine the nature of peer response in foreign language and second language writing of student populations in two different learning settings: Israel (EFL) and the U.S. (ESL). To the best knowledge of the writers, it is the first such study of peer response in strikingly different environments. [-3-]

The following research questions were posed at the outset of the study:

1. Are there differences in peer responses because of the different learning environments in EFL and ESL?

2. Is there a difference in attitudes toward peer response between students in EFL and ESL learning environments?

Method

Data Collection Instruments

The following data collection instruments were used to make the comparison between the two groups of students in the different learning environments: a background questionnaire, pre-tests for language proficiency and writing skills, two peer response sheets, writers' statements, pre- and post-course questionnaires on attitudes to peer review, and a classroom behavior profile (See Appendices A-F). In addition, teachers wrote observation reports of students' behavior in the classroom during peer response.

Participants

The participants in the study were ten students at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, Israel, and fourteen students at Indiana University in Indianapolis, enrolled in writing courses aimed at the development of writing skills. Both courses were designed for students at the intermediate level of language proficiency. To be admitted to the course, the students had to take a written placement examination at their respective universities.

At the beginning of the study, two pre-tests were administered, one for language proficiency and one for writing skills. The subjects in both countries took the Michigan Test of English Language Proficiency and wrote a timed in-class essay. The mean score on the Michigan Test was 52.0 for the Israeli students and 43.35 for the students in the U.S. A t-test performed on the means revealed no statistically significant differences between the performance of the students in Israel and those in the U.S. Three raters trained according to the rubrics of the Test of Written English (TWE) scored the essays. The mean essay score was 2.75 for the Israeli group and 3.00 for the U.S. group. A t-test performed on the means revealed no statistically significant differences in performance between the two groups. However, the t-test results should be viewed with minor caution in view of the small number of subjects. Nevertheless, the mean scores of both tests (language proficiency and essay writing) enable us to treat the two groups as having a generally similar level of proficiency. These results are summarized in Table 1. [-4-]

In the background questionnaire (See Appendix A), students were asked questions about their place and date of birth, their first language (L1), and their educational background. In the Israeli group, all ten students were born in Israel. In the U.S. group, students came from twelve different countries: China, Eritrea, India, Indonesia, Israel, Korea, Malaysia, Moldova, Philippines, Russia, Taiwan, and Venezuela. In the Israeli group, nine students indicated that their L1 was Hebrew and one indicated Russian. In the U.S. group, there were twelve different L1s. Students were also asked to rate their knowledge of English, their writing skills in English, and their writing skills in their L1 on the following scale: very good, good, satisfactory, poor.

The statements rated in the pre- and post-course questionnaires (See Appendix B) dealt with the students' confidence in their written English as well as with their comprehension of written English and their oral expression in English. Statements were also included concerning student attitudes about re-writing essays, about having their essays evaluated, and about whether peer review was useful. The last two questions focused on the students' feelings about volunteering comments in the writing class and about making suggestions about their peers' work. The students were asked to rate all statements on a scale of one to four: strongly agree, no opinion, disagree, and strongly disagree.

The students' responses were interpreted and classified into categories. The responses to the statements on revision, evaluation, and the usefulness of peer review were grouped into four categories of attitudes towards peer review: very useful, useful, no opinion, not useful. For example, if a student rated the statement "I do not like my essays to be evaluated" as strongly disagree, this was categorized as very useful. Responses to statements on volunteering comments and giving suggestion to peers were classified into four categories: volunteer very freely, volunteer freely, no opinion, and embarrassed. For example, if the student's response was strongly agree to the statement "I am embarrassed to volunteer comments," the student's behavior was described as embarrassed to volunteer comments. [-5-]

The students in both courses were taught according to the same syllabus and followed the same schedule of activities. The teachers of the two courses [1] collaborated on the design of the course. They exchanged teaching materials and were in constant communication. Both courses were taught from a process perspective, deemed appropriate for the intermediate level of the students. Brainstorming was practiced in class; the principles of paragraph writing were taught and practiced with peer review; much attention was given to the formulation of thesis statements and to the writing of topic sentences to express the subpoints that support the thesis statement.

Both courses required the writing of four full-length essays for description, narration, argument, and comparison-contrast. Each type of essay was introduced by reading model essays and analyzing the specific genre. When the essays were assigned, there were several stages of work that included writing and revising thesis statements and subpoints, writing three drafts of each essay, and conducting peer reviews for the first and second drafts, followed by revision of those drafts. The third draft was the final draft handed in to the teacher for a grade. One section of the course assignments was chosen as the focus of the present study, namely the third essay of the semester, the argument essay.

Students received extensive training in peer response. The teachers in both settings modeled peer response in class after the students viewed a videotape of peer response sessions. Both the oral and written aspects of peer response were reviewed, corrected, and monitored. Students practiced using peer response techniques with the first two essays in the course, the descriptive and the narrative essays.

In view of the suggestions of a number of researchers who investigated student attitudes to peer response (e.g., Mangelsdorf, 1992), it was decided to structure the task of peer response by providing students with guided peer response sheets containing specific questions for each draft. This forced peers to summarize their oral comments by writing them down as concrete answers to specific questions. It also provided the student-writers with written feedback that they could later consider and implement in the revision of their drafts.

Procedure

After the training and practice of peer response on descriptive and narrative essays, students were given the assignment to write an argumentative essay, the focus of the present study. The first draft was written outside of class time and followed by a peer response session in class. At the end of the session, the students were required to fill out a response sheet (called Response Sheet 1) on the content of the essay (See Appendix C). [-6-]

Response Sheet 1 was designed for the first draft of the essay as a content check since process writing encourages working on content before getting involved with correcting language. The first section of the sheet contained questions on the thesis and plan of the essay. Question 1 asked to identify the thesis statement, and Question 2 asked if the subpoints of the essay were clear in the thesis or plan. The second section of the peer response sheet dealt with the body paragraphs. The first question asked if the body paragraphs had clearly stated topic sentences; the second, if the writer had enough information to support the argument; the third, if there were any ideas that did not support the purpose in writing. Space was provided on the sheet for the peer's suggestions for improvement.

Based on the suggestions for correction, the students were asked to write their second draft, again outside of class time. In the following class session, the students engaged in peer response of the second draft, filling out another peer response sheet (Response Sheet 2) on the organization and language/grammar of the draft (See Appendix D).

Response Sheet 2 was designed for the second draft of the essay to guide students to pay attention to the organization of the essay and to language problems. The first four questions on this sheet dealt with problems of organization. Questions 1 and 2 asked if the writer's main idea was clearly stated in the first paragraph and if each subpoint was clear in the body paragraphs. Question 3 asked about transitions connecting paragraphs and 4 about the order of the paragraphs. Questions 5-8 dealt with grammar, primarily subject-verb agreement, verb tenses, complete sentences, and spelling and punctuation problems. As on the previous response sheet, space was provided for peer suggestions and corrections.

Both peer response sheets also contained a question referring to the peer's general impression of the essay and a section for the writer to fill in after completing his/her revisions. In this part, writers were asked which peer suggestions were incorporated in the essay and which were not and they were asked to explain why.

The scoring rubrics for the peer response sheets were developed by the research team. The answers to the questions from the peer response sheets were rated according to four response categories from 0 to 3. Three points were given for a detailed and specific answer to the question; two points for a partial answer; one point indicated inaccuracies or irrelevant comments; zero indicated no response. The final scoring rubrics were applied by one of the researchers to the entire data.

The students were instructed to write their final draft based on the peer suggestions for the second draft as well as to complete the peer response sheet about whether or not they incorporated their peers' suggestions and to explain why. In addition, students were asked to write a Writer's Statement (see Appendix E) and to attach it to the final draft of the essay. In part one of the Writer's Statement, the student-writer was asked to describe how and why he/she chose the topic for the essay and to state the purpose of the essay. In part two, the student was asked to write about the problems he/she had to cope with while writing the essay and to indicate how peer-response helped him/her to revise the essay. In part three, the student-writer was asked to state his/her concerns and need for additional help on the part of the teacher in order to improve the essay. [-7-]

At the end of the course, the students completed the post-course questionnaire that included the same questions as the pre-course questionnaire. (See Appendix B.) The teachers of both groups completed a classroom behavior profile (shown in Appendix F) and wrote observation reports of students' behavior during peer review.

Results and Discussion

The main purpose of the present study was to examine the nature of peer response in the foreign language and second language writing of student populations in two different learning settings: Israel and the U.S. The focus of the study was on the question of whether there were differences in peer responses and whether there were differences in attitudes toward peer response between students in the two countries. An underlying assumption was that students from different cultures would use different social rules for criticizing a peer's writing and that there would be a difference in peer dynamics between a relatively homogeneous EFL group (in Israel) and a heterogeneous ESL group (in the U.S.). As this cross-cultural study was a preliminary exploration of the two environments, other differences within the multicultural ESL group were not examined.

The discussion of the results is organized according to the two research questions.

Research question 1: Are there differences in peer responses because of the different learning environments in EFL and ESL?

The careful structuring of the peer response task facilitated the comparison between the Israeli FL group and the U.S. L2 group. A comparison of the responses, as they appeared on the two peer response sheets, was done using the rubrics shown in Table 2. [-8-]

[-9-]

The mean scores of the students' responses on Response Sheet 1 were as follows: thesis and plan: x=2.60 (Israeli), x=1.83 (U.S.); body paragraphs: x=2.80 (Israeli), x=1.66 (U.S.); general impression: x=2.40 (Israeli), x=1.46 (U.S.). T-tests performed on these results revealed statistically significant differences on all three items. The results are summarized in Table 3.

T-tests performed on the Response Sheet 2 results showed statistically significant differences on main idea and topic sentence, on order of paragraphs, and on complete sentences. No statistically significant differences were found on the other items. The results are summarized in Table 4.

Notable differences were found between the Israeli FL group and the U.S. L2 group in their peer responses. The scores of the Israelis on the two response sheets suggest a somewhat higher degree of cooperation in their revising behavior. The most striking difference between the groups was in the amount of writing done on the peer response sheets and the specificity of the comments. The students in the U.S. group wrote more extensively and they often became involved in the specific topic of their peer's essay. The Israelis, on the other hand, wrote briefer comments. [-10-]

Extensive comments by U.S. peers usually included complete sentences related to the essay content as well as specific suggestions. There were some responses that were irrelevant to the question on the response sheet. For example, in answer to the question on paragraph order on Response Sheet 2, a U.S. peer agreed that the paragraphs were in the right order and then added in the suggestion blanks, "In paragraph 2, would you tell me whether the old people decided to go to nursing home or someone decided for them." In some cases, the extensive comments included personal reactions to the topic of the essay rather than evaluations of the writing.

An example of the personal involvement of some U.S. peers is a comment on the general impression question: "This essay almost changed my mind to decide whether I'm against this topic like before or for it. I am confused now." This comment implies that the writer has convincingly affected the peer. As responses to the general impression question, two other U.S. students stated their opinions on the topic instead of their evaluations. One wrote: "My general impression is even we know that we are going to die, we have to be patient and wait. Don't kill yourself, just wait until what's going to happen, because life is a gift from God." Another peer wrote: "Life is very important. Don't make yourself to live or to die. Just wait what's going to happen. Sometimes a miracle occurs. So you have to precious your life." While these responses do not give a critical evaluation of the essay, they reflect effective communication between the readers and the writers.

The brief comments of the Israeli peers were for the most part devoid of personal reactions. Instead, they gave practical suggestions. An example of an Israeli peer response to a question on body paragraphs was, "The second reason should be more detailed." Another Israeli peer wrote: "On your second reason you have to bring other details about economy--how it contributes." The Israelis, for whom the peer technique was a novel experience, may not have realized that there was a need to provide more extensive comments and in this way help their peers revise the essay. It should also be noted that many Israelis exhibit an instrumental approach to learning. Most come to the university as older students, after a period of army service, and they want to get through their studies expediently. This may be reflected in the brevity of their comments.

A tendency in the U.S. group was to respond more critically than in the Israeli group. The Israeli group tended to be more supportive. A U.S. peer said: "The essay is very emotional. But it doesn't contain the necessary facts, evidences that could convince the reader." The writer of this essay is not afraid to argue with his peer. "I think I have examples in my essay. It's that I need more examples. I think my thesis argument and topic sentence are strong enough to support my main idea." [-11-]

The Israelis tended to be more supportive in general, usually responding to the general impression question with praise. It should be noted, however, that when Israeli peers made negative comments, they were specific and relevant. For example, in response to the question on body paragraphs, one Israeli peer wrote, "The second argument isn't expressed well enough. I suggest to emphasize the difficulty to adapt to a partner in life." Another Israeli peer wrote: "In the first paragraph you need to write about the two aspects--the mother and the child--instead of writing a lot about the medical sector." In response to whether the subpoints were clear, a student wrote: "No. You have to write 2 reasons why the number of demonstrations should be minimized."

It should be emphasized that in both groups, more extensive comments were made mainly by students with a higher language proficiency. These students seemed to feel more confident about their critical evaluations as well.

Another explanation of the difference in the amount of comments between the groups arises from teacher observations of the peer response sessions. In the Israeli group, there was much more oral response than was reflected in the written comments. The oral response sessions were experienced by the Israeli students as a lively process of negotiation. During those sessions, conducted in the students' common L1, the writers and reviewers engaged in a vibrant discussion of the essays, arguing back and forth on specific points, asking for clarification, defending positions, and negotiating the development of the essay. When it was time to put this down in writing on the peer response sheet, however, the enthusiasm declined somewhat and the resulting comments in most cases were brief.

In the U.S. group, the students seemed to prefer the written response to the oral one. According to the teacher's observations, the students in the U.S. group did not rush through the written part of the session as did their Israeli counterparts. Although they engaged in a productive oral discussion, it appeared to the teacher that lack of a common L1 as well as the cultural diversity of the U.S. group made it harder to negotiate orally. Moreover, the teacher noted a certain atmosphere of conflict in the group. One example of a U.S. peer distancing himself from peer commitment was a response that stated a refusal to suggest transitions (See Appendix D, Question 3) as it would mean correcting the whole essay. He did not indicate whether the paragraphs were in the best possible order (See Appendix D, Question 4); instead, he stated that he would do the essay differently. Another example of an unwillingness to actively help a fellow student was in the response, "I don't have time to find the thesis statement." An extreme example of conflict in the group was one Moldavian student who was overly critical of his peers' writing. He had few positive comments and felt that his fellow students were not capable of offering constructive comments about his writing. Consequently, the other students did not want him as a peer responder. [-12-]

The differences in the two learning environments affected the dynamics of the peer response session. As evidenced in the observation reports of the oral sessions, the Israeli group, with Hebrew as their common L1, was able to engage in productive peer response sessions. Their verbal exchanges were understood by all the members of the group and trusted for the most part. They shared similar types of speech and attitudes about criticism. This observation is in line with the findings of Villamil and de Guerrero (1996). The researchers noted that the use of a common L1 provided a means of task control for the ESL Spanish students in their study. The common L1 served as a facilitator for conducting their discussions and for solving revision problems.

Alongside the differences observed between the two groups, it should be noted that during the peer process, the revision behavior of the students in both learning environments underwent similar changes. In the initial stages of peer discussion, most of the students in both groups expressed a product-oriented approach to writing and had less understanding of the need for examining the writing process. The students' focus was on finding mistakes and fixing them so that they could get a better grade. Over time and with training, students did learn to value the process aspect of composition.

Peers helped each other with the content and organization of the essay very closely following the training they received from the teacher in class. The teacher's modeling of the technique provided them with specific behaviors that they could replicate. Therefore, the instructional input seemed to be a necessary component for preparing the students for the peer evaluation process. The guided peer response sheets also played an active part in focusing the students' attention on specific points when doing the evaluation (Mangelsdorf, 1992).

Research question 2: Is there a difference in attitudes toward peer response between students in EFL and ESL learning environments?

The analysis of students' responses on the background and the pre-course questionnaires revealed that at the outset of the study, the Israeli students displayed much more confidence in ranking their writing abilities and more skepticism about the need for peer evaluation. With regard to self-evaluation of writing ability in EFL/ESL and L1, the results show that the Israeli students ranked their writing skills overall higher than the U.S. students. In the Israeli group, 80% evaluated their writing skills in English to be higher than satisfactory, while 43% did so in the U.S. group. The Israeli students also stated that they would be reluctant to express criticism of their peer's work. The students in the U.S. group were in general more positively inclined towards the peer response technique.

The post-course questionnaire revealed a shift to more specific attitudes toward the activity of peer response in both groups by the end of the course. Significant attitude differences were found between the two groups about the evaluation of their essays. While the U.S. group was in favor of the evaluation, the Israeli students stated that they did not like the activity: t(21)=-2.22*, p=0.037 (p<0.05). Similarly, the Israeli students stated that they did not like rewriting their essays, while the attitude of the U.S. group to this activity was positive: t(21)=-2.95*, p=0.008 (p<0.05). [-13-]

When asked about their opinion of peer reviews, the U.S. students stated that they found them useful, while the Israeli students did not. The Israeli students, however, attached greater importance to their improvement in language proficiency than their U.S. counterparts: t(21)=-2.45*, p=0.023 (p<0.05).

A t-test for paired samples (pre- and post-questionnaires) also showed that after the course, the Israeli students showed more confidence in written English than the U.S. students: t(9)=3.21*, p=0.011 (p<0.05). However, the U.S. students stated after the course that they were less embarrassed to volunteer comments: t(12)=-2.50*, p=0.028, (p<0.005).

These results suggest that the U.S. students enjoyed the peer review process more than the Israeli students, but the latter benefited from the process in their increased confidence in their writing. This gave some students the confidence to reject peer suggestions. When a suggestion given by an Israeli peer conflicted with the writer's opinion, the writer did not incorporate the suggestion in his revised draft. He explained that he disagreed with the comments.

The attitude of students to the authority of the teacher was another cultural factor that may have played a part in the variations in attitude towards peer response between the two groups. In the Israeli classroom, students do not see the teacher as an absolute power and are, therefore, eager to negotiate the requirements of the task and even to criticize it. For example, some of them questioned the need to answer repetitive questions. This was evident in their written comments on the peer response sheets which they viewed as a task set by the teacher. Nevertheless, the Israelis accepted the teacher as an expert whose role is to correct and evaluate. These commonly-held notions helped to solidify the group and created a more productive environment for peer response.

In a setting with students from various cultural backgrounds, there may be a clash between student perceptions of the authority of the teacher in their country of origin with that in other cultures and in the U.S. In certain cases, this may cause some of the students in the U.S. group to hesitate to accept the peer's criticism and to prefer the teacher's criticism instead. Among many of the suggestions for grammar changes, several peers said, "For me it's ok," leaving the final decision to the teacher. Eight of the fourteen U.S. students came from Asian countries where authority is often more respected than in Israel. These students tended to see the teacher as an absolute authority figure who must evaluate the students' work. [-14-]

In fact, there were students in both groups who indicated that they trusted the teacher's comments more than those of their peers. Although the students had been taught how to evaluate the essays for grammatical accuracy, they seemed to be conditioned by their long-standing experience of error correction being done solely by the teacher. This was true for both the weakest and the most proficient students. Sengupta's study (1998) found that the more traditional educational context, which has the teacher as the final evaluator, shaped the students' perceptions of peer evaluation. The central importance of examinations and accuracy in the L2 curriculum makes it difficult for students to see themselves as evaluators of their peers.

Another indication of attitude towards peer response can be found in the choice of whether or not to incorporate peer suggestions for improvement of the student's essay. The last two questions on both peer response sheets asked the writer which peer suggestions he/she incorporated in the final draft of the essay and which were not incorporated and why.

The Writer's Statements corroborated that most of the students in both settings incorporated a great many of their peers' comments. The final drafts of their essays reflected this incorporation of peer comments. This is in contrast to the result of the Connor and Asenavage study (1994) that noted that only five percent of the total revisions resulted from peer comments. This low percentage could very well be the result of the fact that the students in that study had other options for obtaining feedback, e.g., from teachers and tutors. In the present study, the teacher option was a small supplement to the peer suggestions, though it is true that the weakest students relied most heavily on the teacher. Two weak students from the Israeli group came to see the teacher during conference hours to help them improve their drafts. During the peer response sessions in both groups, as the teacher was walking around, individual students asked specific questions about their drafts as well as the ones they were criticizing. Perhaps the students thought that conferring with the instructor would lend more credibility to the comments they gave. The teacher's intervention in both learning environments gave the students a sense of security, but it did not detract from their acceptance of the comments of their peers.

Conclusions

In this study peer responses were examined in two different educational settings: in the EFL context in Israel and in the ESL context in the U.S. The peer responses were structured and guided, which proved to be more suitable for cross-cultural experimentation.

With regard to the first research question--Are there differences in peer responses because of different learning environments?--both similarities and differences were found in the revision behavior of Israeli EFL and U.S. ESL students. In the course of the study, a shift from a product-oriented approach to writing to a process-oriented approach was observed in both groups of subjects. Similar to Nelson and Carson's (1998) findings, students in both the Israeli and the U.S. groups replicated their teacher's modeling of the peer response technique and moved away from just pointing out and correcting mistakes in their peers' essays. [-15-]

There were, however, notable differences in the quality and quantity of responses between the two groups. Most of the students in the U.S. group wrote more extensively while most of the Israeli students wrote shorter comments in an effort to complete the task quickly. Many U.S. students expressed personal reactions to the content of the essays while their Israeli counterparts made practical suggestions. The U.S. peers were usually more critical in their responses. In general, the Israelis were more supportive, but they also responded critically at times.

Differences in the dynamics of the peer response sessions were also noted between the two groups. Teachers' observation reports indicated that in the Israeli group, the discussions were much more vibrant: there were more requests for clarifications and more negotiation in defense of the writer's position. Perhaps the common cultural background and common L1 were instrumental factors in this behavior. The U.S. group, on the other hand, clearly preferred the written response to the oral one and displayed their negotiation in writing. Perhaps the different cultural backgrounds and different L1s impeded more extensive oral negotiation.

Regarding the second research question--Is there a difference in attitudes towards peer response between students in different learning environments?--some variation was found. The Israeli subjects displayed much more self-confidence in ranking their writing abilities and more skepticism about the need for peer evaluation. They were reluctant to elaborate their responses in writing. Nevertheless, they did offer extensive qualitative comments during oral peer response sessions. The students in the U.S. group, on the other hand, being in general more positively inclined towards the written peer response technique, invested more time and effort in the task and showed greater consistency in their critical responses.

There was some difference between the two groups in the subjects' attitude to the authority of the teacher. The Israeli students regarded the teacher as an expert whose task was to evaluate, criticize and correct the students' written work. They were, however, reluctant to see the teacher as an absolute power and often negotiated the teacher's instructions. Most of the subjects in the U.S. group treated the teacher as an authority figure and preferred the teacher's criticism to the criticism of their peers.

Despite the limited scope of the present study, some suggestions about the implementation of peer review are in order. One of the implications is to take into account student behavior in planning the peer response session. For example, when the discussion is unfocused and the comments not specific enough, teachers need to intervene and prod students to explain what they mean. The Israeli group, for example, may have benefited from a pause in the oral session to write down all their comments before they moved on to the next point. Or, perhaps only oral peer sessions should be conducted and the writers can jot down what they feel is relevant. The sessions need to be geared to the students' needs. [-16-]

Another implication is that there is a need for a combination of teacher and peer feedback as well as self-directed feedback (Jacobs, Curtis, Braine, & Huang, 1998). When teachers find problems during peer negotiations, they should intervene and facilitate more productive discussion among students. After negotiations between peers, teachers can answer student questions. Students with lower language proficiency should also be given more help with the construction of their sentences and other grammar problems. Self-directed feedback is a realistic option for the better students.

It is suggested that deeper analysis of the peers' comments as well as of the actual changes incorporated in the students' essays would provide more than a tentative explanation for the differences between the two groups. As a preliminary exploration of how EFL students, with a common language and culture, behave in peer review as compared to ESL students, with different linguistic and cultural backgrounds, this cross-cultural study should be expanded to include more EFL and ESL groups to determine the extent of the variations between these different populations. Individual case studies would also shed more light on some of the underlying motivations and attitudes of students. Knowledge of these differences is crucial in planning effective and satisfying peer sessions.

References

Allaei, S. K., & Connor, U. M. (1990). Exploring the dynamics of cross-cultural collaboration in writing classrooms. The Writing Instructor, 10, 19-28.

Brooks, F., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania, 77, 262-274.

Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1994). Writing group: Cross-cultural issues. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 17-30.

Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1996). Chinese students' perception of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 1-19.

Connor, U. M., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 257-276.

Freedman, S. W. (1992). Outside-in and inside-out: Peer response groups in two ninth-grade classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 26, 71-106.

Gere, A. R., & Stevens, R. S. (1985). The language of writing groups: How oral response shapes revision. In S. W. Freedman (Ed.), The acquisition of written language: Response and revision (pp. 85-105). Norwood, N.J.: Ablex. [-17-]

Guerrero, M. C. M. de & Villamil, O. S. (1994). Social-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 484-496.

Jacobs, G. M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S. (1998). Feedback on student writing: Taking the middle path. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 307-317.

Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances, functions, and content. Language Learning, 45, 605-655.

Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do students think? ELT Journal, 46, 274-284.

Mendonca, C. & Johnson, K. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745-769.

Nelson, G., & Carson, J. (1995). Social dimensions of second-language instruction: Peer response as cultural context. In D. Rubin (Ed.), Second identity and style in written communication, (pp. 89-109). Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nelson, G., & Carson, J. (1998). ESL students' perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 113-131.

Nelson, G., & Murphy, J. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27, 135-142.

Nystrandt, M., & Brandt, D. (1989). Response to writing as a context for learning to write. In C. M. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 209-230). Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.

Sengupta, S. (1998). Peer evaluation: "I am not the teacher." ELT Journal, 52, 19-28.

Tsui, A.B.M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 147-170.

Villamil, O., & Guerrero, M. C. M. de (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 51-75.

Wolfson, N. (1981). Compliments in cross-cultural perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 117-124.

About the Authors

Adina Levine holds an MA degree in English Language and Literature from the Vilnius State University (Lithuania) and a Ph.D degree in Linguistics from the Hebrew University, Jerusalem. She is assistant to the head of the EFL Department and a senior teacher of EFL at Bar-Ilan University. Dr. Levine taught courses in applied linguistics in the University of Campinas (Brazil) and in the University of Amsterdam (The Netherlands). Dr. Levine has published extensively in the field of EFL reading comprehension and foreign language acquisition. She has presented papers at TESOL conventions, AAAL and AILA conferences.

Brenda Oded holds a Ph.D. in English Literature from Bar Ilan University where she is the Head of the Department of English as a Foreign Language. She is a senior teacher of EFL reading and writing and has published previously on summaries and schema activation in foreign language reading and on depth of processing in reading comprehension.

Ulla Connor is the Director of the Indiana Center for Intercultural Communication at Indiana University in Indianapolis. She is a leading researcher in intercultural communication and linguistics and has published widely on languages and cultures. Recipient of many research grants, Dr. Connor is most recently co-editor of Reflections on Multiliterate Lives (2001) and author of Contrastive Rhetoric: Crosscultural Aspects of Second Language Writing (1996). She has taught and lectured in many countries including England, Finland, Egypt, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Malaysia, Slovakia, Sweden, and Venezuela.

Iveta Asons Iveta Asons holds a Master's Degrees in German Language and a certificate in TESOL from Indiana University in Indianapolis. She has taught ESL in Latvia and at Indiana University in Indianapolis as well as private institutes in the Indianapolis area.

© Copyright rests with authors. Please cite TESL-EJ appropriately. Editor's Note: Dashed numbers in square brackets indicate the end of each page for purposes of citation.

Return to Table of Contents Return to Top Return to Main Page

[-18-]