• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

site logo
The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language
search
  • Home
  • About TESL-EJ
  • Vols. 1-15 (1994-2012)
    • Volume 1
      • Volume 1, Number 1
      • Volume 1, Number 2
      • Volume 1, Number 3
      • Volume 1, Number 4
    • Volume 2
      • Volume 2, Number 1 — March 1996
      • Volume 2, Number 2 — September 1996
      • Volume 2, Number 3 — January 1997
      • Volume 2, Number 4 — June 1997
    • Volume 3
      • Volume 3, Number 1 — November 1997
      • Volume 3, Number 2 — March 1998
      • Volume 3, Number 3 — September 1998
      • Volume 3, Number 4 — January 1999
    • Volume 4
      • Volume 4, Number 1 — July 1999
      • Volume 4, Number 2 — November 1999
      • Volume 4, Number 3 — May 2000
      • Volume 4, Number 4 — December 2000
    • Volume 5
      • Volume 5, Number 1 — April 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 2 — September 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 3 — December 2001
      • Volume 5, Number 4 — March 2002
    • Volume 6
      • Volume 6, Number 1 — June 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 2 — September 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 3 — December 2002
      • Volume 6, Number 4 — March 2003
    • Volume 7
      • Volume 7, Number 1 — June 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 2 — September 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 3 — December 2003
      • Volume 7, Number 4 — March 2004
    • Volume 8
      • Volume 8, Number 1 — June 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 2 — September 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 3 — December 2004
      • Volume 8, Number 4 — March 2005
    • Volume 9
      • Volume 9, Number 1 — June 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 2 — September 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 3 — December 2005
      • Volume 9, Number 4 — March 2006
    • Volume 10
      • Volume 10, Number 1 — June 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 2 — September 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 3 — December 2006
      • Volume 10, Number 4 — March 2007
    • Volume 11
      • Volume 11, Number 1 — June 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 2 — September 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 3 — December 2007
      • Volume 11, Number 4 — March 2008
    • Volume 12
      • Volume 12, Number 1 — June 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 2 — September 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 3 — December 2008
      • Volume 12, Number 4 — March 2009
    • Volume 13
      • Volume 13, Number 1 — June 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 2 — September 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 3 — December 2009
      • Volume 13, Number 4 — March 2010
    • Volume 14
      • Volume 14, Number 1 — June 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 2 – September 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 3 – December 2010
      • Volume 14, Number 4 – March 2011
    • Volume 15
      • Volume 15, Number 1 — June 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 2 — September 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 3 — December 2011
      • Volume 15, Number 4 — March 2012
  • Vols. 16-Current
    • Volume 16
      • Volume 16, Number 1 — June 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 2 — September 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 3 — December 2012
      • Volume 16, Number 4 – March 2013
    • Volume 17
      • Volume 17, Number 1 – May 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 2 – August 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 3 – November 2013
      • Volume 17, Number 4 – February 2014
    • Volume 18
      • Volume 18, Number 1 – May 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 2 – August 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 3 – November 2014
      • Volume 18, Number 4 – February 2015
    • Volume 19
      • Volume 19, Number 1 – May 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 2 – August 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 3 – November 2015
      • Volume 19, Number 4 – February 2016
    • Volume 20
      • Volume 20, Number 1 – May 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 2 – August 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 3 – November 2016
      • Volume 20, Number 4 – February 2017
    • Volume 21
      • Volume 21, Number 1 – May 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 2 – August 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 3 – November 2017
      • Volume 21, Number 4 – February 2018
    • Volume 22
      • Volume 22, Number 1 – May 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 2 – August 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 3 – November 2018
      • Volume 22, Number 4 – February 2019
    • Volume 23
      • Volume 23, Number 1 – May 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 2 – August 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 3 – November 2019
      • Volume 23, Number 4 – February 2020
    • Volume 24
      • Volume 24, Number 1 – May 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 2 – August 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 3 – November 2020
      • Volume 24, Number 4 – February 2021
    • Volume 25
      • Volume 25, Number 1 – May 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 2 – August 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 3 – November 2021
      • Volume 25, Number 4 – February 2022
    • Volume 26
      • Volume 26, Number 1 – May 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 2 – August 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 3 – November 2022
      • Volume 26, Number 4 – February 2023
    • Volume 27
      • Volume 27, Number 1 – May 2023
      • Volume 27, Number 2 – August 2023
      • Volume 27, Number 3 – November 2023
      • Volume 27, Number 4 – February 2024
    • Volume 28
      • Volume 28, Number 1 – May 2024
      • Volume 28, Number 2 – August 2024
      • Volume 28, Number 3 – November 2024
      • Volume 28, Number 4 – February 2025
    • Volume 29
      • Volume 29, Number 1 – May 2025
      • Volume 29, Number 2 – August 2025
      • Volume 29, Number 3 – November 2025
      • Volume 29, Number 4 – February 2026
  • Books
  • How to Submit
    • Submission Info
    • Ethical Standards for Authors and Reviewers
    • TESL-EJ Style Sheet for Authors
    • TESL-EJ Tips for Authors
    • Book Review Policy
    • Media Review Policy
    • TESL-EJ Special issues
    • APA Style Guide
  • Editorial Board
  • Support

Peer Response in Second Language Writing Classrooms

September 2003 — Volume 7, Number 2

Peer Response in Second Language Writing Classrooms

Michigan series on teaching multilingual writers (Series editors Diane Belcher and Jun Liu)
Jun Liu and Jette G. Hansen (2002)
Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press
Pp. viii + 182
ISBN 0-472-08808-4 (paper)
$16.00

Perhaps nowhere before has there been such a focused, comprehensive discussion of L2 peer response as that provided by Jun Liu and Jette G. Hansen in Peer Response in Second Language Writing Classrooms, an efficiently written jewel of the new Michigan Series on Teaching Multilingual Writers.

The most important test that a teacher’s resource book must pass is that it is indeed useful to teachers. Peer Response passes that test with flying colors. Not only do the authors offer tips based on research and their own experience within the chapters, but they have also included a list of “Suggestions for Teachers” at the end of each chapter. These lists are packed with innovative approaches and solutions to peer response issues. The chapters themselves are clearly organized by use of explicitly labeled headings and subheadings.

Chapter 1 starts by addressing some of the most pertinent questions to any teacher using peer response, such as whether students can detect problems in their peers’ texts and whether students adopt more feedback from peers or teachers. This may be the most heavily research-supported chapter in the book, and, of course, it sets the stage for the ensuing chapters.

In the second chapter, the authors present clear distinctions between different types of learners and learning contexts. This is essential in a contemporary L2 writing text, as differences between adults and children and ESL and EFL learners have garnered ever more acute attention over the past several years. The tone of this chapter is more forward-looking then retrospective, which imbues the text with a sense of usefulness and practicality: readers will not feel as if they are recounting the history of the field so much as constructing its future. [-1-]

The full third chapter is devoted to a discussion of considerations to take into account when grouping students into peer response groups. Though the authors do not prescribe a strict formula for establishing groups, they do offer specific advice for teachers in order to make peer response as effective and harmonious as possible.

Chapter 4 explains different modes of response, including particular attention paid to computer-mediated modes. This chapter also takes a look at the roles students take on in their peer response groups. The authors have expertly balanced their discussion of curricular concerns with student concerns throughout this volume, and that is perhaps most evident in this chapter.

Chapter 5 offers insight about what peer response should focus on. The title of the chapter, “Foci of Peer Response,” hints that the authors will not endorse a simplistic model of response. In fact, if anything, the authors might be said to challenge seemingly linear approaches to peer response (focus on content in the first draft, focus on mechanics in the second draft).

It is in Chapter 6 that teachers will find a wealth of resources in the form of examples of peer response sheets and some very helpful tables. Table 14 (pp. 141-142), “Useful Sentences for Peer Response Activities,” may be especially appreciated for its immediate potential as a time-saver to the teacher who would try to compile such a list for use in class. Although the authors may have reservations about teaching formulaic language (see p. 140), the reality is that such a list is extremely valuable as a starting point or guide for non-native speaking students. Additionally, pages 126-128 present teachers with an extremely welcomed list of points to cover when preparing students to respond to peers’ papers. The sixteen-item list is synthesized from previously published, complementary sets of suggestions.

A brief discussion of specific problems and solutions in implementing peer response appears in Chapter 7. The main text of the book ends with a “Final Checklist for Peer Response” (164-167), which offers teachers an ordered checklist of preparations to make and procedures to follow in implementing peer response. Included in this volume are both a Subject Index and Author Index, which can come in handy when searching for mention of a particular study.

One complaint about Peer Response is that the authors occasionally made unfounded statements which they expect the reader to accept. One such example is when a single piece of correspondence is used as the basis of the claim that Asian students “consider group cohesion more important than personal opinions when there is a conflict.” (pp. 95-96) Whether it seems like common sense or not, a blanket statement such as this demands more support.

Peer response is an exciting, still-unfolding area of L2 writing and curriculum design, and Liu and Hansen’s Peer Response is an indispensable guide to the major issues and considerations. More than that, though, Peer Response is a teacher’s resource in two key ways: educating teachers about research in peer response and providing teachers with practical advice.

Eric Prochaska
International Graduate School of English
<eric@igse.ac.kr>

© 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..

[-2-]

© 1994–2026 TESL-EJ, ISSN 1072-4303
Copyright of articles rests with the authors.