Peer Review in Writing and Speaking Classes

1. Peer Review in Writing and Speaking Classes Viphavee Vongpumivitch (張寶玉） @Hsinchu girls high school (November 28th, 2017)

2. Have you done peer review in your class before? What are your experiences? What did you decide to (not) do it? What is the purpose of peer review in your classroom?

3. WRITING

4. References • Min, Hui-Tzu. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293-308. • Min, Hui-Tzu. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118-141.

5. Benefits of Peer Review • Process-oriented instruction • Vygotsky (1962, 1978): Learning is a cognitive activity that takes place in social interaction. • By the same token, writing is a learning activity in which the writer learns best through interacting with his peer reviewer.

6. Problems with Peer Review • Some university students in Taiwan failed to incorporate peer comments due to vague comments and the peer reviewers’ misunderstanding of writers’ intentions. • Min (2005) asked her sophomore English majors to do a peer review at the beginning of the Fall semester. She found that despite the provision of a guidance sheet, most peer comments lacks enthusiasm. Students merely answered her questions on the guidance sheet; some even answered with a simple “Yes” or “No.” It’s clear that students misinterpreted the guidance sheet as a series of questions for them to answer and did know how to make comments.

7. Min’s (2005) Study • To help train students to do useful peer review, Min designed a four-step procedure for paired peer review: • (1) Clarifying writers’ intentions • (2) Identifying problems • (3) Explaining the nature of problems • (4) Making suggestions by giving specific examples

8. Step 1: Clarifying the Writer’s Intention • The peer reviewer asks the writer to explain what s/he said or explain ideas/phrases that are not clear to the reviewers in the essays. • For example, “What do you mean by ‘college-graduate society freshmen?’” • Min suggested her students to articulate questions like: • “Do you mean that …?” • “Are you saying …?” • “What do you mean by …?”

9. Step 2: Identifying the Problem • The peer reviewer announce a problematic word, phrase, sentence or cohesive gap. • S/he would refer to the sentences immediately preceding or following the problematic area and articulate what she expected to read giving the surrounding contexts. • For example, “I think on this point, the description of the two cultures is not parallel.”

10. Step 3: Explaining the Nature of the Problem • The peer reviewer explain why they think a given term, idea, or organization is unclear or problematic to them. They also suggest what should or should be used in the essay. • The peer reviewer needed to have logical reasoning to explain why they thought a certain part problematic to convince the writer to accept their comments. Without solid reasoning, even good suggestions are likely to be ignored. • For example, “You should put some phrases before you make this quotation because the last paragraph is unrelated to the fourth paragraph.”

11. Step 4: Making Specific Suggestions • The peer reviewer suggests way to change the words, content, and organization of essays. • For example, “If you’re trying to say many people have more than one cell phone, maybe you can say it in this way  ‘The majority of people have a cell phone with them, some even with more than one.’”

12. Min’s (2005) Peer Review Training Session • First phase = Two in-class demonstration and modeling sessions, 2 hours a week, two weeks in a row • Min taught her students how to make comments on essays composed by former students by modeling to them the four-step procedure. • Using the Guidance Sheet, Min used the think-aloud method to demonstrate how to make comments. • After the demonstration, the students were required to do peer review for the second and third essays in class.

13. Min’s (2005) Peer Review Training Session (cont.) • Second phase = Two 30-minute teacher-student conferences outside of class. • After the 2nd and 3rd peer review, Min collected reviewers’ comments and checked them carefully. She then held two 30-minute conferences (one after each peer review) with each reviewer. • During the conference, Min worked with students on modifying comments that fail to follow the steps of the procedure and responding to their revision of these comments. • Min also reminded students of the questions on the guidance sheet and alerting them to the next step of the procedure through use of various oral prompts.

14. After the Training • After the 4-hour in-class training and 18 hours of teacher-student conferences outside class, Min asked her students to write the 4th essay at home and bring their drafts to class for peer review. • In class, the students received a guidance sheet and were allowed two hours to provide written comment on two of their classmates’ compositions. • Min then compared the peer reviews given “before” and “after” the training (Essay 1 vs. Essay 4).

15. Min’s Guidance Sheet (for Paragraph Writing) • 1. Read the first sentence. What is the topic? What is the controlling idea? Circle them. • Is the topic sentence a statement of opinion, intent, a combination of both, or just simple fact? • If it is a statement of fact, help the writer rewrite it so that it becomes a real topic sentence (i.e., a statement of opinion, intent, or a combination of both).

16. Min’s Guidance Sheet (cont.) • 2. After reading the topic sentence, what do you expect to read in the following sentences? • 3. Now read the following two or three sentences. Did the writer write according to your expectation(s)? If not, what did the writer write instead? Do you think the writer was sidetracked (not developing further the controlling idea)? • Reread the topic sentence to make sure that you understand the writer’s intention.

17. Min’s Guidance Sheet (cont.) • 4. Read the examples. How many examples are there? Are they well balanced (in terms of sentence length and depth of discussion)? Are they relevant to the controlling idea in the topic sentence? • If not, explain to the writer why they are irrelevant. • Also work with the writer to think of more things to talk about if the examples are too general, or to delete some of the redundant sentences.

18. Min’s Guidance Sheet (cont.) • 5. Read the last few sentences in the paragraph. Is there a restatement at the end of the paragraph? If not, work with the writer on a concluding sentence. • 6. What did you learn from reading this paragraph, either in language use or content?? • Is there anything nice you want to say about this paragraph? • Are there any grammatical errors or inappropriate word usage?

19. Students’ Opinions about Min’s Training • Min’s students were also required to turn in five journals entries during the semester to have private dialogue with her regarding their opinions on the writing class. The students were encouraged to discuss anything related to the writing class, including their opinions on peer review training. • All 18 students said that the four-step procedure helped them become better reviewers, although admittedly, following the four steps was both time- and energy-consuming.

20. Min’s (2005) Findings • For essay 4, the numbers and length of the peer review comments increased. • Peer review comments dealt more with global issues (idea development and organization) than local issues (language use). • Min quote a student: “I realized that the most important thing of composing is ideas and organization, not vocabulary or grammar. I learned how to give suggestions to others by following the steps in the procedure and showed my own opinions, and saw if others also agreed with my thoughts.”

21. Min’s (2005) Findings (cont.) • Students also expressed that making specific suggestions helped them increase their vocabulary repertoire: • A quote from a student: “When I tried to explain why I thought a certain part was problematic, I had to look words up in the dictionary sometimes. At first, it was quite a nuisance. But later I found that my vocabulary increased a lot.”

22. Min’s (2005) Findings (cont.) • Min also found peer review training to help students’ with self-monitoring. • Eleven students mentioned in their journals that this training made them reflect on their own problems and seek out solutions for themselves. • A quote from a student: “This training indeed helped me revise my writing. When I read others’ essays, I discovered the same mistakes I made in my own composition. It would have been difficult, if not impossible, for me to find my own mistakes if I hadn’t read the same ones in others’ essays.”

23. Min’s (2005) Findings (cont.) • Most importantly, Min found that the training helped weaker students gain confidence in viewing themselves as a competent readers. It helped them realize that incomprehension of the writer’s intentions was not always an indication of their limited English proficiency. • (see a long quote on the next slide)

24. Min’s (2005) Findings (cont.) • A quote from a student: “During the first peer review, I did not know what to do when I did not understand the writer. I thought it was my poor English ability that made me unable to understand him. And if I told him that I didn’t know what he was saying, I would feel embarrassed. So I pretended that I understood him, although I had lots of questions on my mind. But during the teacher-student conference, I learned that it was not necessarily my fault when I did not understand the writer’s intention. The writer should write in a way that’s comprehensible to me, the reader. All I needed to do was to ask him what he meant and discussed with him my interpretation of his intention.”

25. Min’s (2005) Findings (cont.) • Of course, peer reviewing helps the writer as well. Fifteen students thought that the training helped them as writers. They learned from their peers how to focus their ideas and view things from different perspectives. Such help assisted them in elaborating their ideas in a much more specific way. • (see a long quote on the next slide)

26. Min’s (2005) Findings (cont.) • A quote from a student: “Before training, I usually got vague suggestions from my classmates and didn’t understand why they considered a certain part of my writing problematic. After training, my classmates were able to explain my problems in a much clearer way and give me more specific suggestions. Their suggestions really helped me refine my ideas a lot. When I looked back at my first draft (of the last essay) and compared it with the second draft, I found that the later revision was much more refined and improved, thanks to my classmates’ helpful feedback.”

27. Min’s (2005) Findings (cont.) • Even the language and tone of the peer reviewers’ comments changed after training. • The language used prior to training was short and impersonal, rendering the tone like teachers’ corrections over students’ assignments. • For example, “You should put some phrases before you make this quotation because the last paragraph is unrelated to the fourth paragraph.” • After training, the comments sounded like readers communicating ideas with writers and thus the language longer, the tone much friendlier. • For example, “If you’re trying to say many people have more than one cell phone, maybe you can say it in this way …”

28. Min’s (2005) Findings are a testimony to Vygotskys’s Theory of Sociocognitive Learning • Sociocultural theory emphasizes that development requires interaction and the presence of support from amore skilled adult or partner. • Min’s study showed that with proper training and individual assistance, students are capable of providing scaffolding (assistance) that is considered critical for development to writers. • Activities involved in peer review are sociocognitive activities – reading, question, pointing to trouble sources, discussing ideas, and scaffolding activities – explaining, instructing, giving specific comments.

29. Min’s (2006) Warnings for Successful Peer Reviews • Classroom demonstration alone is not adequate for successful implementation of peer review skills. Additional assistance outside of the classroom is needed. • This is why Min included the after-class teacher-reviewer conferences in addition to in-class modeling during peer review training.

30. Min’s (2006) Warnings for Successful Peer Reviews (cont.) • Min also told the students that she would grade their peer review commentary to hold them “accountable for their responses” and to ensure their effort to help each other so that all could progress as writers in class. • Her grading appeared to serve as a strong incentive for her students to invest time and effort in following the four-step procedure while offering feedback. • Reviewers showed keen interests in how to refine their written commentary to obtain a higher grade during teacher-reviewer conferences.

31. SPEAKING

32. References • Patri, Mrudula. (2002). The influence of peer feedback on self- and peer-assessment of oral skills. Language Testing, 19(2), 109-131.

33. Patri’s (2002) Study • The goal of the study was to investigate the influence of oral feedback on self- and peer-assessment of individual oral presentations. • This is done after completing a two-hour training session followed by practice sessions (2 hours a week over a period of four weeks). • The participants were 56 first-year undergraduate students at City University of Hong Kong (Science and Business Majors). Their level of English is low. • Students were divided into two groups: Control and Experiment

34. Patri’s Oral Presentation Task • The students were required to make oral presentations on a topic given by the teacher who chose the topic based on students’ perceived ability, familiarity with the topic and interest. • Their performances were assessed for organization of content, language use, manner and interaction with the audience.

35. Patri’s Two-Hour Training Session • First, the students were given a worksheet to introduce them to the important elements of a good presentation. The worksheet focused on the presentation format, content and language (presented as useful expressions) and suggestions on delivering presentations (facial expressions, movements and gestures, eye contact, disadvantages of speaking from notes, etc.) • Students could design such worksheet themselves after a group discussion activity. • After the students were given 15 minutes to become familiarize themselves with the contents of the worksheet, they were divided into two groups.

36. Patri’s Two-Hour Training Session (cont.) • One group was given the topic “Chinese New Year holidays are the most enjoyable.” • Another group was given the topic “Chinese New Year holidays are the most stressful.” • Participants were then asked to spend 30 minutes preparing for their presentations. • After the 30-minute planning time, Patri explained the Peer-/Self-Assessment Questionnaire.

37. Patri’s Peer-/Self-Assessment Questionnaire • Rate yourself by using the scale: • Poor Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Good Excellent • 1 2 3 4 5 • Introduction • Topic sentence – appropriate? 1 2 3 4 5 • Topic sentence – interesting? 1 2 3 4 5 • The speaker’s opinion on the issue – clearly stated? 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

38. Patri’s Peer-/Self-AssessmentQuestionnaire (cont.) • 2. Body • Details supporting the main points – sufficient? 1 2 3 4 5 • Details supporting the main points – relevant? 1 2 3 4 5 • 3. Conclusion • The main points – summarized? 1 2 3 4 5

39. Patri’s Peer-/Self-Assessment Questionnaire (cont.) • 4. Language Use • Grammar – accurate? 1 2 3 4 5 • Fluency? (Pausing in the middle of the the presentation because s/he cannot think of the right word or does not know what to say?) 1 2 3 4 5 • Pronunciation – words clearly pronounced? 1 2 3 4 5

40. Patri’s Peer-/Self-Assessment Questionnaire (cont.) • 5. Manner • Confidence (not nervous)? 1 2 3 4 5 • Confidence (depended very little on notes)? 1 2 3 4 5 • Eye contact 1 2 3 4 5

41. Patri’s Peer-/Self-Assessment Questionnaire (cont.) • 6. Interaction • Non-verbal interaction with the audience (facial expressions, hand gestures) 1 2 3 4 5 • Verbal interaction (involving the audience during the talk by asking questions and encouraging them to respond) 1 2 3 4 5

42. Patri’s Two-Hour Training Session (cont.) • The students then watched a video-tape including three student presentations from the previous semester. These videos were previously assessed by Patri and were representatives of a good, average, and poor presentation. • After each performance, the teacher and the participants compared their assessments. When they were differences, Patri explained the basis for her judgments. • For example, “This student has provided a lot of detail and the detail is relevant and varied. This is why I gave him a “4.””

43. Patri’s Procedure – Both Groups • One week after the training session, participants from both the control and experimental groups made their presentations. • Half the class presented topic A: “Chinese should be the medium of instruction in secondary schoos.” • The other half presented topic B: “Comics have a bad influence on school children.”

44. Patri’s Procedure – Experimental Group • Participants were divided into groups of 3-4. Each group was asked to assess their peers using the Peer-Assessment Questionnaire (we already saw this). • They then discussed in groups before finalizing their group’s feedback on presentations. They also filled in the Self-Assessment Questionnaire (same as Peer). • The teacher also had a Teacher Assessment Questionnaire (same questionnaire) which she used to grade all presentations. • At the end of the talk, no feedback was given. The participants were given two new topics to prepare for their presentations in the following week.

45. Patri’s Procedure – Control Group • Everything was the same as the Experimental Group. They were put into small groups, watched each presentation, and filled in the Peer-Assessment Questionnaire. • But they did not have group discussion. They proceeded to evaluate themselves using the Self-Assessment Questionnaire. • The teacher also had a Teacher Assessment Questionnaire (same questionnaire) which she used to grade all presentations. • At the end of the talk, no feedback was given. The participants were given two new topics to prepare for their presentations in the following week.

46. Patri’s Procedure – Both Groups • For the next four weeks, the participants were placed in different groups every week to encourage maximum interaction and to expose students to different points of view. • At the end of Week 5, Patri collected the Self-/Peer-assessment Questionnaires. Only the final ratings (Week 5) were used in Patri’s analysis. Weeks 1-4 were regarded as a warm-up. • She then asked the participants to fill in the Self-/Peer-assessment EVALUATION Form (More questions for the Experimental Group)

47. Self- and Peer-Assessment Evaluation Form • By the end of the practice session: • 1. Did you improve your speaking skills? Yes/No • If yes, what did you improve? (Check wherever appropriate) • _Confidence in giving a talk • _Pronunciation • _Fluency • _Others

48. Self- and Peer-Assessment Evaluation Form (cont.) • By the end of the practice session: • 2. Did you improve your ability in identifying strengths and weaknesses in your classmates’ talks? Yes/No • 3. Did you find it difficult to assess your classmates’ talks? • If yes, why? • 3A (Experimental group only) Did you make any changes to your judgment of your classmates’ talks after listening to others commenting on their talks?

49. Self- and Peer-Assessment Evaluation Form (cont.) • By the end of the practice session: • 4. Did you find it difficult to assess your own talk? • If yes, why? • 4A (Experimental group only) Did you make any changes to your judgment of your talk after listening to your classmates commenting on your talk?

50. Self- and Peer-Assessment Evaluation Form (cont.) • 5. Did you find the whole exercise of self-assessment and peer-assessment: • Useful? Why (not)? • Interesting? Why (not)? • Motivating? Why (not)? • Boring? Why (not)? • 6. Have you had previous experience during self-/peer-assessment?