Collective peer scaffolding, self-revision, and writing progress of novice EFL learners
This classroom-based study examined the effect of collective peer scaffolding activity on narrative and descriptive self-revised drafts and new paragraphs developed by 32 EFL university students in a paragraph writing course in Iran. Each genre was discussed and practiced every other week and was followed by a collective peer scaffolding session. For each genre, learners were required to develop a 150-word paragraph in two drafts (pre- and post-collective scaffolding) and email them to their lecturer within five days before the next sessions were held. They also developed a new narrative and descriptive paragraphs a month after the semester had finished. Eight volunteer students were also interviewed and their reactions to collective peer scaffolding were elicited at the end of the course. Students’ pre- and post-collective peer scaffolding drafts, new paragraphs, and interview data analysis revealed that the activity improved learners’ self-revision skill and the experience was favored by the participants.
Alfred, M. V. (2002). The promise of sociocultural theory in democratizing adult education. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 96, 3-13.
Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465-483.
Anton, M. & DiCamilla, F. (1998). Socio-cognitive interactional features of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 314-342.
Byrd, D. (2003). Practical tips for implementing peer editing tasks in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26 (3), 434-441.
de Guerrero, M. C. M. &Villamil, O. S. (1994). Social-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 484-496.
de Guerrero, M. C. M. &Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84, 51-68.
Diab, N. M. (2010). Effects of peer- versus self-editing on students’ revision of language errors in revised drafts. System, 38, 85-95.
Diab, N. M. (2011). Assessing the relationship between different types of student feedback and the quality of revised writing. Assessing Writing, 16, 274-292.
DiPardo, A. & Freedman, S. W. (1988). Peer response groups in the writing classroom: theoretic foundations and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 58(2), 119-149.
Donato, R. (1988). Beyond group: A psycholinguistic rationale for collective activity in second language learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Delaware, Newark.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Fei, H. (2006). Students’ perceptions of peer response activity in English writing instruction. Teaching English in China, 4, 48-52.
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: implications for second language students. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Frawley, W. & Lantolf, J. P. (1985). Second language discourse: a Vygotskyan perspective. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 19-44.
Hansen, J. G. & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59(1), 31-38.
Hsieh, Y. C (2017). A case study of the dynamics of scaffolding among ESL learners and online resources in collaborative learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(1), 115-132.
Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 321-342.
Hu, G. & Lam, S. T. E. (2010). Issues of cultural appropriateness and pedagogical efficacy: exploring peer review in a second language writing class. Instructional Science, 38, 371–394.
Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: a social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 17-29.
Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students' writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83-101.
Kamimura, T. (2006). Effects of peer feedback on EFL student writers at different levels of English proficiency: a Japanese context. TESL Canada Journal, 23(2), 12-39.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1-26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P. (2006). Sociocultural theory and L2: state of the art. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(1), 67-109.
Li, M. & Zhu, W. (2013). Patterns of computer-mediated interaction in small writing groups using wikis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(1), 61-82.
Lockhart, C. & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: stances, functions, and content. Language Learning, 45(4), 605-655.
Lundstorm, K. & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to thereviewer’sownwriting. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30-43.
Memari Hanjani, A. (2013). Peer review, collaborative revision, and genre in L2 writing. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Memari Hanjani, A. & Li, L. (2014a). Exploring L2 writers’ collaborative revision interactions and their writing performance. System, (44), 101–14.
Memari Hanjani, A. & Li, L. (2014b). EFL learners’ written reflections on their experience of attending process genre-based, student-centred essay writing course. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 149–66.
Memari Hanjani, A. & Li, L. (2015). Peer collaboration in L2 writing: an Iranian experience. In C. Kennedy (Ed.), English language teaching in the Islamic Republic of Iran: Innovations, trends and challenges (pp. 93-110). London, UK: British Council.
Memari Hanjani, A. (2016). Collaborative revision in L2 writing: learners’ reflections. ELT Journal, 70(3), 296-307.
Min, H. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293-308.
Min, H. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students' revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118-141.
Morra, A. M. & Romano, M. E. (2009). University students' reactions to guided peer feedback and EAP compositions. Journal of College Literacy & Learning, 35, 19-30.
Nassaji, H. & Swain, M. (2000). A Vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: the effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of English articles. Language Awareness, 9(1), 34-51.
Ohta, A. S. (1995). Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse: learner-learner collaborative interaction in the zone of proximal development. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 93-121.
Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLA: developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J.P. Lantolf, (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51-78). Oxford University Press: Oxford.
Palinscar, A. S. (1998). Social constructionist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345-375.
Rahimi, M. (2013). Is training student reviewers worth its while? A study of how training influences the quality of students’ feedback and writing. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 67-89.
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23-30.
Santos, T. (1992). Ideology in composition: L1 and ESL. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(1), 1-15.
Schmid, L.M. (1999). The Effects of Peer Response on Essay Drafts. Unpublished MA Thesis in TESOL, Department of English, California State University, Sacramento.
Shehadeh, A. (2011). Effects and student perceptions of collaborative writing in L2. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20, 286-305.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119-158.
Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: product, process, and students' reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153-173.
Swain, M., Brooks, L. & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). Peer-peer dialogue as a means of second language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171-185.
Ting, M, & Qin, Y. (2010). A case study of peer feedback in a Chinese EFL writing classroom. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33(4), 87-98.
Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170.
Van Der Stuyf, R. R. (2002). Scaffolding as a teaching strategy Retrieved September 30, 2012 from http://www.scribd.com/doc/50703558/Van-Der-Stuyf-Paper
Villamil, O. S. & De Guerrero, M. C. M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 491-514.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: the Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang, W. (2014). Students’ perceptions of rubric-referenced peer feedback on EFL writing: A longitudinal inquiry. Assessing Writing, 19, 80-96.
Watanabe, Y. (2008). Peer–peer interaction between L2 learners of different proficiency levels: their interactions and reflections. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(4), 605-35.
Weissberg, R. (2006). Scaffolded feedback: theoretical conversations with advanced L2 writers. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: contexts and issues (pp. 81-104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wigglesworth, G. &Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects of fluency complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 26, 45–466.
Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179-200.
Yong, M. F. (2010). Collaborative writing features. RELC Journal, 41(1), 18-30.
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209-222.
Zhu, W. (2001). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 251-276.
Zhu, W., & Mitchell, D. A. (2012). Participation in peer response as activity: An examination of peer response stances from an Activity Theory perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 362-386.
Copyright (c) 2019 International Journal of English Studies
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The works published in this journal are subject to the following terms:
1. The Publications Services at the University of Murcia (the publisher) retains the property rights (copyright) of published works, and encourages and enables the reuse of the same under the license specified in item 2.
2. The works are published in the electronic edition of the magazine under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike 4.0.
3.Conditions of self-archiving. Authors are encouraged to disseminate pre-print (draft papers prior to being assessed) and/or post-print versions (those reviewed and accepted for publication) of their papers before publication, because it encourages distribution earlier and thus leads to a possible increase in citations and circulation among the academic community.
RoMEO color: green