Peer Review On Student Feedback

Introduction

Teacher written feedback is generally regarded desirable by students, parents and teachers. Yet despite this positive notion, a considerable number of research on teacher feedback paid attention on its ineffectiveness in both the L1 (Hillocks, 1986; Sommers, 1982) and the L2 contexts (Semke, 1984; Zamel, 1985). As L2 writing classrooms move from the product to the process approach, peer feedback has been brought to complement the traditional feedback the teacher gives. As a result, peer feedback has become a frequently-employed pedagogical activity in L1 and L2 writing classrooms whereby students engage themselves in “reading, critiquing and providing feedback on each other’s writing, both to secure immediate textual improvement

321-322). The many benefits of peer review have been discussed in literature. Liu and Hansen (2002) have expressed that the implementation of peer feedback meshes well with four theoretical bases: the process approach, collaborative learning, Vygotskian learning theory and interactionist theory of L2 acquisition. Moreover, positive empirical findings regarding its benefits have been documented in research articles. Peer feedback has been reported to help the learners develop a genuine sense of audience (Mendonca and Johnson, 1994; Mittan, 1989), promote self-reflection on both student-writer and student-reviewer (Mittan, 1989; Rollinson, 2005), and generate feedback that is quicker in ‘turnover time’ (Rollinson, 2005). While research has also recognised potential issues with peer feedback, the many benefits that it brings cannot be dismissed, as long as it is seen as a complement and not an alternative to teacher feedback. Perhaps one of the more important research findings is that peer review is being seen as complementary to the traditional teacher feedback (Jacobs, 1998; Berg, 1999). It means that peer feedback seems to generate feedback that is of a different kind compared to that

Research has shown that the limited linguistic competence renders the learners inadequate to critique their peers’ work, focusing mainly on surface errors (Leki, 1990). This may be true for lower proficiency learners. Apparently, supports abound in terms of the peers’ capability to give useful feedback. Rollinson (1998) reported an 80% valid suggestions made by his college-level students. Similarly, Caulk (1994) found out that 89% of his intermediate/advanced level FL students’ comments were useful. In terms of the percentage of valid suggestions being taken up, Mendonca and Johnson’s (1994) study revealed a 53% incorporation of feedback into their students’ revision while Rollinson (1998) reported a 65% acceptance of reader feedback. Hu and Lam (2010) reported an even higher percentage, 76% for the group as a whole. Clearly, these results show that learners of intermediate and advanced proficiencies are capable of providing useful feedback to their