Chapter published in:
Languaging in Language Learning and Teaching: A collection of empirical studies
Edited by Wataru Suzuki and Neomy Storch
[Language Learning & Language Teaching 55] 2020
► pp. 111–128

Chapter 5
Languaging when providing and processing peer feedback

| The University of Melbourne, Australia
| King Saud University, Saudi Arabia
Two commonly used activities in second language (L2) writing classes are collaborative writing and peer response. Our study compared the quantity and quality of languaging generated by these two activities. In this study, conducted in Saudi Arabia, 34 college English language learners worked in the same self-selected small groups (predominantly pairs) on three successive activities. They completed a collaborative writing task, provided written feedback on a text written by another group, and revised their text in response to the peer feedback received. Analysis of recorded talk during these three activities found that the collaborative writing activity generated more languaging episodes than the other activities. We discuss the implications of these findings for L2 writing pedagogy and propose research directions.
Keywords: collaborative writing, peer response activities, collaborative dialogue, quality of engagement, languaging episodes
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Collaborative writing and peer response activities: Language learning opportunities
  • The study
  • Data analysis
  • Findings
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 14 August 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.55.05sto
References
Alegría de la Colina, A., & García Mayo, M. d. P.
(2007) Attention to form across collaborative tasks by low-proficiency learners in an EFL setting. In M. d. P. García Mayo (Ed.), Investigating tasks in foreign language learning (pp. 91–116). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Alshahrani, A., & Storch, N.
(2014) Investigating teachers’ written corrective feedback practices in a Saudi EFL context: How do they align with their beliefs, institutional guidelines, and students’ preferences? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 37 , 101–122. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Alshuraidah, A., & Storch, N.
(2019) Investigating a collaborative approach to peer feedback. ELT Journal, 73 (2), 166–174. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, L., & Swain, M.
(2009) Languaging in collaborative writing: Creation and response to expertise. In A. Mackey & C. Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction in SLA (pp. 58–89). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L.
(1996) Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response group interation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5 (1), 1–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1994) Writing groups: Cross-cultural issues. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3 (1), 17–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. Google Scholar
Ede, L., & Lunsford, A.
(1990) Singular texts/plural authors. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A.
(2010) Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning & Technology, 14 (3), 51–71.Google Scholar
Fernández-Dobao, A.
(2012) Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21 (1), 40–58. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2016) Peer interaction and learning: A focus on the silent learner. In M. Sato & S. Ballinger (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning. Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 33–62). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fernández-Dobao, A., & Blum, A.
(2013) Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups: Learners’ attitudes and perceptions. System, 41 (2), 365–378. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Garcia Mayo, M. P.
(2002) Interaction and advanced EFL pedagogy: A comparison of form-focused activities. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(3-4), 323–341. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guardado, M., & Shi, L.
(2007) ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 24 (4), 443–461. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Guerrero, M. C. M. de, & Villamil, O. S.
(2000) Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84 (1), 51–68. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hu, G., & Lam, S.
(2010) Issues of cultural appropriateness and pedagogical efficacy: Exploring peer review in a second language writing class. Instructional Science, 38 (4), 371–394. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y.
(2008) The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92 (1), 114–130. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L.
(2006) Sociocultural theory and the genesis of L2 development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, I.
(2017) Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Singapore: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Li, M., & Zhu, W.
(2013) Patterns of computer-mediated interaction in small writing groups using wikis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26 (1), 61–82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ma, J.
(2010) Chinese EFL learners’ decision-making while evaluating peers’ texts. International Journal of English Studies, 10 (2), 99–120. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Min, H. -T.
(2006) The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15 (2), 118–141. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mozaffari, S. H.
(2017) Comparing student-selected and teacher-assigned pairs on collaborative writing. Language Teaching Research, 21 (4), 496–516. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G.
(1998) ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7 (2), 113–131. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J.
(1992) An ESL writing group: Task and social dimensions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1 (3), 171–193. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Niu, R.
(2009) Effect of task-inherent production modes on EFL learners’ focus on form. Language Awareness, 18 (3–4), 384–402. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rollinson, P.
(2005) Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59 (1), 23–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rouhshad, A., & Storch, N.
(2016) A focus on mode: Patterns of interaction in face-to-face and computer-mediated modes. In S. Ballinger & M. Sato (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning. Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 267–290). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Storch, N.
(1998) A classroom-based study: Insights from a collaborative, text reconstruction task. ELT Journal, 52 (4), 291–300. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2001) How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 5 (1), 29–53. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2002) Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52 (1), 119–158. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2005) Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14 (3), 153–173. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2008) Metatalk in pair work activity: Level of engagement and implications for language development. Language Awareness, 17 (2), 95–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2013) Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) Collaborative writing as peer feedback in K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (2nd ed., pp. 143–162). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Storch, N., & Aldossary, K.
(2019) Peer feedback: An activity theory perspective on givers and receivers’ stances. In M. Sato & S. Loewen (Eds.), Evidence-based second language pedagogy:
A collection of instructed second language acquisition studies (pp. 123–144). New York, NY: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, W.
(2012) Written languaging, direct correction, and second language writing revision. Language Learning, 62 (4), 1110–1133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M.
(1998) Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2000) The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2006) Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language learning. In H. Byrnes (Ed.) Advanced language learning: The contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95–108). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
(2010) Talking-it-through: Languaging as a source of learning. In R. Batstone (Ed.), Sociocognitive perspectives on language use and language learning (pp. 112–130). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S.
(1998) Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 82 (3), 320–337. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tsui, A., & Ng, M.
(2000) Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9 (2), 147–170. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Villamil, O. S., & Guerrero, M. C. M. de
(1998) Assessing the impact of peer revision o L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19 (4), 491–514. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vorobel, O., & Kim, D.
(2017) Adolescent ELLs’ collaborative writing practices in face-to-face and online contexts: From perceptions to action. System, 65 , 78–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M.
(2007) Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11 (2), 121–142. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z.
(2006) A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15 (3), 179–200. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yu, S., & Lee, I.
(2015) Understanding EFL students’ participation I group peer feedback of L2 writing: a case study from an activity theory perspective. Language Teaching Research, 19 (5), 572–593. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, H.
(2010) Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: A comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 15 (1), 3–17. CrossrefGoogle Scholar