Cover not available
Article published In:
Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada/Spanish Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 28:2 (2015) ► pp.618–640

What factors shape the collaborative pattern of group interaction during peer feedback in the L2 writing classroom?

| University of Macau

While research on peer interaction in language learning has proliferated over the past two decades, little is known regarding why students interact differently with their peers and how collaborative patterns can be developed to promote the effectiveness of small group work in L2 learning. To fill such a void in the research literature, the present case study investigates the factors that shape the collaborative pattern of a small group of Chinese EFL learners in peer feedback activities. Multiple sources of data were collected, including video recordings of peer feedback sessions, semi-structured interviews, stimulated recalls, and student drafts of writing. The findings show that students’ beliefs and values, students’ motives and goals, the use of mediating artifacts, and the power relationship among the students shape the patterns of group interaction considerably. This study deepens our understanding of the nature of peer interaction in peer feedback for L2 writing and contributes new knowledge to the research on pair and small group work in L2 learning.

Keywords: L2 writing, peer feedback, group interaction, L2 learning, small group work
Published online: 19 February 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/resla.28.2.10yu
References
Alanen, R
(2003) A sociocultural approach to young language learners’ beliefs about language learning. In P. Kalaja & A.M.F. Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches (pp. 55–85). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Allen, D., & Mills, A
in press). The impact of second language proficiency in dyadic peer feedback. Language Teaching Research.
Barcelos, A.M.F
(2000) Understanding teachers’ and students’ language learning beliefs in experience: A Deweyan approach. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. College of Education, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa.Google Scholar
(2003) Teachers’ and students’ beliefs within a Deweyan framework: conflict and influence. In P. Kalaja, & A.M.F. Barcelos (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New research approaches (pp. 171–199). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004) Crenças sobre aprendizagem de línguas, lingüística aplicada e ensino de línguas. Linguagem & Ensino, 7(1), 123–156.Google Scholar
Carson, J.G., & Nelson, G.L
(1996) Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 51, 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A
(2008) Basics of qualitative research: Techniques to developing grounded theory (3rd edition). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Damon, W., & Phelps, E
(1989) Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 581, 9–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donato, R
(1988) Beyond group: A psycholinguistic rationale for collective activity in second language learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Delaware.Google Scholar
Engeström, Y
(1987) Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.Google Scholar
(2001) Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gass, S.M., & Mackey, A
(2000) Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P
(2010) Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction in everyday life. London: Sage. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jin, L., & Zhu, W
(2010) Dynamic motives in ESL computer-mediated peer response. Computers and Composition, 271, 284–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y
(2008) The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 921, 114–130. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y., & McDonough, K
(2008) The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a second language learners. Language Teaching Research, 121, 211–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kowal, M., & Swain, M
(1994) Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3(2), 73–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lantolf, J.P., & Thorne, S.L
(2006) Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leont’ev, A.N
(1978) Problems of the development of mind. Moscow: Progress.Google Scholar
(1981) The problem of activity in psychology. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37–70). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
Li, M., & Zhu, W
(2013) Patterns of computer-mediated interaction in EFL collaborative writing groups using wikis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(1), 61–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, M.H
(1983) Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In R. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. San Diego, CA: Edward Arnold, 413–468.Google Scholar
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M
(1994) Qualitative data analysis (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Negueruela-Azarola, E
(2011) Beliefs as conceptualizing activity: A dialectical approach for the second language classroom. System, 391, 359–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nelson, G., & Murphy, J
(1993) Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? Journal of Second Language Writing, 271, 135–142.Google Scholar
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: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Seidman, I
(2006) Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Storch, N
(2001) How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 51, 29–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119–158 DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004) Using activity theory to explain differences in patterns of dyadic interactions in an ESL class. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 60(4), 457–480. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Storch, N., & Aldosari, A
(2013) Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 31–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J
(1990) Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Google Scholar
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S
(1998) Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. The Modern Language Journal, 821, 320–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Talking it through: Two French immersion learners’ response to reformulation. International Journal of Educational Research, 371, 285–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Villamil, O., & De Guerrero, M
(1996) Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behaviour. Journal of Second Language Writing, 51, 51–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vygotsky, L.S
(1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
(1987) Thinking and speech. In R.W. Rieber & A.S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1: Problems of general psychology (pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N
(2009) Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency, complexity and accuracy. Language Testing, 261, 445–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012) What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 211, 364–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yin, R
(2011) Qualitative research from start to finish. New York City, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
Yu, S., & Lee, I
(2015) Understanding EFL students’ participation in group peer feedback of L2 writing: A case study from an activity theory perspective. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 572–593. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zheng, C
(2012) Understanding the learning process of peer feedback activity: An ethnographic study of Exploratory Practice. Language Teaching Research, 16(1) 109–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhu, W
(2001) Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 101, 251–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhu, W., & Mitchell, D
(2012) Participation in peer response as activity: An examination of peer response stances from an activity theory perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 362–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 8 other publications

Guo, Kai, Xinyu Chen & Shen Qiao
2022. Exploring a Collaborative Approach to Peer Feedback in EFL Writing: How Do Students Participate?. RELC Journal ► pp. 003368822211431 ff. DOI logo
Jia, Jingdong, Xiaoying Yang, Rong Zhang & Xi Liu
2019. Understanding software developers' cognition in agile requirements engineering. Science of Computer Programming 178 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Li, Hui Helen, Lawrence Jun Zhang & Judy M. Parr
2020. Small-Group Student Talk Before Individual Writing in Tertiary English Writing Classrooms in China: Nature and Insights. Frontiers in Psychology 11 DOI logo
Li, Hui Helen, Lawrence Jun Zhang & Haoran Xie
2021. Effects of structured small-group student talk as collaborative prewriting discussions on Chinese university EFL students’ individual writing: A quasi-experimental study. PLOS ONE 16:5 ► pp. e0251569 ff. DOI logo
Yao, Yuan, Nancy Songdan Guo, Changqi Li & Duncan McCampbell
2021. How university EFL writers’ beliefs in writing ability impact their perceptions of peer assessment: perspectives from implicit theories of intelligence. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 46:1 ► pp. 151 ff. DOI logo
Yeo, Marie
2023. Peer Review Circles: The Value of Working in Triadic Groups and Oral Observational Peer Feedback in the Development of Student Feedback Literacy. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics 46:2 ► pp. 270 ff. DOI logo
Yu, Shulin & Icy Lee
2016. Understanding the Role of Learners With Low English Language Proficiency in Peer Feedback of Second Language Writing. TESOL Quarterly 50:2 ► pp. 483 ff. DOI logo
Zhang, Boya
2021. Engaging in dialogue during collaborative writing: The role of affective, cognitive, and social engagement. Language Teaching Research ► pp. 136216882110540 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 14 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.