- Email: [email protected]
Thoughts on some recent evidence concerning the affective advantage of peer feedback
JOURNAL OF SECOND LANGUAGE
WRITING,
8(3), 321-326
(1999)
Thoughts on Some Recent Evidence Concerning the Affective Advantage of Peer Feedback SHUQIANG
ZHANG
University qfHawaii
at Manoa
This paper is a response to Jacobs, Curtis, Braine, and Huang’s paper ( 1998) that critiqued Zhang’s study (1995) on the oft-claimed affective advantage of peer feedback over teacher feedback in the English as Second Language
(ESL) writing class. An examination of the results reported by Jacobs and associates (1998) revealed that their findings validated Zhang’s (1995) finding, as well as his summary of research conclusions drawn prior to 1995, that peer feedback does not have an affective advantage over teacher feedback in the ESL writing class. This paper addresses the methodological concerns raised by Jacobs et al. (1998) and emphasizes the need to reexamine assumptions about the ESL writing process in order to better address the affective disadvantage of peer feedback relative to teacher feedback in the ESL writing class.
CONVERGENT
FINDINGS
A recent paper on English as Second Language (ESL) students’ attitudes toward peer feedback concluded that students generally “value peer feedback as one . . . type of feedback” on their writing (Jacobs et al., 1998, pp. 312-313). The same paper also reported the finding of another study conducted by one of the three authors (Curtis, 1997, cited in Jacobs et al., 1998) that “students ranked teachercentered feedback higher than feedback from their peers” in terms of usefulness (Jacobs et al., 1998, p. 313). Their findings are consistent with my 1995 review of 11 empirical studies on the affective advantage of peer feedback conducted between 1981 and 1994 (Zhang, 1995). In my review of the 11 empirical studies, I stated: One can see a pattern in those findings. When not asked to make a choice, learners show reserved, but generally positive, attitudes towards peer feedback (Leki, 1990; Partridge, 1981). When asked to state a preference, it is the teacher feedback that is their first choice (Berger, 1989; Chaudron, 1984; Cohen, 1987; George, 1991; Leki, Direct all correspondence to: Shuqiang Zhang, Department of Educational Psychology, College of Education, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1776 University Avenue, Wist 208, Honolulu, HI 96822; e-mail: [email protected] 321
322
ZHANG
199 1; Semke, 1984). No particular preference for peer feedback is evident when ESL learners have a choice between teacher feedback alone and teacher feedback plus peer feedback (Mendonca & Johnson, 1994). Recent inquiries that indirectly examined peer- or teacher-suggested revisions and writing priorities preferred by ESL students and teachers provided no support for the claimed affective advantage of peer feedback in ESL writing (Connor & Asenavage, 1994; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994). In short, on one hand, peer feedback, as claimed by its advocates, is perceived as beneficial; on the other, teacher feedback is generally seen as far more credible and appealing than peer feedback to ESL writing.
The above statements represented my understanding in 1995 that the accumulated empirical evidence on the topic posed a challenge to the widely circulated assumption borrowed from Ll writing that peer feedback has an inherent affective advantage over teacher feedback in the ESL writing class. The basic findings reported by Jacobs et al. (1998) agree with my 1995 understanding. It is interesting to note how well the results of their two studies fit into the two major conclusions I mentioned above. The main study was a replication of earlier studies that did not allow ESL students any opportunity to state a preferred type of feedback from a variety of options. Students were told to state whether they would like to receive feedback from other students as “one type of feedback.” (Jacobs et al., 1998, p. 307) The responses to this question, not surprisingly, were exactly what had already been reported for this type of research question before 199.5. The second study in the same paper, conducted by Curtis (1997, cited in Jacobs et al., 1998), allowed ESL students to rate four types of teacher-centered feedback and two types of student-centered feedback on a Likert scale. In other words, the students were indirectly given an opportunity to state their personal preferences. The four types of teacher-centered feedback, without exception, had average ratings higher than the two types of student-centered feedback. The pattern of student preferences matches, again not surprisingly, what had already been reported for that type of research question prior to 1995, as well as my own finding that “ESL students find teacher feedback significantly more preferable than . . . peer feedback” (Zhang, 1995, p. 216). Because no significance test was reported in Jacobs et al. (1998), it is not possible to make a more rigorous examination of the apparent convergence of the findings in the two studies. Even with the inadequate descriptive statistics reported in Jacobs et al. (1998), there appears to be a high probability that a statistically significant difference would be found to validate my 1995 finding that teacher feedback is clearly preferable to peer feedback in the ESL writing class. This prediction should be readily verifiable if the raw data as described (Curtis, 1997, cited in Jacobs et al., 1998) could be made available for appropriate re-analysis. Even without such a re-analysis, their finding is clear enough to serve as a renewed challenge to the assumed affective advantage of peer feedback over teacher feedback in the ESL writing class.
AFFECTIVE
323
ADVANTAGE
The two findings are closely related and appear in the same paper, but it is not clear why the authors failed to integrate the findings or note their concurrence to my earlier finding that the overwhelming majority of ESL students prefer teacher feedback over peer feedback, even though it was this finding of mine that provided the “immediate impetus” for their study (Jacobs et al., 1998, p. 308).
PHILOSOPHICAL
AND METHODOLOGICAL
CONSIDERATIONS
Despite our convergent findings, Jacobs et al. (1998) questioned the validity of my finding because the ESL students in my study were asked to state which type of feedback they would prefer if they were “given a choice between teacher feedback and nonteacher feedback” (p, 309). This choice, Jacobs and his colleagues argued, was a “false dichotomy” (Jacobs et al., 1998, p. 308), because advocates of the process approach to ESL writing see “peer feedback . . . as additional to, not in replacement of, teacher feedback” (p. 309). Their misreading of my text is unfortunate. The ESL students in my study had used all three types of feedback from the instructor, peers, and themselves on a regular basis, typical of the process approach to ESL writing. It was after they had had adequate exposure to all three types of feedback that their candid preferences were elicited so that I might determine how they felt about the three types of feedback. I believe that ESL students, as the main stakeholders in the writing endeavor, are entitled to a candid expression of their feelings. The essence of the process approach to writing consists indeed in the promotion of student writers’ exercise of their choices as well as their critical reflection on such choices, so that they are not held hostage to preconceived writing specifications or assumed writing paradigms. Allowing ESL writers a voice is important, especially when the assumption of the inherent affective advantage of peer feedback over teacher feedback is known to have been transplanted from Ll writing theories (Zhang, 1995) in an academic milieu preceding our current respect for, and collective pride in, multiculturalism. Denying ESL students their opportunities to articulate choices in ESL research and practice, in my opinion, runs counter to the true spirit of the process approach. ESL learners’ choices may not always be well advised, but the instructor needs to know how his or her students are feeling about the writing process before informed pedagogical adjustments can be made to ensure effective instruction. Methodologically speaking, is it possible that my 1995 finding was a mere research artifact due to the wording that students were “given a choice,” which might have suggested to them a “false dichotomy”? I would refer the reader to the empirical studies I reviewed in 1995, none of which had adopted my wording of the “false dichotomy”, but had arrived at the same conclusion. Of particular interest is the second study reported in Jacobs et al. (1998, p. 3 13). Using entirely different prompt items and measurement scales, the study practically replicated
324
ZHANG
my 1995 finding. That assured me that the “false dichotomy” in my prompt item could not be as problematic as my critics think because it is none other than my critics’ study that has validated my finding. A very recent ethnographic study has reached the same conclusion as mine that ESL students “preferred the teacher’s comments over those of other students” (Nelson & Carson, 1998, p. 113), thereby further strengthening my belief that the assumed inherent affective advantage of peer feedback over teacher feedback cannot be empirically verified by either quantitative or qualitative research. Jacobs et al. (1998) also asserted that my prompt was problematic because it asked students to state which type of feedback they would prefer before they wrote their final version of their paper. Since they did not elaborate on why the wording “before you write your final version” in my prompt seemed problematic to them, I cannot directly address their concern. I can only explain that my understanding of the process approach is that feedback should be integrated into the ongoing writing process, rather than handed down as a verdict on a finished product. Hence the wording. It may be in order here to add that the second study in their paper did not use my wording, but arrived at the same finding I reached. The studies I reviewed in 1995 had not used my wording but reported the same conclusion. Finally, Nelson and Carson (1998), in their ethnographic approach, had not used my wording, but arrived at the same conclusion. The cumulative evidence seems to be strong enough to dismiss their methodological concerns.
A JUDICIOUS
USE OF FEEDBACK
SOURCES
It has always been my opinion that peer feedback has its undeniable benefits (Zhang, 1995), and I support a “judicious use of a combination of feedback resources” (Jacobs et al., 1998, p. 308). The question is how to work toward that elusive “judicious” use of feedback resources. A “judicious” use of feedback resources cannot derive from false assumptions or indifference to learner characteristics. Peer feedback may be justified for various credible reasons, but the claimed inherent affective advantage over teacher feedback, transplanted from Ll writing theories, does not seem to be one of them. Given the cumulative research prior to 1995 (Zhang, 1995) and the new evidence (Jacobs et al., 1998; Nelson dz Carson, 1998), there is all the more reason for ESL researchers and instructors to question this widely circulated claim. A “judicious use of a combination of feedback resources” presupposes and demands a serious scrutiny of the aggregate validity of the affective arguments for giving a preeminent role to peer feedback in the ESL writing process (Zhang, 1995, p.216). It also stands to reason that clarifications in this regard and subsequent pedagogical adjustments should be sought first and foremost in the ESL
AFFECTIVE ADVANTAGE
325
writing classroom where student opinions are respected, not in foundational writings on the Ll composing process or speculative extrapolations thereof. The basic line of argument in Jacobs et al. (1998) is that peer feedback has its place in the ESL writing class because students perceive it as one valuable type of feedback, even though it is not as useful as teacher feedback. This point does not argue that peer feedback has its place in the ESL writing class because it has a greater affective appeal than teacher feedback. Their line of argument is qualitatively different from the previous assumption that peer feedback deserves a preeminent role in the ESL writing process because of its affective advantage over teacher feedback. I want to emphasize the importance of their point because it is more than just an affirmation of previous research conclusions, mine included. It is part of a widening consciousness in the ESL field that Ll-based theoretical stances need to be brought under critical examination, without necessarily sacrificing the rational and constructive elements in them. I want to give credit to Jacobs and his colleagues for contributing to this widening consciousness in the ESL field, and I look forward to future research that may eventually lead to a judicious use of a combination of feedback sources so that the affective disadvantage of peer feedback relative to teacher feedback may be addressed responsibly and effectively in the ESL writing class. False assumptions preclude a judicious use of a combination of feedback sources.
REFERENCES Berger, V. (1989). The effects of peer versus selffeedback on ESL students’ between-draft revisions. Unpublished masters thesis. San Diego State University, San Diego, CA. Chaudron, C. (1984). Evaluating writing: effects of feedback on revision. RELC Journal 15, l-14. Cohen, A. (1987). Student processing of feedback on their compositions. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 57-69). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Connor, U., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: how much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language Writing 3,257-276. Curtis, A. (1997, November). “It is better to give than to receive”: feedback in student writing. Paper presented at the World Skills Language and Living Conference, Victoria, British Columbia. George, J.E. (1991). The role of teacherfeedback in student revision: a case study. Unpublished manuscript. Hedgcock, J., & Ixfkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing 3, 14 l-l 63. Jacobs, G.M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S. (1998). Feedback on student writing: taking the middle path. Journal of Second Language Writing 7,307-317. Leki, I. (1990). Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes. CATESOL Journal 3, S-19.
326
ZHANG
Leki, I. (1991). The preference of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals 24.203-2 16. Mendonca, C.O., & Johnson, K.E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly 28,745-769. Nelson, G., & Carson, G.C. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing 7, 113-l 3 1. Partridge, K.L. (198 1). A comparison of the effectiveness ofpeer vs. teacher evaluation for helping students of English as a second language to improve the quality of their written compositions. Unpublished masters thesis. University of Hawaii at Manoa,
Honolulu, HI. Semke, H.D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals 17, 195-202. Zhang, S. (199.5). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing 4, 209-222.
WRITING,
8(3), 321-326
(1999)
Thoughts on Some Recent Evidence Concerning the Affective Advantage of Peer Feedback SHUQIANG
ZHANG
University qfHawaii
at Manoa
This paper is a response to Jacobs, Curtis, Braine, and Huang’s paper ( 1998) that critiqued Zhang’s study (1995) on the oft-claimed affective advantage of peer feedback over teacher feedback in the English as Second Language
(ESL) writing class. An examination of the results reported by Jacobs and associates (1998) revealed that their findings validated Zhang’s (1995) finding, as well as his summary of research conclusions drawn prior to 1995, that peer feedback does not have an affective advantage over teacher feedback in the ESL writing class. This paper addresses the methodological concerns raised by Jacobs et al. (1998) and emphasizes the need to reexamine assumptions about the ESL writing process in order to better address the affective disadvantage of peer feedback relative to teacher feedback in the ESL writing class.
CONVERGENT
FINDINGS
A recent paper on English as Second Language (ESL) students’ attitudes toward peer feedback concluded that students generally “value peer feedback as one . . . type of feedback” on their writing (Jacobs et al., 1998, pp. 312-313). The same paper also reported the finding of another study conducted by one of the three authors (Curtis, 1997, cited in Jacobs et al., 1998) that “students ranked teachercentered feedback higher than feedback from their peers” in terms of usefulness (Jacobs et al., 1998, p. 313). Their findings are consistent with my 1995 review of 11 empirical studies on the affective advantage of peer feedback conducted between 1981 and 1994 (Zhang, 1995). In my review of the 11 empirical studies, I stated: One can see a pattern in those findings. When not asked to make a choice, learners show reserved, but generally positive, attitudes towards peer feedback (Leki, 1990; Partridge, 1981). When asked to state a preference, it is the teacher feedback that is their first choice (Berger, 1989; Chaudron, 1984; Cohen, 1987; George, 1991; Leki, Direct all correspondence to: Shuqiang Zhang, Department of Educational Psychology, College of Education, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1776 University Avenue, Wist 208, Honolulu, HI 96822; e-mail: [email protected] 321
322
ZHANG
199 1; Semke, 1984). No particular preference for peer feedback is evident when ESL learners have a choice between teacher feedback alone and teacher feedback plus peer feedback (Mendonca & Johnson, 1994). Recent inquiries that indirectly examined peer- or teacher-suggested revisions and writing priorities preferred by ESL students and teachers provided no support for the claimed affective advantage of peer feedback in ESL writing (Connor & Asenavage, 1994; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1994). In short, on one hand, peer feedback, as claimed by its advocates, is perceived as beneficial; on the other, teacher feedback is generally seen as far more credible and appealing than peer feedback to ESL writing.
The above statements represented my understanding in 1995 that the accumulated empirical evidence on the topic posed a challenge to the widely circulated assumption borrowed from Ll writing that peer feedback has an inherent affective advantage over teacher feedback in the ESL writing class. The basic findings reported by Jacobs et al. (1998) agree with my 1995 understanding. It is interesting to note how well the results of their two studies fit into the two major conclusions I mentioned above. The main study was a replication of earlier studies that did not allow ESL students any opportunity to state a preferred type of feedback from a variety of options. Students were told to state whether they would like to receive feedback from other students as “one type of feedback.” (Jacobs et al., 1998, p. 307) The responses to this question, not surprisingly, were exactly what had already been reported for this type of research question before 199.5. The second study in the same paper, conducted by Curtis (1997, cited in Jacobs et al., 1998), allowed ESL students to rate four types of teacher-centered feedback and two types of student-centered feedback on a Likert scale. In other words, the students were indirectly given an opportunity to state their personal preferences. The four types of teacher-centered feedback, without exception, had average ratings higher than the two types of student-centered feedback. The pattern of student preferences matches, again not surprisingly, what had already been reported for that type of research question prior to 1995, as well as my own finding that “ESL students find teacher feedback significantly more preferable than . . . peer feedback” (Zhang, 1995, p. 216). Because no significance test was reported in Jacobs et al. (1998), it is not possible to make a more rigorous examination of the apparent convergence of the findings in the two studies. Even with the inadequate descriptive statistics reported in Jacobs et al. (1998), there appears to be a high probability that a statistically significant difference would be found to validate my 1995 finding that teacher feedback is clearly preferable to peer feedback in the ESL writing class. This prediction should be readily verifiable if the raw data as described (Curtis, 1997, cited in Jacobs et al., 1998) could be made available for appropriate re-analysis. Even without such a re-analysis, their finding is clear enough to serve as a renewed challenge to the assumed affective advantage of peer feedback over teacher feedback in the ESL writing class.
AFFECTIVE
323
ADVANTAGE
The two findings are closely related and appear in the same paper, but it is not clear why the authors failed to integrate the findings or note their concurrence to my earlier finding that the overwhelming majority of ESL students prefer teacher feedback over peer feedback, even though it was this finding of mine that provided the “immediate impetus” for their study (Jacobs et al., 1998, p. 308).
PHILOSOPHICAL
AND METHODOLOGICAL
CONSIDERATIONS
Despite our convergent findings, Jacobs et al. (1998) questioned the validity of my finding because the ESL students in my study were asked to state which type of feedback they would prefer if they were “given a choice between teacher feedback and nonteacher feedback” (p, 309). This choice, Jacobs and his colleagues argued, was a “false dichotomy” (Jacobs et al., 1998, p. 308), because advocates of the process approach to ESL writing see “peer feedback . . . as additional to, not in replacement of, teacher feedback” (p. 309). Their misreading of my text is unfortunate. The ESL students in my study had used all three types of feedback from the instructor, peers, and themselves on a regular basis, typical of the process approach to ESL writing. It was after they had had adequate exposure to all three types of feedback that their candid preferences were elicited so that I might determine how they felt about the three types of feedback. I believe that ESL students, as the main stakeholders in the writing endeavor, are entitled to a candid expression of their feelings. The essence of the process approach to writing consists indeed in the promotion of student writers’ exercise of their choices as well as their critical reflection on such choices, so that they are not held hostage to preconceived writing specifications or assumed writing paradigms. Allowing ESL writers a voice is important, especially when the assumption of the inherent affective advantage of peer feedback over teacher feedback is known to have been transplanted from Ll writing theories (Zhang, 1995) in an academic milieu preceding our current respect for, and collective pride in, multiculturalism. Denying ESL students their opportunities to articulate choices in ESL research and practice, in my opinion, runs counter to the true spirit of the process approach. ESL learners’ choices may not always be well advised, but the instructor needs to know how his or her students are feeling about the writing process before informed pedagogical adjustments can be made to ensure effective instruction. Methodologically speaking, is it possible that my 1995 finding was a mere research artifact due to the wording that students were “given a choice,” which might have suggested to them a “false dichotomy”? I would refer the reader to the empirical studies I reviewed in 1995, none of which had adopted my wording of the “false dichotomy”, but had arrived at the same conclusion. Of particular interest is the second study reported in Jacobs et al. (1998, p. 3 13). Using entirely different prompt items and measurement scales, the study practically replicated
324
ZHANG
my 1995 finding. That assured me that the “false dichotomy” in my prompt item could not be as problematic as my critics think because it is none other than my critics’ study that has validated my finding. A very recent ethnographic study has reached the same conclusion as mine that ESL students “preferred the teacher’s comments over those of other students” (Nelson & Carson, 1998, p. 113), thereby further strengthening my belief that the assumed inherent affective advantage of peer feedback over teacher feedback cannot be empirically verified by either quantitative or qualitative research. Jacobs et al. (1998) also asserted that my prompt was problematic because it asked students to state which type of feedback they would prefer before they wrote their final version of their paper. Since they did not elaborate on why the wording “before you write your final version” in my prompt seemed problematic to them, I cannot directly address their concern. I can only explain that my understanding of the process approach is that feedback should be integrated into the ongoing writing process, rather than handed down as a verdict on a finished product. Hence the wording. It may be in order here to add that the second study in their paper did not use my wording, but arrived at the same finding I reached. The studies I reviewed in 1995 had not used my wording but reported the same conclusion. Finally, Nelson and Carson (1998), in their ethnographic approach, had not used my wording, but arrived at the same conclusion. The cumulative evidence seems to be strong enough to dismiss their methodological concerns.
A JUDICIOUS
USE OF FEEDBACK
SOURCES
It has always been my opinion that peer feedback has its undeniable benefits (Zhang, 1995), and I support a “judicious use of a combination of feedback resources” (Jacobs et al., 1998, p. 308). The question is how to work toward that elusive “judicious” use of feedback resources. A “judicious” use of feedback resources cannot derive from false assumptions or indifference to learner characteristics. Peer feedback may be justified for various credible reasons, but the claimed inherent affective advantage over teacher feedback, transplanted from Ll writing theories, does not seem to be one of them. Given the cumulative research prior to 1995 (Zhang, 1995) and the new evidence (Jacobs et al., 1998; Nelson dz Carson, 1998), there is all the more reason for ESL researchers and instructors to question this widely circulated claim. A “judicious use of a combination of feedback resources” presupposes and demands a serious scrutiny of the aggregate validity of the affective arguments for giving a preeminent role to peer feedback in the ESL writing process (Zhang, 1995, p.216). It also stands to reason that clarifications in this regard and subsequent pedagogical adjustments should be sought first and foremost in the ESL
AFFECTIVE ADVANTAGE
325
writing classroom where student opinions are respected, not in foundational writings on the Ll composing process or speculative extrapolations thereof. The basic line of argument in Jacobs et al. (1998) is that peer feedback has its place in the ESL writing class because students perceive it as one valuable type of feedback, even though it is not as useful as teacher feedback. This point does not argue that peer feedback has its place in the ESL writing class because it has a greater affective appeal than teacher feedback. Their line of argument is qualitatively different from the previous assumption that peer feedback deserves a preeminent role in the ESL writing process because of its affective advantage over teacher feedback. I want to emphasize the importance of their point because it is more than just an affirmation of previous research conclusions, mine included. It is part of a widening consciousness in the ESL field that Ll-based theoretical stances need to be brought under critical examination, without necessarily sacrificing the rational and constructive elements in them. I want to give credit to Jacobs and his colleagues for contributing to this widening consciousness in the ESL field, and I look forward to future research that may eventually lead to a judicious use of a combination of feedback sources so that the affective disadvantage of peer feedback relative to teacher feedback may be addressed responsibly and effectively in the ESL writing class. False assumptions preclude a judicious use of a combination of feedback sources.
REFERENCES Berger, V. (1989). The effects of peer versus selffeedback on ESL students’ between-draft revisions. Unpublished masters thesis. San Diego State University, San Diego, CA. Chaudron, C. (1984). Evaluating writing: effects of feedback on revision. RELC Journal 15, l-14. Cohen, A. (1987). Student processing of feedback on their compositions. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 57-69). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Connor, U., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: how much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language Writing 3,257-276. Curtis, A. (1997, November). “It is better to give than to receive”: feedback in student writing. Paper presented at the World Skills Language and Living Conference, Victoria, British Columbia. George, J.E. (1991). The role of teacherfeedback in student revision: a case study. Unpublished manuscript. Hedgcock, J., & Ixfkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of Second Language Writing 3, 14 l-l 63. Jacobs, G.M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S. (1998). Feedback on student writing: taking the middle path. Journal of Second Language Writing 7,307-317. Leki, I. (1990). Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes. CATESOL Journal 3, S-19.
326
ZHANG
Leki, I. (1991). The preference of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals 24.203-2 16. Mendonca, C.O., & Johnson, K.E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly 28,745-769. Nelson, G., & Carson, G.C. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing 7, 113-l 3 1. Partridge, K.L. (198 1). A comparison of the effectiveness ofpeer vs. teacher evaluation for helping students of English as a second language to improve the quality of their written compositions. Unpublished masters thesis. University of Hawaii at Manoa,
Honolulu, HI. Semke, H.D. (1984). Effects of the red pen. Foreign Language Annals 17, 195-202. Zhang, S. (199.5). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing 4, 209-222.