Jiang+Jingxin+Dou+Youce

【Abstract】This essay investigates into the prior literature to find out the students attitudes toward online peer review on three categories：the students willingness to participate in peer response， the students view on the effects of teacher feedback and classmate response and the preference to the modes in implementation. The general findings show more positive perceptions toward the former two categories with a mixed view to the third. Future studies are suggested to pay more effort on the student-oriented analysis so as to maximize an efficient implementation.

【Key words】students perception； peer review； willingness； effect； mode

Introduction

Process approaches have been prevailing for more than thirty years. As one of the most important components， peer feedback has been proclaimed by many studies as facilitative to students development in writing ability （Mendoca & Johnson， 1994；Cheng & Warren， 1996；Hyland & Hyland， 2006a；Ren &Hu， 2012）. It is recognized as one way to fully engage the students in the writing process （Mendoca & Johnson， 1994） and to equipped them with critical literacy （Cheng & Warren， 1996， Mei & Yuan， 2010）. However， the effects could not be realized without the student affective engagement， because “students perceptions about and attitude toward instruction are crucial determinants in their performance as writers” （Zamel， 1987， p. 699）. Thus， students attitude toward peer review is prerequisite to implement it in the class. Therefore， it is legitimate to take close scrutiny into “the student voice” （Best et al.， 2015， p.334） on peer feedback with a review in the literature.

Students Willingness to Give and Take Peer Feedback

It is universally accepted that it difficult to initiate a peer review in Chinese context where the dominate culture values group harmony. “Students from certain cultures may feel uncomfortable with certain aspects of the social interaction demanded by peer review” （Rollinson， 2005） （p.26）. The Chinese students may conserve critical opinions when give peer review to maintain the friendship with their peers or they may be reluctant to give comments to avoid being noticeable in the group（Carson and Nelsons， 1996）.The overwhelming profile of teacher in the Chinese classes prevents the students from taking their peers response as they may be unconfident about their peers response （Carson and Nelsons， 1996）. However， recent empirical studies demonstrate different findings. In Hu and Lam （2010）， twenty Chinese students were enrolled in a peer review treatment in academic writing in a Singapore university. When asked about the attitude toward peer review as a pedagogical activity in China， only four of them represented negative position， which consented with the opinions in the earlier literature concerning the cultural influence of China （Rollinson， 2005；Nelson & Carson， 2006）. However， the remaining students held positive on the implementation of peer review. Four of them even took it as highly uniformed with Confucius ideology of learning from the peers. Juxtaposed with such findings were the results produced in Liu and Chai （2009）s research. In the study， 84 high achieving students in a Chinese university were employed in a scheme on peer feedback. The results showed that “the majority of the students self-reported to be willing to do peer review in the university writing classrooms” （p.38）. The favored attitudes were certified again by the data collected in the interview. Though they held some doubts on the effect of peer response， they valued the negative comments given by their peers. It is still under dispute whether the vast body of Chinese students would accept peer review in the class.endprint

Students Attitudes to the Effects of Teacher Feedback and Peer Feedback

As another substantial element of writing instruction， teacher feedback is inextricably intertwined with the research of students perceptions on peer feedback. The ways students perceive the value of teacher and student feedback may influence the adoption of comments （Hyland & Hyland， 2006a）， thus it is advisable to investigate in students attitude toward teacher feedback and peer response. A high consensus on students reluctance to incorporate peer feedbacks compared with the ones provided by teachers （S. Zhang， 1995；Carson， 1998；Hyland & Hyland， 2006a；Yang et al.， 2006）. With 86.4% Asian subjects in the treatment， S. Zhang reported a student portion of 93.8% who preferred teachers feedback. Equally overwhelming result was found in Yang et al. （2006）. However， an inconsistency appears in recent studies especially with a glance in Chinese student writers （Hu & Lam， 2010；Liu & Chai， 2009）. In Hu and Lams （2010） study， 20 Chinese EFL students participated in an academic writing program.Referring to the peer view， most of the subjects acknowledged the favorable influence and 80% of them took it as valuable supplementary to teachers comments. Similar findings are reported in Liu and Chais （2009） study. In the research， 84 undergraduates （69% of them had experiences in peer review） with higher English proficiency were given survey and interviews concerning their attitudes toward peer response. A large portion of the students reported favorable perceptions to peer review and held positive attitude to the efficacy of peer feedback. Consequently， the number of students who reported improvement in writing exceeds 70%.It should be noted that the lower proficient group reported less positive outcomes in peer review activities （W. Wang， 2015）.

In general， a large portion of the recent research represents favorable findings. However， with all the limitations， such as， most of the studies are conducted in a comparatively small scale and short longitudinal periods， etc.， it deserves further scrutiny and research.

Students Perceptions toward the Modes of Peer Review

With the extensive application of the online technology， the modes of peer review have gained new possibilities. A large number of prior studies have investigated in the use of specialized software or social networks incorporated in the writing process （Ho， 2015；Moradi & Karimpour， 2012；Liang， 2010；Liou & Peng， 2009；Guardado & Shi， 2007）. However， comparatively rare has been associated with students perceptions toward that and the findings are pretty mixed. In Guardado and Shi （2007） study， a brief report on students attitudes shows that learners were uncertain about the efficiency of the feedback. Although training was conducted to familiarize the students with the use of weblog in the peer review， students still held conservative attitude and mixed feelings toward making feedback on blog （Liou and Peng， 2009）. Ho （2015） conducted a comparative study based on the two modes of CMPR AND FFPR with 13 Chinese students in a Taiwanese university. Findings demonstrated that the students views on a particular mode were closely associated with the efficacies. With its higher efficiency， the WORDs editing features received overwhelming favor compared with handwriting. In evaluating the features of OnlineMeeting， most of the students reported positive perceptions， but they still preferred face to face communication while only 15% students still favor on-line chatting. To conclude， students preferences to respective mode are not inclusive. Future studies are suggested to focus on quantitative studies on students preference in Chinese context.endprint

Conclusion

Chinese students are more willing to take peer review as pedagogical activity （Hu & Lam， 2010；Liu & Chai， 2009）， more positive towards the effects of peer feedback （Hu & Lam， 2010；Liu & Chai， 2009） and hold mixed positions to the mode of implementation （Ho， 2015；Moradi & Karimpour， 2012；Liang， 2010；Liou & Peng， 2009；Guardado & Shi， 2007）. It is advisable to listen to students opinions so as to prompt a better development in the pedagogical process of peer review（Best et al.， 2015）. Therefore， further study should extend the scale and the time， analyze the individual and social-cultural factors.

References：

[1]Best，K.et al.（2015）.Listening to our students：an exploratory practice study of ESL writing students views of feedback.TESOL Journal，6（2），332-357.

[2]Carson，J.，& Nelson，G.（1996）.Chinese students perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction.Journal of Second Language Writing，5（1），1–19.

[3]Liu，M.H.，& Chai，Y.H.（2009）.Attitudes towards peer review and reaction to peer feedback in Chinese EFL writing classrooms.TESL Reporter，42（1），33-51.

[4]Hu，G.W.，& 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.

[5]Ho，M.C.（2015）.The effects of face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review on EFL writers comments and revisions.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology，2015，31（1），1-15.

[6]Hyland，K.，& Hyland，F.（2006）.Feedback on second language students writing.Language Teaching，39，83-101.

[7]Mendoca，C.，& Johnson，K.（1994）.Peer review negotiations： Revision activities in ESL writing instruction.TESOL Quarterly，28 （4），745–768.

[8]Ren，H.W.& Hu，G.W.（2012）.Peer review and Chinese EFL/ESL student writers.English Australia Journal，27（2），3-16.

[9]Rollinson，P.（2005）.Using peer feedback in ESL writing class.ELT Journal，59（1），23-30.

[10]Wang，W.（2015）.How proficiency-pairing affects students peer-mediated revisions of EFL writing：threecase studies.English Language Teaching，8（5），22-32.

[11]Zamel，V.（1987）.Recent research on writing pedagogy.TESOL Quarterly，21，697-715.

[12]Zhang，S.（1995）.Re-examining the active advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class.Journal of Second Language Writing，4（3），209–222.

作者簡介：

江晶鑫， 重慶工商職業(yè)學院 副教授， 研究方向：應用語言學。

竇有策， 重慶市第一中學中教一級教師， 研究方向：英美文化、英語教學法。endprint