Towards Understanding Teacher Mentoring, Learner WCF Beliefs, and Learner Revision Practices Through Peer Review Feedback: A Sociocultural Perspective

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

Background. The existing literature has focused on learner perceptions or beliefs about peer review tasks over the recent decade. However, little has been known about the relationships among learner beliefs about written corrective feedback (WCF), related teacher mentoring process, and learner revision practices.

Purpose. We thus aimed at addressing the gap by exploring how teacher mentoring and learner WCF beliefs may inform learner revision practices in the peer-reviewed process.

Methods. In this mixed-method study, we included four Chinese EFL students majoring in English as the participants and collected their WCF belief survey data. We also collected their actual practice data through PeerCeptiv, an online writing and rewriting platform. In addition, we traced the teacher mentoring practices and interviewed the participants about their beliefs and practices in the peer review and back-evaluation process.

Results. Through the mixed-methods design, we reported our major findings: the student participants believed empathy and resonance was the primary advantage of peer feedback, and teacher mentoring facilitated them in understanding and performing the peer review and revision tasks; we also found the student review process consisted of evaluating, resonating, learning, and reflecting practices and the student revision process included crediting, arguing, correcting, and polishing practices.

Implications. From a sociocultural perspective, we centered our discussion on these research findings by claiming that scaffolding in different forms work together enhance learner performance and student beliefs appear in a complex manner with student actual revision practices. We also offered insights for future studies and practical implications for language teachers.

About the authors

Y. Gao

Xi'an Jiaotong University

Email: gaoyang666@xjtu.edu.cn
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5888-6033

X. Wang

Dalian Maritime University

Author for correspondence.
Email: yang4editorialwork@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4786-8777

References

  1. Allaei, S. K., & Connor, U. M. (1990). Exploring the Dynamics of Cross-Cultural Collaboration in Writing Classrooms. Writing Instructor, 10(1), 19-28. http://hdl.handle.net/1805/2659.
  2. Aslan, E., & Thompson, A. S. (2021). The interplay between learner beliefs and foreign language anxiety: Insights from the Turkish EFL context. The Language Learning Journal, 49(2), 189-202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2018.1540649
  3. Barcelos, A. M. F. (2003). Researching beliefs about SLA: A critical review. Beliefs about SLA, 7-33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-4751-0_1
  4. Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students' revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215-241. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80115-5
  5. Bui, G., & Kong, A. (2019). Metacognitive instruction for peer review interaction in L2 writing. Journal of Writing Research, 11(2), 357-392. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80115-5
  6. Campbell, J. Y., Grossman, S. J., & Wang, J. (1993). Trading volume and serial correlation in stock returns. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(4), 905-939. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2118454
  7. Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1994). Writing groups: Cross-cultural issues. Journal of second language writing, 3(1), 17-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2118454
  8. Chaktsiris, M. G., & Southworth, J. (2019). Thinking beyond Writing Development in Peer Review. Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(1), article1. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1218774.
  9. Chang, C. (2012), Peer Review via Three Modes in an EFL Writing Course.Computers and Composition, 29(1), 63-78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2012.01.001
  10. Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system.Computers & Education, 48(3), 409-426. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.004
  11. Cho, H. J., Yough, M., & Levesque-Bristol, C. (2020). Relationships between beliefs about assessment and self-regulated learning in second language learning.International Journal of Educational Research, 99, 101505. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.101505
  12. Donato, R. (2004). 13. Aspects of collaboration in pedagogical discourse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 24, 284-302. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719050400011X
  13. Doolittle, P. E. (1997). Vygotsky's zone of proximal development as a theoretical foundation for cooperative learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 8(1), 83-103. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ577702.
  14. Doolittle, P. E., & Hicks, D. (2003). Constructivism as a theoretical foundation for the use of technology in social studies. Theory & Research in Social Education, 31(1), 72-104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2003.10473216
  15. Dornyei, Z., & Ryan, S. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315779553
  16. Gao, Y. (2021). EFL teachers' beliefs and actual practices about reading and teaching reading: A complex dynamical system perspective. Leiden, Brill. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004506541
  17. Gao, Y. & Zeng, G. (2021) Exploring linguistic features, ideology, and critical thinking in Chinese news commentary. Humanities & Social Sciences Communications, 8, Article Number 39,. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00715-y
  18. Gao, Y., Qin, L., & Gu, Q. (2022). Unpacking language teacher beliefs, agency, and resilience in the complex, unprecedented time: a mixed-method study. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 1-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.958003
  19. Gao, Y., Zeng, G., Wang, Y. Khan, A.A., & Wang, X. (2022). Exploring educational planning, teacher beliefs, and teacher practices during the pandemic: A study of science and technology-based universities in China. Frontiers in Psychology, 11,1-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.903244
  20. Gehringer, E. F. (2010). Expertiza: Managing feedback in collaborative learning. In Monitoring and assessment in online collaborative environments: Emergent computational technologies for e-learning support (pp. 75-96). IGI global. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60566-786-7.ch005
  21. Han, Y. (2017). Mediating and being mediated: Learner beliefs and learner engagement with written corrective feedback. System, 69, 133-142. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.07.003
  22. Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT journal, 59(1), 31-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci004
  23. Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of second language writing, 1(3), 255-276. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(92)90006-B
  24. Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal Of Second Language Writing, 3(2), 141-163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(94)90012-4
  25. Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz, N. (1996). Some input on input: Two analyses of student response to expert feedback in L2 writing. The Modern Language Journal, 80(3), 287-308. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1996.tb01612.x
  26. Hu, G. (2005). Contextual influences on instructional practices: A Chinese case for an ecological approach to ELT. Tesol Quarterly, 39(4), 635-660. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3588525
  27. Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher feedback. System, 31(2), 217-230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(03)00021-6
  28. Iwaniec, J. (2019). Language learning motivation and gender: The case of Poland.International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 130-143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12251
  29. Jordan, J., & Sorell, M. (2019). Why reverse mentoring works and how to do it right. Harvard Business Publishing.
  30. Kim, Y., & Mostafa, T. (2021). Teachers' and students' beliefs and perspectives about corrective feedback. The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 561-580). Cambridge.
  31. Kong, A., & Teng, M. F. (2020). The operating mechanisms of self-efficacy and peer feedback: An exploration of L2 young writers. Applied Linguistics Review. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2020-0019
  32. Lam, R. (2010). A peer review training workshop: Coaching students to give and evaluate peer feedback. TESL Canada Journal, 27(2), 114-114. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v27i2.1052
  33. Lantolf, J. P. (Ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning (vol. 78, no. 4). Oxford University Press.
  34. Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press.
  35. Law, S., & Baer, A. (2020). Using technology and structured peer reviews to enhance students' writing. Active Learning in Higher Education, 21(1), 23-38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417740994
  36. Lee, I. (2008). Understanding teachers' written feedback practices in Hong Kong secondary classrooms. Journal of second language writing, 17(2), 69-85. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.10.001
  37. Leontjev, D., & Pollari, P. (2022). Guiding and assessing development of L2 writing process: The role of peer collaboration. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2022.2058514
  38. Li, S. (2017). Student and teacher beliefs and attitudes about oral corrective feedback. In Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning (pp. 143-157). Routledge.
  39. Liu, J., & Hansen, J. G. (2002) Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Michigan University Press.
  40. Liou, H. C., & Peng, Z. Y. (2009). Training effects on computer-mediated peer review. System, 37(3), 514-525. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.01.005
  41. Loretto, A., DeMartino, S., & Godley, A. (2016). Secondary students' perceptions of peer review of writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 51(2), 134-161. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24889912.
  42. Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing. Journal of second language writing, 18(1), 30-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002
  43. Mao, Z., & Lee, I. (2022). Researching L2 student engagement with written feedback: Insights from sociocultural theory. TESOL Quarterly, 56(2), 788-798. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3071
  44. Mendonca, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOLQquarterly, 28(4), 745-769. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3587558
  45. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003
  46. Nassaji, H. (2021). Corrective Feedback from a Sociocultural Perspective. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching (pp. 85-108). Cambridge University Press.
  47. Nassaji, H., & Kartchava, E. (Eds.). (2021). The Cambridge handbook of corrective feedback in second language learning and teaching. Cambridge University Press.
  48. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90010-8
  49. Prawat, R. S. (1996). Constructivisms, modern and postmodern. Educational Psychologist, 31(3-4), 215-225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1996.9653268
  50. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9887-9
  51. Rahimi, M., & Zhang, L. J. (2019). Writing task complexity, students' motivational beliefs, anxiety and their writing production in English as a second language. Reading and Writing, 32(3), 761-786. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9887-9
  52. Ruegg, P. L. (2017). A 100-Year Review: Mastitis detection, management, and prevention. Journal of dairy science, 100(12), 10381-10397. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13023
  53. Sánchez-Naranjo, J. (2019). Peer review and training: Pathways to quality and value in second language writing. Foreign Language Annals, 52(3), 612-643. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12414
  54. Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs about peer interaction and peer corrective feedback: Efficacy of classroom intervention. The Modern Language Journal, 97(3), 611-633. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2013.12035.x
  55. Sato, M., & Storch, N. (2022). Context matters: Learner beliefs and interactional behaviors in an EFL vs. ESL context. Language Teaching Research, 26(5), 919-942. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820923582
  56. Seligman, M. E. (1990). Why is there so much depression today? The waxing of the individual and the waning of the commons. In Contemporary psychological approaches to depression (pp. 1-9). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-0649-8_1
  57. Schunn, C., Godley, A., & DeMartino, S. (2016). The reliability and validity of peer review of writing in high school AP English classes. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(1), 13-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.525
  58. Shrum, J. L., & Glisan, E. W. (2005). Teacher's handbook, contextualized language instruction. Mass.
  59. Tang, M., & Tian, J. (2015). Associations between Chinese EFL graduate students' beliefs and language learning strategies.International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 18(2), 131-152. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2014.882882
  60. Tsui, A. B., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00022-9
  61. Van Steendam, E., Rijlaarsdam, G., Sercu, L., & Van den Bergh, H. (2010). The effect of instruction type and dyadic or individual emulation on the quality of higher-order peer feedback in EFL. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 316-327. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.009
  62. Vygotsky, L. (1978).Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of Children, 23(3), 34-41. https://oerafrica.org/sites/default/files/L%20&%20L%20reader_section%20one-reading_4.pdf.
  63. Wang, W., & Zhan, J. (2020). The relationship between English language learner characteristics and online self-regulation: A structural equation modeling approach. Sustainability, 12(7), 3009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12073009
  64. Wang, Y. (2022). The Effect of Automated Corrective Feedback on L2 Writing in POS Categories. In 2022 3rd International Conference on Language, Art and Cultural Exchange (ICLACE 2022) (pp. 492-495). Atlantis Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.220706.093
  65. Wang, Y., Liang, Y., Liu, L., & Liu, Y. (2016). A multi-peer assessment platform for programming language learning: considering group non-consensus and personal radicalness.Interactive Learning Environments, 24(8), 2011-2031. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2015.1073748
  66. Wenden, A. L. (1999). An introduction to metacognitive knowledge and beliefs in language learning: Beyond the basics. System, 27(4), 435-441. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(99)00043-3
  67. Wells, G. (2007). Semiotic mediation, dialogue and the construction of knowledge. Human Development, 50(5), 244-274. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000106414
  68. Woodhouse, J., & Wood, P. (2022). Creating dialogic spaces: developing doctoral students' critical writing skills through peer assessment and review. Studies in Higher Education, 47(3), 643-655. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1779686
  69. Wong, Y. K. (2020). Effects of language proficiency on L2 motivational selves: A study of young Chinese language learners. System, 88, 102181. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102181
  70. 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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004
  71. Yasmin, M., & Sohail, A. (2018). A creative alliance between learner autonomy and English language learning: Pakistani university teachers' beliefs. Creativity Studies, 11(1), 1-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/23450479.2017.1406874
  72. Yasmin, S. (2021). Understanding the construct of learner beliefs about language learning. The Discourse, 7(1), 25-39. https://discourse.org.pk/index.php/discourse/article/download/116/106.
  73. Yu, L. (2020). Investigating L2 writing through tutor-tutee interactions and revisions: A case study of a multilingual writer in EAP tutorials. Journal of Second Language Writing, 48, 100709. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2019.100709
  74. Yu, S., & Hu, G. (2017). Understanding university students' peer feedback practices in EFL writing: Insights from a case study. Assessing Writing, 33, 25-35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2017.03.004

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.