Effects of peer- versus self-editing on students’ revision of language errors in revised drafts

Abstract Previous research on the effects of peer-editing in bringing about language development generally examined the linguistic performance of only a few students and did not focus on specific language errors nor used a control group. To counteract these limitations, this study used a pre-test/post-test comparison group quasi-experimental design to compare the effects of peer-editing to that of self-editing on students’ correction of specific language errors in revised drafts. The language errors under study are two rule-based errors (subject/verb agreement, pronoun agreement) and two non rule-based errors (wrong word choice, awkward sentence structure). Results revealed that compared to the comparison group, the experimental group significantly reduced their rule-based errors in revised drafts but not the non rule-based errors. Since both groups received teacher instruction in editing language errors, but only the experimental group engaged in peer-editing, these results may be attributed to peer-editing. The study contributes to teaching pedagogy by encouraging teachers to use peer-editing in the writing classroom and to focus on the correction of few language errors to bring about language development.

[1]  Rod Ellis,et al.  The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context , 2008 .

[2]  Andrea A. Lunsford,et al.  "Mistakes Are a Fact of Life": A National Comparative Study , 2008 .

[3]  Merrill Swain,et al.  Talking It through: Two French Immersion Learners' Response to Reformulation. , 2002 .

[4]  J. Norris,et al.  Effectiveness of L2 Instruction: A Research Synthesis and Quantitative Meta‐analysis , 2000 .

[5]  Dana R. Ferris,et al.  ERROR FEEDBACK IN L2 WRITING CLASSES: HOW EXPLICIT DOES IT NEED TO BE? , 2001 .

[6]  D. Ferris.  The Influence of Teacher Commentary on Student Revision , 1997 .

[7]  Christine Goring. Kepner.  An Experiment in the Relationship of Types of Written Feedback to the Development of Second‐Language Writing Skills , 1991 .

[8]  Jean Chandler,et al.  THE EFFICACY OF VARIOUS KINDS OF ERROR FEEDBACK FOR IMPROVEMENT IN THE ACCURACY AND FLUENCY OF L2 STUDENT WRITING , 2003 .

[9]  Ilona Leki.  THE PREFERENCES OF ESL STUDENTS FOR ERROR CORRECTION IN COLLEGE-LEVEL WRITING CLASSES , 1991 .

[10]  Hui-Tzu Min,et al.  Training students to become successful peer reviewers , 2005 .

[11]  Peter Robinson,et al.  Cognition and Second Language Instruction: COGNITION AND INSTRUCTION , 2001 .

[12]  Amy Snyder Ohta,et al.  Second Language Acquisition Processes in the Classroom: Learning Japanese , 2001 .

[13]  E. Berg,et al.  The effects of trained peer response on ESL students' revision types and writing quality , 1999 .

[14]  Melinda Reichelt,et al.  Toward a more comprehensive view of L2 writing: Foreign language writing in the U.S. , 1999 .

[15]  JoAnne D. Liebman,et al.  Toward a new contrastive rhetoric: Differences between Arabic and Japanese rhetorical instruction☆ , 1992 .

[16]  Olga S. Villamil,et al.  Activating the ZPD: Mutual Scaffolding in L2 Peer Revision , 2000 .

[17]  D. Ferris.  THE CASE FOR GRAMMAR CORRECTION IN L2 WRITING CLASSES: A RESPONSE TO TRUSCOTT (1996) , 1999 .

[18]  Andrea A. Lunsford,et al.  Frequency of Formal Errors in Current College Writing , 1988 .

[19]  Ken Hyland,et al.  Feedback in Second Language Writing: Author index , 2006 .

[20]  B. Mclaughlin.  Theories of second-language learning , 1987 .

[21]  Hui-Tzu Min,et al.  The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality , 2006 .

[22]  Ann K. Fathman,et al.  Second Language Writing: Teacher response to student writing: focus on form versus content , 1990 .

[23]  John Truscott,et al.  Review Article The Case Against Grammar Correction in L2 Writing Classes , 1996 .

[24]  Practical Tips for Implementing Peer Editing Tasks in the Foreign Language Classroom. , 2003 .

[25]  Olga S. Villamil,et al.  Peer Revision in the L2 Classroom: Social-Cognitive Activities, Mediating Strategies, and Aspects of Social Behavior. , 1996 .

[26]  Gayle L. Nelson,et al.  Chinese students' perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction , 1996 .

[27]  James P. Lantolf,et al.  Vygotskian Approaches to Second Language Research , 1994 .

[28]  Dana Ferris,et al.  Feedback in Second Language Writing: Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction , 2006 .

[29]  Barbara Kroll.  Second Language Writing. Research Insights for the Classroom. , 1990 .

[30]  Liz Hamp-Lyons.  Assessing Second Language Writing in Academic Contexts , 1991 .

[31]  Shuqiang Zhang,et al.  Thoughts on some recent evidence concerning the affective advantage of peer feedback , 1999 .

[32]  J. Truscott.  EVIDENCE AND CONJECTURE ON THE EFFECTS OF CORRECTION: A RESPONSE TO CHANDLER , 2004 .

[33]  R. Ellis.  DOES FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION AFFECT THE ACQUISITION OF IMPLICIT KNOWLEDGE? , 2002, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[34]  Wei-Na Zhu,et al.  Triangulation in Classroom Research: A Study of Peer Revision , 1997 .

[35]  John Truscott,et al.  The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write accurately , 2007 .

[36]  J. Stanley.  Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators , 1992 .

[37]  Kate Mangelsdorf,et al.  ESL student response stances in a peer-review task , 1992 .