Patterns of interaction during peer feedback exchange in online EFL writing lessons

Abstract

Little is still known about interaction patterns learners form while exchanging peer feedback particularly when working with different peers. To address this gap, this study analyzes patterns of interaction while exchanging feedback on academic paragraphs written by 16 English as a foreign language (EFL) learners enrolled at a state university in Türkiye. The participants were asked to write three academic paragraphs and submit them online. They were paired with a different student for each paragraph feedback session and exchanged their paragraphs. Then they held an online meeting on Microsoft Teams with their partner and exchanged feedback. The meetings were recorded. Next, the students revised their paragraphs considering the peer feedback. They made the changes on their paragraphs only if they found the peer feedback useful and necessary. Patterns of interaction in the recordings were analyzed according to Storch’s (2002) framework. According to it, there are four interaction patterns placed on mutuality and equality axes and named as collaborative, dominant/dominant, dominant/passive, and expert/novice. The results showed that the most common pattern was expert/novice. That means in the majority of the peer feedback sessions reviewers controlled the task, but both participants showed engagement. Around half of the participants were consistent in their patterns both as a reviewer and a writer. This study is believed to shed light on EFL learners’ roles as writers and reviewers. It is also believed that with a comprehensive peer feedback training, learners could be encouraged to form more collaborative patterns, which is associated with better learning outcomes.

Keywords

• writing
• peer feedback
• interaction
• pattern.

References

1. Acarol, K. (2024). The effect of web-based peer feedback on students’ writing achievement. Journal of Educational Technology & Online Learning, 7(1), 52-70.
2. https://doi.org/10.31681/jetol.1314382
3. Ahmadian, M., & Tajabadi, A. (2017). Patterns of interaction in young EFL learners’ pair work: The relationship between pair dynamics and vocabulary acquisition. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies, 22(3), 98-114.
4. https://doi.org/10.17576/3L-2017-2301-08
5. Allen, D., & Katayama, A. (2016). Relative second language proficiency and the giving and receiving of written peer feedback. System, 56, 96-106.
6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.12.002
7. Berggren, J. (2014). Learning from giving feedback: a study of secondary-level students. ELT Journal, 69(1), 58-70.
8. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccu036

9. Birjandi, P., & Tamjid, N. H. (2012). The role of self-, peer and teacher assessment in promoting Iranian EFL learners’ writing performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(5), 513-533.
10. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.549204
11. Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind”. College English, 46(7), 635-652.
12. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
13. De Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. Modern Language Journal, 84, 51-68.
14. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00052
15. Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty, & M. Long (Eds.), The handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 224-255). Oxford: Blackwell.
16. Hirvela, A. (1999). Collaborative writing instruction and communities of readers and writers. TESOL Journal, 8(2), 7-12.
17. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1949-3533.1999.tb00169.x
18. Hu, G., & Lam, S. T. E. (2010). Issues of cultural appropriateness and pedagogical efficacy: Exploring peer review in a second language writing class. Instructional Science, 38(4), 371-394.
19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9086-1
20. Huisman, B., Saab N., Van Driel, J., & Van Den Broek, P. (2017). Peer feedback on college students’ writing: exploring the relation between students’ ability match, feedback quality and essay performance. Higher Education Research & Development, 36(7), 1433-1447.
21. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1325854
22. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83-101.
23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399
24. Liu, J., & Hansen, J. G. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
25. Liu, J., & Sadler, R. S. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 193-227.
26. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00025-0
27. Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15. 118-141.
28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003
29. Roberson, A. P. (2014). Patterns of interaction in peer response: The relationship between pair dynamics and revision outcomes. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
30. Sala-Bubaré, A., & Castelló, M. (2018). writing regulation processes in higher education: A review of two decades of empirical research. Reading and Writing, 31(4), 757–777.
31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9808-3
32. Slavkov, N. (2015). Sociocultural Theory, the L2 writing process, and Google Drive: Strange bedfellows?. TESL Canada Journal, 32(2), 80-94.
33. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v32i2.1209
34. Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52(1), 119-158.
35. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00179
36. Tajabadi, A., Ahmadian, M., Dowlatabadi, H., & Yazdani, H. (2020). EFL learners’ peer negotiated feedback, revision outcomes, and short-term writing development: The effect of patterns of interaction. Language Teaching Research, 27(3), 689-717.
37. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688209512
38. Villamil, O., & De Guerrero, M. (2006). Sociocultural theory: A framework for understanding the social-cognitive dimensions of peer feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Authors), Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues (Cambridge Applied Linguistics, pp. 23-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
39. Vuogan, A. & Li, S. (2022). Examining the effectiveness of peer feedback in second language writing: A meta-analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 57(4), 1-24.
40. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.3178
41. Wang, W. (2014). Students’ perceptions of rubric-referenced peer feedback on EFL writing: A longitudinal inquiry. Assessing Writing, 19, 80-96.
42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.008
43. Watanabe, Y., & Swain, M. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11(2), 121-142.
44. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880607074599
45. Yager, R. E. (1991). The constructivist learning model, towards real reform in science education. The Science Teacher, 58(6), 52-57.
46. Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2016). Peer feedback in second language writing (2005–2014). Language Teaching, 49(4), 461-493.
47. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000161
48. Zamel, V. (1983). The composing process of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165-187.
49. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586647
50. Zheng, C. (2012). Understanding the learning process of peer feedback activity: An ethnographic study of exploratory practice. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 109-126.
51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811426248
52. Zhu, W., & Mitchell, D. A. (2012). Participation in peer response as activity: An examination of peer response stances from an activity theory perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 362-386.
53. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.22
54. Zong, Z., Schunn, C. D., & Wang, Y. (2021). Learning to improve the quality peer feedback through experience with peer feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(6), 973-992.
55. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1833179