Student

1
Student Student Conferencing

• Lecture 7
• Teaching Writing in EFL/ESL
• Joy Robbins

2
A quick note about assignments

• (1) Design a writing lesson or material to teach
  writing. Explain the approach(es) your
  lesson/material uses (e.g. product, etc.) and
  justify your choices by referring both to theory
  and practice, including your teaching context.
• (2) Critically evaluate a set of published
  materials for teaching writing and explain how
  you would use/adapt them in your teaching
  context, referring to the literature to justify
  your choices. The materials could be a selection
  of writing activities from an integrated course
  book, a writing text book, online activities, or
  a mix thereof.
• (3) Describe, illustrate, and justify the
  principles which underlie your approach when
  correcting student writing.
• (4) Respond to an authentic student text by
  giving written feedback. Explain and justify why
  you have given the feedback you did, and outline
  any other form(s) of feedback you might give this
  student. Remember to set the scene by explaining
  the students context, needs, etc. Please note
  that I can supply some authentic student texts if
  required. However, I will NOT accept an
  assignment about the student text you did a
  presentation on in week 5!
• (5) A title of your choice. However, this MUST be
  discussed with me first.

3
Todays Session

• What is studentstudent conferencing?
• What are the pros and cons of studentstudent
  conferencing?
• Does conferencing work, according to research
  evidence?
• Would conferencing be appropriate in your
  teaching context?
• N.B. Ferris (2003a,b), Ferris Hedgcock (1998),
  and Yang et al (2006) provide excellent
  discussions of conferencing

4
Types of conference Reminder

• (1) TeacherStudent conferences, where students
  meet teachers individually to discuss their
  writing
• (2) StudentStudent conferences, where students
  evaluate/discuss their colleagues writing
• Last week we looked at teacherstudent
• Today well look at studentstudent
• Before we look at conferencing in detail, make a
  list of arguments FOR and AGAINST holding
  studentstudent conferences in class.

5
StudentStudent conferencing pros

• Ferris Hedgcock (1998170-1) and Ferris (2003a
  129-30, b) summarize the potential pros and cons
  of studentstudent conferences. First the pros
• Students receive feedback from multiple sources
  (Mittan 1989).
• Students gain a clearer understanding of audience
  (readers) needs by receiving feedback on what
  they have done well and on what remains unclear
  (Mittan 1989 Moore 1986 Witbeck 1976).
• Responding to peers writing builds the critical
  skills needed to analyze and revise ones own
  writing (Leki 1990 Mittan 1989).
• Students gain confidence (or reduce apprehension)
  by seeing peers strengths and weaknesses in
  writing (Leki 1990 Mittan 1989)

6
Pros (contd.)

• Students can engage in unrehearsed, low-risk,
  exploratory talk, which is less feasible in
  whole-class or teacher-student interactions.
• Students receive reactions, questions, and
  responses from authentic readers (Mittan
  1989209.).
• Students communication skills are developed
  through interacting with their peers (Mangelsdorf
  1989)
• Students are encouraged to become more autonomous
  and to rely less on the teacher (Tsui Ng 2000),
  developing the capacity for independent problem
  solving (de Guerrero Vilamil 1994)
• Students will become aware of their own strengths
  and weaknesses as writers (Tsui Ng 2000)
• Students will realize how important it is to
  rewrite and revise writing several times in order
  to ensure the meanings clear!
• Peer conferencing can reduce the teachers
  workload and reveal to the teacher what kind of
  writing students believe is good writing

7
Peer conferencing cons (Leki 1990)

• Leki (1990) noted several potential problems with
  peer feedback, derived from both the comments of
  20 ESL students and from her own and other
  writing teachers experiences
• Students sometimes focus too heavily on surface
  concerns (p.9) or editing, neglecting larger
  revising issues
• Students can provide vague, unhelpful comments
• Students may be hostile, sarcastic, overly
  critical, or unkind in their criticisms of their
  classmates writing
• Students feel uncertain about the validity of
  their classmates responses

8
Cons (Leki 1990) (contd.)

• In peer group discussions, students may struggle
  with their own listening comprehension skills or
  with the peers foreign accent and
• Lack of L2 formal (rhetorical) schemata may lead
  to inappropriate expectations about the content
  and structure of peers texts, which can then
  result in counterproductive feedback that leads
  writers further away from western academic
  expectations.

9
Even more cons

• Students, due to their limitations as both
  developing writers and L2 learners, are simply
  not very good at giving one another helpful
  feedback, thus calling into question the time and
  effort needed to implement peer response (Connor
  Asenavage 1994 Leki 1990 Nelson Carson
  1998). (Ferris 2003a 129-30, see also Nelson
  Murphy 1993)
• Villamil de Guerrero (1998) summarize this
  well
• Among practitioners, there seems to be a
  lingering feeling that L2 students are not
  knowledgeable enough to detect and correct errors
  in the target language (p.491)

10
Even more cons (contd.)

• Students misunderstand the purposes for peer
  feedback and are uncomfortable with it (Leki
  1990 Nelson Carson 1998 Zhang 1995).
• Peer feedback can be especially uncomfortable for
  students from collectivist cultures, who are
  more interested in group solidarity than
  individual achievement (Allaei Connor 1990
  Carson Nelson 1994, 1996).(Ferris 2003a
  129-30)

11
Cultural factors conferencing

• Carson Nelson (1994, 1996) claimed that
  conferencing for students from collectivist
  cultures (e.g. China, Japan) may be difficult
• They claim that their study of Chinese students
  conferencing shows that the Chinese students
  were reluctant to initiate comments and, when
  they did, monitored themselves carefully so as
  not to precipitate conflict within the group
  (p.1).
• So if the students are more preoccupied with
  avoiding causing offence than with making honest
  criticisms of their colleagues writing, is there
  any point in using studentstudent conferencing
  at all??

12
One last very obvious con

• Zhang (1995) found that the vast majority of the
  81 ESL university students questioned preferred
  teacher feedback to peer feedback
• So if students prefer other types of feedback, is
  there any point in using studentstudent
  conferencing?

13
Teacher feedback vs. peer feedback

• Although many, perhaps most, students do prefer
  teacher feedback to peer feedback, this doesnt
  mean that peer feedback has no value
• Villamil de Guerreros (1998) have written
  persuasively about this. They used student
  conferencing successfully with intermediate-level
  EFL students
• As they freely admit, an intermediate students
  feedback on another students work is never going
  to be error free, or be equal to a teachers. But
  this is not the point

14
Teacher feedback vs. peer feedback

• ...peer revision is not a substitute for teacher
  feedback. We do not see peer feedback and teacher
  feedback as being in competition rather, we see
  them as complementary forms of assistance in the
  writing classroom. Perhaps the time has come to
  stop asking ourselves, Which is better (or which
  is more effective), peer feedback or teacher
  feedback? We should begin to ask ourselves
  instead, What and how can peer revision
  contribute to the students writing development
  in a way that complements teacher feedback?
  (Vilamil Guerrero 1998 508)

15
More on students feelings about feedback

• Reviewing all of the studies which have
  questioned students about how they feel about
  peer feedback, Ferris (2003a) claims that most
  students enjoy peer conferencing and find it
  helpful.
• But doesnt her conclusion directly contradict
  Zhangs (1995), which found that students
  generally preferred teacher feedback to peer
  feedback?
• Not necessarilystudents may think teacher
  feedback is more worthwhile than colleagues
  feedback. But that is not to say that students
  think colleagues feedback is worthless

16
Comparing teacher and student feedback

• Yang et al (2006) investigated whether Chinese
  university students paid more attention to
  teacher or peer feedback, and the effects of this
  feedback
• 41 students received teacher feedback on their
  first draft of writing, which they then revised
  in response to the feedback
• 38 students received peer feedback (doing
  conferences in Chinese), which they used to
  revise their writing

17
The comprehensiveness and accuracy of teacher and
student feedback

• Students received much more feedback from the
  teacher than from their peers
• students received feedback on 43 of possible
  feedback points from their teacher as opposed to
  only 27 from their peers (Yang et al 2006 188)

18
The impact of teacher and student feedback using
readers suggestions

• 90 of usable teacher feedback was used by
  students when revising their writing, in contrast
  to 67 of usable student feedback
• The most common reason for the rejection of peer
  feedback was that the writers did not accept the
  feedback for the reason that it seemed
  incorrect to them (Yang et al 2006 189)

19
The impact of teacher and student feedback
self-correction

• Self-correction Any revision that was made by
  the writers themselves, not initiated by their
  teacher or peers (Yang et al 2006 192)
• The more writers doubted the feedback, the
  more likely it was that they would develop their
  own independent ideas they had for revision.
  Exposure to teacher feedback seemed to reduce
  self-correction, perhaps because students
  believed that the teacher had pointed out all
  their mistakes and there was no need for further
  correction. The over-dependence on teacher
  feedback is likely to lower the students
  initiative and lead to fewer self-initiated
  corrections (Yang et al 2006 192)
• So peer feedback may lead to greater autonomy

20
The usefulness of peer feedback

• in the peer feedback class, over 60 of the
  students thought peer feedback was useful or
  very useful, a contrast to 22 in the teacher
  feedback class. This may indicate that
  experience of peer feedback has a positive impact
  on student perceptions (Yang et al 2006 186)
• All of which supports Ferris (2003a) claim that
  students generally DO enjoy peer conferencing and
  find it helpful (even if they feel teacher
  feedback is even more valuable)

21
Another important questionDo students listen to
their colleagues advice?

• However, some studies disturbingly suggest that
  student writers dont actually revise their
  writing in response to what their colleagues say
  during conferencing

22
Do students listen to their colleagues?

• Research evidence is conflicting about the degree
  to which students utilize peer feedback in their
  revisions
• Some researchers have found students make only
  minimal changes to their writing based on other
  students feedback Connor Asenavage (1994) say
  only 5 of changes in their students final
  drafts were due to studentstudent conferencing.
• However, Mendonca Johnson (1994) claimed that
  53 of revisions in students final drafts were
  due to studentstudent conferencing
• Possible reasons for this massive variation?
  Lets see

23
Do students listen? conflicting reports

• As Ferris (2003a) and Ferris Hedgcock (1998)
  argue, many factors could account for the
  differences in results between these 2 studies,
  including
• --whether the students had been trained to
  conference
• --what the students were writing about, how
  confident the readers were about their knowledge
  of the topic
• --whether the students were writing in their own
  academic field or not
• --whether the students had been given a
  structured feedback form or not
• --how well the students interacted with their
  peers
• Ferris (2003a) concludes that results are
  inconclusive and that more research is needed

24
Do students listen?

• Although studies like Connor Asenavage (1994)
  suggest students might not take other students
  feedback seriously, more recent studies like
  Villamil Guerrero (1998) suggest that students
  do listen
• And if we implement conferencing in our classes
  in an organized way, this will probably encourage
  our students to take the whole idea even more
  seriously
• So lets have a look at how we can do this

25
Implementation the crucial factor

• In my opinion, the most important thing is to
  realize that the results of and the reaction to
  studentstudent conferencing crucially depends on
  the way conferencing is implemented in the
  classroom
• Other researchers agree with me Berg (1999),
  Ferris (2003a,b), Mittan (1989), and Stanley
  (1992) all claim that successful conferencing
  sessions are far more likely if students have
  been trained to respond effectively

26
Implementation the crucial factor (contd.)

• Imagine 2 classrooms
• a classroom where students have seen videos of
  students conferencing and are given feedback
  sheets by the teacher to fill in after reading
  their colleagues work and
• a classroom where students are given no training
  about conferencing, no explanation as to why the
  teacher thinks its a good idea, and no feedback
  sheets to fill in as they read their colleagues
  work. While they read, the teacher sits at their
  desk, does nothing, and has a coffee
• I suggest the reaction to conferencing will be
  very different in the 2 classrooms

27
Preparing students to conference

• Studies like Min (2005) suggest that training
  students to conference can be successful
• So lets explore some of the ways teachers can
  train and prepare students to conference with
  each other
• Write down a few ideas about how you would train
  students to give each other feedback

28
7 general principles

• Ferris (2003b) talks about seven general
  principles teachers should have in mind when
  implementing studentstudent conferencing
• 1. utilize peer feedback consistently
• 2. explain the benefits of peer feedback to
  students
• 3. prepare students carefully for peer response
• 4. form pairs or groups thoughtfully
• 5. provide structure for peer review sessions
• 6. monitor peer review sessions
• 7. hold students responsible for taking peer
  feedback opportunities seriously (p.165)
• Lets have a look at some of these in a bit more
  detail

29
Utilizing peer feedback consistently

• Ferris (2003b) points out that giving feedback on
  other peoples writing is a skill and therefore
  requires plenty of practice
• For peer feedback to be a useful tool, teachers
  must commit to it as an option, communicate from
  the outset that it will be a regular part of the
  class, and allow adequate, regular time for it
  (p.165)
• However, taking student conferencing seriously
  requires time

30
Taking conferencing seriouslythe time factor

• Ferris (2003b) claims that in her university
  writing classes, I have found that having groups
  of three read and respond to each others papers
  (completed drafts) takes a minimum of 45 minutes
  of class time (and could have gone on longer if I
  had permitted it) (p.166)
• If you only have 3 hours a week with your
  students and are expected to cover everything
  (i.e. grammar, lexis, skills), how could you do
  student conferencing using less class time?

31
The time factor

• Ferris points out that class time can be reduced
  if students have read each others writing
  outside of class
• You could also try getting the students to
  conference about parts of their texts (e.g. their
  introductions), which will also reduce time

32
Preparing students carefully to conference

• Get students to practise first with a text
  written by a student from another class
• Give the students guidelines about what to look
  for
• Give the students guidelines about how to give
  feedback
• Consider demonstrating yourself first
• Provide the students with feedback forms which
  provide structure and will help students focus on
  specific areas (e.g. content, organization, etc.)

33
Forming groups thoughtfully

• Ferris (2003b) claims she likes to put strong and
  weak students into the same group
• The weaker writers benefit from regularly
  reading the texts of more proficient writers, and
  the more advanced writers profit from the
  critical thinking required to give helpful
  feedback to their less able classmates (p.170)
• Do you agree with Ferris? Why (not)? Would you
  always put strong and weak students together?

34
Monitoring peer conferencing

• Ferris (2003b) talks about the dangers of
  teachers intervening during peer conferencing
  there is a definite risk that students will
  simply wait for the teacher to become involved
  (p.173)
• However, she also says she believes it is
  important for her to monitor to make sure
  students are successfully giving feedback

35
Getting students to take peer conferencing
seriously (1)

• Ferris (2003b) suggests students are likely to
  take peer conferencing more seriously if we get
  them to respond to their colleagues feedback on
  their writing
• For instance, after reading other students
  feedback on their work, they complete the
  following
• --What comments do you agree with? Will you act
  on them in writing your revision?
• --Are there any comments you do not understand?
  What will you do about them?
• --Are there any comments that you disagree with?
  What will you do about them?
• --Now that you have re-read your own essay, do
  you have any ideas of your own for changes?
  (p.180)

36
Getting students to take peer conferencing
seriously (2)

• Another idea Ferris recommends is to get the
  student to submit their colleagues feedback
  forms to you when you mark their work. Then you
  can comment on what some of the students
  colleagues said
• Ferris also suggests that you could even build
  peer feedback into the marking scheme! So if the
  students put lots of effort into their written
  feedback for their colleagues, theyll be
  rewarded in their final mark for the course

37
Preparing students to conferencepractical steps
to take

• explain the benefits of conferences and how
  conferences work
• show video clips of good and bad conference
  behaviour. Highlight/teach useful language the
  students can use from the good clips and things
  to avoid (e.g. sarcastic, insulting comments!)
  from the bad clips
• ensure conferences dont degenerate into chats
  where nothing is achieved by providing students
  with feedback forms to fill in
• stress that students can approach/email the
  teacher if theyre unsure that their colleagues
  advice is sound

38
Practical steps (contd.)

• Perhaps most crucially, dont exclusively rely on
  any 1 type of feedback. Tell the students you
  wont be abandoning teacher feedback, or
  teacherstudent conferences
• Now lets have a closer look at the kinds of
  feedback forms you could give students to
  complete while theyre reading their colleagues
  work

39
Conference feedback forms

• Imagine youd like to get your class of upper
  intermediate learners to conference together,
  discussing and evaluating each others writing.
  Design a feedback form to give the students to
  complete as they read someone elses work. The
  idea is that theyll use this form to comment on
  their colleagues work.
• Include a maximum of 5 questions/categories for
  the students to comment on.
• Then well compare your feedback forms with 2
  from Ferris (2003b)

40
Ferris feedback forms

• Whats your opinion of Ferris feedback forms?
  Think about the following
• --ease of use for students
• --difficulty of language in questions
• --focus (grammar organization content, etc.)
• What questions would you have added or taken
  away? Why?

41
Taiwanese students reactions to conferencing
training Min (2005)

• Min (2005) explains how 18 intermediate Taiwanese
  university students were given training to read
  and comment on their colleagues work
• The students then talked about the pros and cons
  of the training they received, and their
  reactions to peer conferencing
• Lets look at some of their comments

42
Perceived benefits of training

• As a result of training, Mins (2005) students
  realized good writing is not just about
  grammar. As one of the students wrote in his/her
  diary, I realized that the most important thing
  of composing is ideas and organization, not
  vocabulary or grammar. I learned how to give
  suggestions to others by following the steps in
  the procedure (p.301)
• 13 of the 18 students also claimed peer
  conferencing helped them increase their
  vocabulary repertoire (Min 2005 301) as they
  developed the skill of writing suggestions and
  comments on their peers writing When I tried
  to explain why I thought a certain part was
  problematic, I had to look words up in the
  dictionary sometimes. At first, it was quite a
  nuisance. But later I found that my vocabulary
  increased a lot. I think its an advantage of
  following the steps. (p.301)

43
Perceived benefits of training (2)

• The training also helped the students become
  better at what Min (2005) calls self-monitoring
  (p.301)
• Eleven students mentioned in their journals
  that this training made them reflect on their own
  problems and seek out solutions for themselves.
  This training indeed helped me revise my
  writing. When I read others essays, I discovered
  the same mistakes I made in my own composition.
  It would have been difficult, if not impossible,
  for me to find out my own mistakes if I hadnt
  read the same ones in others essays.

44
Perceived benefits of training (3)

• The students also talked about how conferencing
  increased their confidence and about how their
  peers gave them ideas and new perspectives to use
  in their writing

45
Students tone

• And Min (2005) also notes that with practice, the
  students tone when making comments became
  friendlier, and less like teachers corrections
  (p.302)

46
So does training work?

• Two recent studies, Min (2005) and Hu (2005),
  both suggest training can work.
• Min (2005) and Hu (2005) both describe their
  training procedures in considerable detail. You
  should look at both of these studies if youre
  interested in this topic
• Note also that both these studies were with
  South-East Asian students who are supposedly some
  of the students that are least likely to be
  receptive to peer conferencing!

47
Discussion

• I asked you at the beginning of todays session
  whether you thought studentstudent conferences
  were pedagogically useful
• Have you changed your mind about this as a
  result of todays session? Why (not)?
• If youre an experienced language teacher, have
  you used studentstudent conferencing before? Did
  it work? If not, why not?
• Based on todays session, would you consider
  using studentstudent conferencing in your
  classroom in future? Why (not)?

48
More references

• If youre interested in this topic, although we
  havent discussed their work in todays session,
  among interesting studies which are relatively
  recent are Berg (1999) and Paulus (1999).
• Ferris (2003b), in particular, provides an
  excellent summary of what we know about the
  benefits of peer conferencing, and also provides
  a number of very useful practical suggestions on
  how to implement peer conferencing in the
  classroom

49
Online conferencing

• Recently, theres been an increase in research
  looking at studentstudent conferencing online
• The research of Christian Schunn and his
  colleagues suggests that online conferencing can
  work, and be very productive (see link below for
  publications)
• Students can use online conferencing tools like
  Schunns SWoRD
• (http//www.lrdc.pitt.edu/schunn/sword/index.html
  )
• Well look at this, and using technology to
  teach writing, in the last lecture

50
References

• Allaei SK Connor U (1990) Exploring the
  dynamics of cross-cultural collaboration. The
  Writing Instructor 10 19-28.
• Berg EC (1999) The effects of trained peer
  response on ESL students' revision types and
  writing quality. Journal of Second Language
  Writing 8(3) 215-241.
• Carson JG Nelson G L (1994) Writing groups
  Cross-cultural issues. Journalof Second Language
  Writing 3(1)17-30
• Carson J G Nelson GL (1996). Chinese students'
  perceptions of ESL peer response group
  interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing
  5 1-19.
• 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.
• De Guerrero MCM Vilamil OS (1994)
  Social-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2
  peer revision. Modern Language Journal 78
  484-496.
• Ferris D (2003a) Responding to writing. In B
  Kroll (ed.), Exploring the Dynamics of Second
  Language Writing. Cambridge Cambridge University
  Press, pp.119-140.
• Ferris D (2003b) Response to Student Writing
  Implications for Second Language Students.
  Mahwah Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Ferris D Hedgcock JS (1998) Teaching ESL
  Composition Purpose, Process, and Practice.
  Mahwah Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Hu G (2005) Using peer review with Chinese ESL
  student writers. Language Teaching Research 9(3)
  321-342.
• Leki I (1990) Coaching from the margins issues
  in written response. In B Kroll (ed.), Second
  Language Writing Research Insights for the
  Classroom. New York Cambridge University Press,
  pp.57-68.
• Mangelsdorf K (1989) Parallels between speaking
  and writing in second language acquisition. In DM
  Johnson DH Roen (eds.), Richness in Writing
  Empowering ESL Students. New York Longman,
  pp.134-145.

51
References (2)

• Mendonça CO Johnson KE (1994) Peer review
  negotiations revision activities in ESL writing
  instruction. TESOL Quarterly 28 745-769.
• Min H-T (2005) Training students to become
  successful peer reviewers. System 33 293-308.
• Mittan R (1989) The peer review process
  harnessing students communicative power. In DM
  Johnson DH Roen (eds.), Richness in Writing
  Empowering ESL Students. New York Longman,
  pp.207-219.
• Moore L (1986) Teaching students how to evaluate
  writing. TESOL Newsletter 20(5) 23-24.
• Nelson GL Carson JG (1998) ESL students'
  perceptions of effectiveness in peer response
  groups. Journal of Second Language Writing 7(2)
  113-131.
• Nelson GL Murphy JM (1993) Peer response
  groups do L2 writers use peer comments in
  revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly 27(1)
  135-141.
• Paulus TM (1999) The effect of peer and teacher
  feedback on student writing. Journal of Second
  Language Writing 8(3) 265-289.
• Stanley J (1992) Coaching student writers to be
  effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second
  Language Writing 1 217-233.
• Tsui ABM Ng M (2000) Do secondary L2 writers
  benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second
  Language Writing 9 147-170.
• Vilamil OS Guerrero MCM (1998) Assessing the
  impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied
  Linguistics 19(4) 491-514.
• Witbeck MC (1976) Peer correction procedures for
  intermediate and advanced ESL composition
  lessons. TESOL Quarterly 10 321-326.
• Yang M et al (2006) A comparative study of peer
  and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing
  class. Journal of Second Language Writing 15
  179-200.
• Zhang S (1995) Reexamining the affective
  advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing
  class. Journal of Second Language Writing 4
  209-222.

52
This weeks reading

• Ferris D (1997) The influence of teacher
  commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly
  31(2) 315-339.
• If youre particularly interested in
  studentstudent conferencing, also have a look
  at
• Berg EC (1999) The effects of trained peer
  response on ESL students' revision types and
  writing quality. Journal of Second Language
  Writing 8(3) 215-241.
• Yang M et al (2006) A comparative study of peer
  and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing
  class. Journal of Second Language Writing 15
  179-200.
• which contains an excellent literature review
  summarizing research on peer conferencing