Taferner, “Toward Effective EFL Writing Revision...”Feature Article
Toward Effective EFL Writing Revision:Peer Review
Robert H. TafernerTama University
Abstract
This study examines the attitudes of second-year university Japanese
EFL students majoring in English toward peer review as part of therevision process during paragraph writing. Students were asked tocomplete pre- and post-course surveys to explore their attitudes
regarding peer review. To triangulate this research, a case study utilized
textual analysis to examine the types of revisions made. Initially, resultsfrom the pre-course survey indicated that most students felt that they
were unable to provide useful feedback to their peers. Students also
believed that they could only give feedback that was superficial, andlacked the knowledge and skill to give comprehensive comments andsuggestions that their peers required. The post-course survey reveals
that most students altered their attitudes towards the efficacy of peer
review, and that most students would be willing to continue using
peer review in future writing classes. However, this study suggests thatstudents maintain skepticism towards their peer’s comments and prefertheir teacher’s feedback after one term.
本研究では、パラグラフ・ライティングの授業を履修している英語
Robert Taferner has been teaching English since 1993 and is currently teaching at
Tama University, School of Global Studies. He holds a MAT-TESOL from the Schoolfor International Training and is a PhD candidate in Applied Linguistics at Lancaster
University, U.K. His research interests include materials development, student
motivation, and teacher training. He can be contacted at robtaferner@hotmail.com.
Taferner, R. H. (2008). Toward effective EFL writing revision: Peer review. OnCUE
Journal, 2(2), 76-91. Copyright © 2008 Robert H. Taferner. OnCUE Journal, ISSN
1882-0220, is available at http://jaltcue-sig.org one year after publication date.

76

OnCUE Journal, 2(2), pp. 76-91

専攻の日本人大学生２年生を対象に、ピア・レビューに対する考え方を調査した。データとして、ピア・レビューに関しての受講前と受講後のアンケートに加え、テキスト分析をしてピア・レビ
ュー後のドラフトの書き直しで実際にどのような修正がされたかを調べた。受講前のアンケートから、学生はクラスメートに有益なフィードバックを与える能力が無い、自分が提供したフィード
バックが表面的である、クラスメートに理解してもらえるコメン
トや提案をする知識や能力が無いと信じていることがわかった。
受講後のアンケート結果では、ほとんどの学生がピア・レビュー
はライティング・スキルの上達に有効であると捉えるようになったことが明らかになった。その一方で、クラスメートのコメントには懐疑的であるが教師のコメントは全面的に取り入れる傾向があることもわかった。

Introduction
This research paper intends to explore Japanese EFL students’
perceptions and actual performance during the revision process while
implementing a structured process writing approach utilizing peer
review as part of the process writing approach. Due to the small-scale
nature of this classroom-based study, the data was triangulated using
pre- and post-course surveys and the textual analysis of revisions in acase study in an effort to investigate my students’ beliefs and attitudes
towards peer review during the process of EFL writing revision. This
exploratory study attempts to answer the following questions:
1. What type of feedback and revision do Japanese university students
believe they need?
2. To what peer-review comments are Japanese university students
most receptive?

Background
Interest in pedagogical approaches to writing instruction has been acontinuing focus of writing research for many years. Some prominent
studies include research into the process writing heuristics as proposedby Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) and Hayes (1996), restructuring
strategies by Roca de Larios, Murphy, and Manchon (1999), anddrafting strategies by Galbraith and Torrance (2004). Flower andHayes’s (1981) cognitive model has additionally contributed to current
writing pedagogy.
The writing processes are commonly categorized into the stages of77

Taferner, “Toward Effective EFL Writing Revision...”planning, formulation, and drafting. In the pre-writing planning stages,
the writer obtains contextual and rhetorical knowledge and proceeds
to construct a working model of the written product (Gabrielatos, 2002;
Hyland, 2002; Matsuda, 2003; Torrance, Thomas, & Robinson, 1996;
White & Arndt, 1991). With the general format of the written work
conceptualized, the writer begins formulation. During formulation, thewriter recalls from memory and with guidance from the pre-writing
stage, writes the composition and restructures writing (Roca de Larios etal., 1999) according to linguistic, ideational, and textual modifications.
Once the first draft has been completed, the process moves on to therevision stage (Faigley & Witte, 1981; Hu, 2005), where the primaryconcerns are problem identification and problem solving.
Although many researchers such as Hedgcock and Lefkowicz(1994), Paulus (1999), and Zhang (1999) assert that multiple drafts
do improve the final paper, it is clear that further empirical evidenceis needed (Hyland, 2003). The consensus is that teacher and peer
feedback (Chandrasegaran, 2002; Cho, 2003; Hayes, 1996; Hayes &Flower, 1983; Hyland, 1998; Kasanga, 2004; Lee, 2003; Sasaki, 2000;
Villamil, & de Guerrero, 1996; Yates, & Kenkel, 2002), and self-revision
are valuable to ESL writing pedagogy (Boud, Cohen, & Sampson,
1999, 2001; Jacobs, Curtis, Braine, & Huang, 1998) and should beincorporated into the writing curriculum where appropriate. Whileprevious research indicates peer feedback/review is useful, further
investigation is necessary to determine how useful it is (Lockhart & Ng,
1993; Tsui & Ng, 2000), and when and how this feedback could be
improved (Neff, 2006).
An area of contention is the negotiation of meaning (Long, 1983;
Mackey, McDonough, Fuji, & Tatsumi, 2001; Oliver & Mackey, 2003;
Shehadeh, 1999; Susser, 1984), selection of input, and subsequent
revision. When engaged in peer review and teacher feedback, thereis the possibility of miscommunication, lack of confidence, or overconfidence in the value of the information received. However, “studies
have reported that students themselves doubt its value, overwhelmingly
preferring teacher feedback” (Hyland, 2002, p. 169). While second
language (L2) contexts are likely to benefit from peer response, culturalissues such as criticizing peers’ work may make students uncomfortable(Min, 2005).

78

OnCUE Journal, 2(2), pp. 76-91

Methodology

Participants
The participants in this study were selected from a class of sixteen
second-year university students in Okinawa. Thirteen students
completed the pre-course survey on the first day of the semester, whilefourteen answered the post-course survey. Volunteers for the case study
component of this project were recruited during the second class.
Two motivated participants responded to my request, one of which
provided sufficient data to be used as a case study for this paper. The
case study participant, Miki (a pseudonym), was able to meet with me
six times for this project.
Data Collection and Analysis
Qualitative and quantitative data were collected from pre- and postcourse surveys and a case study of Miki’s writing process was constructed
through an analysis of the revisions she made on her first assignment.
The surveys conducted on the first and the last day of class addressed
three main areas that will be used in this paper: beliefs about writingin English, teacher feedback, and peer review. The survey consistedof closed-ended questions, yes-no responses, and a variety of Likert
scales. This format was chosen to elicit a wide variety of responses aswell as fixed replies for the purpose of improving the reliability of thedata. Similar questions and statements were used on previous surveys
that resulted in refinements in question type and response options(Taferner, 2006). Japanese was used rather then English to ensurethat language comprehension would not interfere with the students’
responses.
The draft texts in the case study were analyzed using the coding in
Roca de Larios et al.’s restructuring framework (1999), that included
ideational, textual, linguistic categories. “Ideational” items referto the concepts or messages the writer abandons, elaborates on, or
reconceptualizes. Next, textual data refers to coherence and cohesion,
stylistic concerns, and other considerations that are writing task related.
And finally, the linguistic category encompass’ lexical and syntacticchanges. Examples of coding can be seen in the Appendix.
Writing Tasks
The writing assignments used for this study began with pre-writing
tasks such as theme and topic selection, brainstorming, and paragraph79

Taferner, “Toward Effective EFL Writing Revision...”organization (topic sentence, introduction, body, and conclusion).
Once some of the basics were covered early in the course, editing
and proofreading skills were also practiced. Following this training, thefirst process-writing assignment was given to students to complete. The
sequenced writing tasks in this course include narration, description,
cause and effect, and two short argumentative essays.
When students reached the drafting stage, bilingual self-revision andpeer-review checklists were introduced as tools for the students toutilize on their own during class-time or for homework. During thislearner-centered activity, the teacher monitored and helped students
when they requested assistance. By the time the drafting process wascompleted, students will have completed four drafts and then received
final suggestions on their composition from the teacher.

Results

Pre- and Post-course Surveys
The pre- and post-course surveys provided information about thestudents’ beliefs and attitudes towards the various aspects of the writing
and the revision process.
Students’ Writing Difficulties
The students in this study suggested that the use of Japanese still
remains an important aspect of their writing, as reflected in questions
1 and 2 (Table 1). Question 3 (“What do you find difficult when writingin English? Circle all that apply”) revealed that students believed thatstyle and grammar were the most difficult, followed by vocabulary,format, and topic selection. The emphasis on style might have been
due to the students attempt to develop their own writing style, within
an unfamiliar learner-centered environment that allows for increased
student autonomy. The minor differences in the pre- and post-course
survey results may have indicated their continued effort in these areas
over the short duration of one writing course.

80

OnCUE Journal, 2(2), pp. 76-91

Table 1Students’ Cognitive Writing Strategies and Beliefs with Regards to their
Writing Difficulties
Q1: When you write in English, do you first think in Japanese
then translate into English?
Always

Often

Sometimes Hardly ever

Never

Pre-Result

3 (23%)

6 (46%)

3 (23%)

1 (8%)

0%

Post-Result0%

3 (21%)

8 (57%)

2 (14%)

1 (7%)

Q2: When you write in English, do you first write in Japanese
then translate into English?
Always

Often

Sometimes Hardly ever

Never

Pre-result

0%

0%

0%

4 (33%)

8 (67%)

Post-result0%0%

4 (29%)

2 (14%)

8 (57%)

Q3: What do you find difficult when writing in English? Circle allthat apply.
Topic
Content Format Vocabulary Grammar Punctuation Style
selection
Preresult

10%

0%

14%

20%

24%

Post13%
4%
8%
25%
21%
resultNotes: Pre-course Result N = 13; Post-course result N =14

3%

27%

0%

29%

Table 2Students’ Writing Revision Strategies
Questions

Yes

SometimesNo

1. When you write, do you think of who
will read your writing?
[Focus on Audience]

38%

54%

8%

43%

50%

7%

2. When you write, do you think about the 46%
purpose of your writing? [Focus on Writing
64%
Objective]

38%

15%

36%

0%

54%

38%

8%

71%

29%

0%

3. When you write, do you think of how
to make your point clear to your reader(s)?
[Focus on Writing Style / Audience]81

Taferner, “Toward Effective EFL Writing Revision...”(Table 2 continued from p. 27)
4. Do you change words to make yourwriting more comprehensible before
handing it in? [*Indicating Substitution,
and Consolidation] [Focus on Process]

62%

38%

0%

43%

50%

7%

23%

8%

36%

0%

5. Do you delete and/or add some69%
sentences to make your writing morecomprehensible before handing it in?
[*Indicating Deletion and Addition] [Focus 64%
on Process]6. Do you change the organization of
38%
46%
15%
sentences to make your writing morecomprehensible before handing it in?
43%
50%
7%
[*Indicating Movement] [Focus on
Process]* This represents Faigley and Witte’s (1981) revision criteria
Notes: Pre-course Result N = 13; Post-course Result N =14; bolded percentages
represent post-course responses

Knowledge about and Practice of Writing Strategies
It is apparent that students perceived that they possessed a numberof writing and revision strategies as presented in Table 2. The results
indicated a general ability to make changes to their work prior to
submitting their final paper. However, students did not particularly
think of the reader at the pre-submission stage (see questions 1 and
3—pre-course survey results). Students who revised their writing
primarily made their sentences more comprehensible to themselves(see questions 4, 5, and 6) using substitution and consolidation (62%),
deletion and addition (69%), and movement (38%), as shown by the
pre-course survey results. Over the period one term, the post-course
survey results pointed to students’ increased focus on addressing theaudiences’ needs, the writing objective, the appropriate writing style,and the revision process.
Attitudes towards Teacher Feedback
The majority of students agreed (see Table 3) that the teacher’scomments would help improve assignments if resubmitted. Most
students also felt that they would like the teacher to help them improvetheir drafts. The reason given for this response is that the teacher was82

OnCUE Journal, 2(2), pp. 76-91

viewed as the one possessing expertise and superior knowledge,
and thus able to provide the necessary answers to correct mistakes
in their compositions. When asked about how they would feel if theteacher did not provide feedback on their work, students expresseddisappointment and regarded such a practice as meaningless. The
types of feedback students desire on their compositions ranged fromcomments on content and logical presentation, to textual and linguistic
advice. From these suggestions, it appeared that a variety of feedback
from the teacher was very important to these students and that a lackof pertinent comments and suggestions from the teacher would resultin motivational issues during the term.
Attitudes towards Peer Review
Pre-course survey responses (Table 4) revealed that 12 out of 13
students ad previously experienced peer-review exercises. Responses
to question 4 suggested that students believed their classmates could
not help them with their textual revisions through peer review.
However, half of the replies were positive and students indicated that
it was possible that their ability to give suggestions and comments totheir partners could improve. Also, when undertaking this exercise(see question 5), students thought they could take this opportunity toapply what they learnt through this experience to their own writing.
For example, new expressions, and the identification of errors in theirpeer’s work would help point out their own problems.

Case Study of Miki’s Writing Revisions

Text Analysis-Substitution and Movement
In this case study of Miki’s writing revisions on her first writing
assignment, the data (Table 5) showed that she relied primarily on
substitution strategies to bring about the desired results. Movement
came second, but as a cautionary note, the movements made were
mostly for stylistic purposes and not necessarily for coherence or forcohesion. Next, minor additions and one consolidation were made,accounting for approximately 24% of the changes. The overall results
indicate that very few ideational revisions were necessary, totaling
13.5% of the changes, textual revisions at 35.1%, and linguistic
modifications at 51.3%.

83

Taferner, “Toward Effective EFL Writing Revision...”Table 3Teacher Feedback
Q1: Do you think your writing
will improve if your teacher
makes comments on yourwriting then you resubmit yourfinal paper?

SA

A

RA

RD

D

SD

31%

39%

23%

0%

8%

0%

71%

29%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Q2. Would you like your teacher to help improveyour drafts?

Yes

I don’t
know

69%

31%

93%

7%

Table 4Peer Review
Questions

Yes

No

Q1: Do you have experience reading your classmates
written work?

12

1

Q2: Do you have experience making comments andsuggesting corrections to your classmates writing?

103

Pre Q3: Would you like to try peer review in your writingclass?
Post Q3: Would you like to try peer review in a writingclass in the future?

10

3

11

3

Q4: Do you think you can help your classmates makecorrections to their writing?

6

6

10

3

SA
Pre Q5. Do you think your writing
may improve if a classmate makescomments on your writing?

0%

A

RA

RD

D

SD

42%) 42%

0%

8%

8%

Post Q5. Do you think your writing
improved when a classmate made 43% 43% 0%
7% 7% 0%comments on your writing?
Notes: Key: SA=strongly agree; A=agree; RA=relatively agree; RD=relatively
disagree; D=disagree; SD=strongly disagree; Pre-course Result N = 13; Postcourse Result N =14; bolded figures represent post-course responses
84

OnCUE Journal, 2(2), pp. 76-91

Table 5Miki’s Draft Revisions
Ideational
Item

Draft 1 Draft 2 Draft 3
Draft 4
Peer
Peer
Teacher
Teacher Finalreview 1 review 2 feedback 1 feedback 2

TotalsMessageabandonment

0

0

0

0

0

0

Messageelaboration

1

0

1

2

1

5

Reconceptualization

0

0

0

0

0

0

TextualCoherencecohesion

3

0

0

1

0

4

Stylistic concerns0

1 (*1)

10 (*4)5 (*2)

0

16

Task related

0

0

0

0

0

0

Linguistic
Lexical changes

0

0

2

0

0

2

Syntactic changes

12

16 (*11)16 (*7)

3 (*3)

38-

8 (*1)

Total Revision Comments
Peer review

5

3 (*1)--

Teacher feedback
29 (*15)24 (*9) 4 (*3) 57 (*27)
Note: Roca de Larios et al.’s restructuring framework (1999) and Faigley &Witte’s (1981) criteria were adapted for this table.
*Suggested revisions not madeText Analysis-Syntactic Changes
The results in Table 5 indicate that syntactic changes followed bystylistic revisions were the most prominent, indicating that the teacher
mostly addressed surface-level inadequacy. Another interesting finding
was that many of the comments and suggestions of the teacher were
not addressed by the writer. It is possible that Miki may not haveunderstood the recommendations at first, or may not have had the time
to determine a possible solution to the problem. When asked during
an interview specifically about the lack of attention to these oversights,
85

Taferner, “Toward Effective EFL Writing Revision...”Miki said that she noticed the comments but felt that solving the problem
on her own was too difficult. A possible pedagogical repercussion forthese findings may be an improvement in specific grammar awarenessexercises as part of an intervention protocol.

Discussion and Conclusion
The pre- and post-course surveys and the case study in this researchon peer review have helped further understand students’ perceptions
and actions during process-writing tasks. In the case study, Miki’s
responses to the revision tasks indicated that a more active role might
be necessary to work at the problem areas that were evident in laterdrafts. Miki appeared to flourish with familiar formulation tasks, but
may have been hesitant or unable to fully take advantage of all of therevision opportunities, as 42.4% of the review comments appear not
to have been fully utilized (see Table 5 and the Appendix for details).
While it appears that Miki’s revision skills have been developing,it became apparent that she was not ready to move from her wellestablished role as a passive recipient of knowledge, and makerevisions that required further thought on her part. Once the peerreview and teacher feedback process began, Miki appeared to let
the process take over, limiting additional and original input in further
drafts. This may not be so surprising as researchers (e.g., Paulus, 1999)
found that teacher feedback and peer review often provided meaninglevel revision, while self-revision frequently resulted in surface levelchanges. Also, the textual analysis of Miki’s drafts (see Table 8) illustratethat the teacher’s suggestions were responsible for initiating 81.1% of
the changes made, which is consistent with the pre- and post-course
survey data suggesting that students were still skeptical of their peer’scomments and preferred their teacher’s feedback (see Table 5).
Returning to this study’s research questions—What type of feedback
and revision do my students believe they need?, and, What peer-review
comments are my students most receptive to?,—clearly, in the earlystages of the utilization of peer review within the context of a process
writing approach, teacher feedback is overwhelmingly favored overpeer review. However, over time, students are more to likely accept
the comments of their peers to improve the comprehension of theircompositions (see Table 4). This limited study suggests the need forfurther research concerning the kinds of comments that students want,
and what peers and teachers can give to improve students’ writing
86

OnCUE Journal, 2(2), pp. 76-91

skills. Other factors including ethnographic, sociocognitive (Myles,
2002; Zamel, 1987), and cultural influences (Holliday, 1994), which
may have deep-rooted implications in the EFL writing classroom should
also be explored longitudinally on a larger scale is to fully understandthe nature of peer interaction during writing revision, and its efficacy
within the context of Japanese EFL writing pedagogy.
Notes
1. All questionnaire items are available upon request.

References
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). An attainable version of highliteracy: Approaches to teaching higher-order skills in reading andwriting. Curriculum Inquiry, 17(1), 9-30.
Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999). Peer learning andassessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4),413–426.
Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (2001). Peer learning in higher
education: Learning from and with each other. London: Kogan
Page.
Chandrasegaran, A. (2002). Intervening to help in the writing process.
Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Cho, Y. (2003). Assessing writing: Are we bound by only one method?
Assessing Writing, 8, 165-191.
Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition
and Communication, 32, 400-414.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing.
College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.
Gabrielatos, C. (2002). EFL writing: Product and process. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Services No. ED476839).
Galbraith, D., & Torrance, M. (2004). Revision in the context ofdifferent drafting strategies. In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, and P. Largy(Eds.), Revision of written language: Cognitive and instructional
approaches (pp. 63-86). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition andaffect in writing. In C. M. Levy & S. R. Ransdell (Eds.), The scienceof writing (pp.1-27). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. (1983). Uncovering the cognitive process in87

Taferner, “Toward Effective EFL Writing Revision...”writing: An introduction to protocol analysis. In P. Mosenthal, L.
Tamor, & S. A. Walmsey (Eds.), Research on writing: Principles andmethods (pp. 204-220). New York: Longman.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowicz, N. (1994). Feedback on feedback: Assessing
learner receptivity to teacher response in L2 composing. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 3, 141-163.
Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers.
Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 321-342.
Hyland, F. (2003). Focusing on form: Student engagement with teacher
feedback. System, 31(2), 217-230.
Hyland, F (1998). The impact of teacher written feedback on individual
writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(3), 255-86.
Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. London:
Longman.
Jacobs, G. M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S. (1998). Feedback
on student writing: Taking the middle path. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 7(3), 307-317.
Kasanga, L. A. (2004). Students’ response to peer and teacher feedback
in a first-year writing course. Journal for Language Teaching, 38(1),63-114.
Lee, I. (2003). L2 writing teachers’ perspectives, practices and problems
regarding error feedback. Assessing Writing, 8, 216-237.
Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1993). How useful is peer response? Perspectives[Working Papers], 5(1), 12-29. Department of English, City
Polytechnic of Hong Kong.
Long, M. H. (1983). Native-speaker/non-native speaker conversations
and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics,
4, 126-141.
Mackey, A., McDonough, K., Fuji, A., & Tatsumi, T. (2001). Investigating
learners’ reports about the L2 classroom. IRAL, 39, 285-308.
Matsuda, P. K. (2003). Process and post-process: A discursive history.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(1), 65-83.
Min, H.-T. (2005). Training students writers to become successful peer
reviewers. System, 33(2), 293-308.
Myles, J. (2002). Second language writing and research: The writing
process and error analysis in student texts. TESL-EJ, 6(2). Retrieved
February 28, 2008, from http://tesl-ej.org/ej35/a2.html
88

OnCUE Journal, 2(2), pp. 76-91

Neff, P. E. (2006). Peer review in ESL/EFL writing courses: A look at fivestudies. Doshisha Studies in Language and Culture, 9(2), 345-371.
Oliver, R., & Mackey, A. (2003). Interactional context and feedback inchild ESL classrooms. The Modern Language Journal, 87(iv), 519533.
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student
writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265-289.
Roca de Larios, J., Murphy, L., & Manchon, R. M. (1999). The use ofrestructuring strategies in EFL writing: A study of Spanish speakers
of English as a foreign language. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 8(1), 13-44.
Sasaki, M. (2000). Toward an empirical model of EFL writing processes:
An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3),259 - 291.
Shehadeh, A. (1999). Insights into learner output. English Teaching
Forum, 37(4), 2-5.
Susser, B. (1994). Process approaches in ESL/EFL writing instruction.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 31-47.
Taferner, R. H. (2006). EFL process writing: An exploratory study of
the revision process. Unpublished paper. Lancaster University.
Department of Linguistics and English Language. Lancaster, UK.
Torrance, M., Thomas, G. V., & Robinson, E. J. (1996). Finding
something to write about: Strategic and automatic processes inidea generation. In M. Levy, & S. Ransdell (Eds.), The science ofwriting (pp. 189-206). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 learners benefit
from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2),147-170.
Villamil, O. S., & Guerrero, M. C. M. de (1996). Peer revision in L2
classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, aspectof social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 51-75.
White, R., & Arndt, V. (1991). Process writing. New York: Longman.
Yates, R., & Kenkel, J. (2002). Responding to sentence-level errors inwriting. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11(1), 29-47.
Zamel, V. (1987). Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL
Quarterly, 21(4), 697-715.
Zhang, S. (1999). Thoughts on some recent evidence concerning theaffective advantage of peer feedback. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 8(3), 321-326.
89

Taferner, “Toward Effective EFL Writing Revision...”Appendix

Draft #3 (Teacher’s comments)
My mentor (1)– Ayumi Yamashiro
I have some people whom I respect and admire. Some people arefamiliar for me like [insert] (2) Mother and friend. Other people are not,because they are famous and popular. All of them are very importantand influential person (3) for my life. I’d [change not made] (4) liketo introduce one of my Mentor [change to plural] (5) who made my
dream a reality.
[Tab 5 spaces ➔] (6) Ayumi Yamashiro is one of my best friends. I met
her through a mutual friend. She is my Mentor (7) and we have a lotin common.
➔ (8) She was born in 1971, four years senior than (9) me. At age
fifteen, she entered Kaiho- high school (10) which I also entered four
years later. Our high school was new and established for students whowish to go to colleges. (11) Most students wanted to go to [insert](12) University of the Ryu-kyus. But she wanted to leave Okinawa andbroaden her view. That was why she went to college in Kyusyu [shu](13).
➔ (14) She majored in English literature because she liked to study
English. She seemed she had a good college life. She was interested inliving in Tokyo. So in 1993, she went to work in Tokyo after graduationof college. She worked at Computer Company (15). She has met somany people. Some of her co-worker was from foreign country andthat made her [delete] (16) motivate in studying [change to: motivated
her to study] (17) English harder.
➔ (18) One day, she decided to go back Okinawa and go to college
again. She decided to become an English teacher. In 2000, she wasat (19) age twenty nine, she entered Okinawa international (20)University (21a). She says it was the most impressive and interestingtime in her life. Not only she studied hard to take a teacher’s license,
but also she made a lot of friends.

90

OnCUE Journal, 2(2), pp. 76-91➔ (22) Two years later, she graduated from college (21b) and got ateacher’s license. That same year, she started working at high school asa teacher. It was part-time employee so she started studying to pass theteacher employment exam with working [?] (23). She had her class so
there was no difference between the employed teacher and the parttime teacher like her. It was very hard for her to have enough time to
study for the exam. She spent the most of her weekend time in thelibrary for almost a year. She failed the exam at first try but she didn’t
give up. And finally, this year, at age thirty four, she could pass theexam! She’ll [she will] (24) be employed from next year.
➔ (25) It was fateful encounter [?] (26) for me. I met her when she
was working with (27) studying for the exam. I had been thinking
about my feature. (28) I was in same situation with her. I wanted to
be an English teacher and needed to go to college again. I had somehesitation because I was worried aboutbut (29) she gave me lot ofadvice and she’d encouraged me. She taught me that we can have myown dream and it’s very important to make effort for my dream.
Notes: 1 substitution: stylistic; 2 addition: syntactic; 3 substitution:
syntactic; 4 substitution: stylistic; 5 substitution: syntactic; 6 movement:
stylistic; 7 substitution: syntactic; 8 movement: stylistic; 9 substitution:
syntactic; 10 substitution: syntactic; 11 substitution: syntactic; 12
addition: syntactic; 13 substitution: stylistic; 14 movement: stylistic;
15 substitution: syntactic; 16 deletion: syntactic; 17 substitution:
syntactic; 18 movement: stylistic; 19 substitution: syntactic; 20
substitution: syntactic; 21ab substitution: lexical; 22 movement:
stylistic; 23 substitution: syntactic; 24 substitution: stylistic; 25
movement: stylistic; 26 addition: syntactic; 27 substitution: syntactic;
28 substitution: lexical; 29 substitution: (the writer regarded this as anaddition: elaboration)

91