Feature Article
Creating an Effective Peer Response Sheet::
An Empirical Study
Reina Wakabayashi
Kyoto University
ピアフィードバックは推敲の補助のみならず，自律した書き手を育成するための方法として有効とされる。本論は，ピアフィードバックのタスク中に用いられるピアリスポンスシートに着目し，その作成という観点から協働学
習における教師の役割を考察した。調査では，従来のピアリスポンスシー
トと，ピアフィードバックにおける問題点に焦点を当てて新たに作成したピ
アリスポンスシートを学習者が用い，それらの評価を行った。その結果，学習者はそれぞれのピアリスポンスシートの有用性と困難を報告し，協働学習における教師の役割および効果的な教材作成を行うための示唆を得た。

Introduction
In the process-oriented writing classroom, peer feedback is seen as
an important element for both student revision and student motivation.
The utility of peer feedback is not limited to revision support but it is also
an effective teaching methodology which aims to empower students
as writers through reflecting on each other’s’ss writing. The pedagogicalbenefits of peer feedback on student revision and cognition have beenreported from both L1 (English as a first language) (Nystrand & Brandt,
1989) and L2 (English as a second/foreign language) (Chaudron, 1984;
Mittan, 1989) classrooms. In Japan, however, process-oriented writing
instruction is not yet established, and despite its appeal, peer feedback
is under-practiced. The
he reason for the unpopularity of peer feedback in
the Japanese context can be found in the Japanese classroom culture,
where learner-centeredness is a relatively new concept.
Although peer feedback is a learner-centered learning task, teacher
3Wakabayashi

support is crucial in providing a task environment
ment that promotes
and facilitates learners’ engagement. Teacher support is even more
important when the learners’ level of achievement is at the beginningstage. Moreover, in the Japanese context, teachers have even more
responsibility for careful oversight, because the technique is introducedon their initiative.
The purpose of this study is to examine the teacher’s’ss role inintroducing and supporting the peer feedback process,, focusing on
task material preparation. The Peer Response Sheet guidess the peer
feedback process. Despite the significant role it plays for effective
peer feedback conduct, it is often regarded as an optional supplement
and it has not received sufficient research attention. As an attempt
to examine the teacher’s’s participation in a learner-centeredcentered learningtask, this study investigates the utility of two different formats of Peer
Response Sheet from the student’s perspective, especially as it affects
student performance on the task.

Why Use Peer Feedback?
Process-oriented writing instruction highlights
ts the importanceof providing feedback to revise texts through multiple drafting. It is
desirable that writers can self-diagnose
diagnose the problems in their own
texts. However, providing objective and critical self-feedback may bepossible for expert writers, yet difficult if not impossible for learners
with insufficient writing experience.
For novice writers, feedback from others should support the drafting
process. Among the variety of feedback, teacher feedback might be thefirst option for learners in a teacher-learner classroom.. The advantageof teacher feedback is that learners receive authoritative comments,,
including correction and evaluation. Because of its instructional
function, learners tend to consider teacher feedback to be more helpful
than peer feedback (Nelson & Carson, 1998; Saito, 1994; Zhang,,

4Wakabayashi, OnCUE Journal, 2(1), pages 3-23

1995). However, research indicates that peer feedback is not inferior
to teacher feedback (Chaudron, 1984; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1992;
Paulus, 1999), and that peer feedback providess some pedagogicalbenefits that teacher feedback alone cannot..
Liu and Hansen (2002) summarize the benefits of peer feedback
in four categories: cognitive, social, linguistic, and practical. In the
cognitive domain, peer feedback promotes the students’’ active
participation in learning,, thereby honing students’’ critical and analyticalskills which are necessary for effectively revising their own writing.
Moreover, during peer feedback negotiation,, learners talk about what
they have learned so that they can reflect on their knowledge or skills
to realize what they need to improve. Collaborating with other learners
as reviewers and writers also encourages reader awareness, that is, theawareness to revise for the readers’’ understanding.. Social benefits referto the learners’’ motivation enhancement and apprehension decrease.
Peer
eer feedback generates “group
group dynamics”” (Dörnyei
Dörnyei & Murphey,ey,y, 2003;
Guerrero & Villamil, 2000) in the classroom and allows collegial ties
with other students that resultss in a comfortable learning environment.
Linguistically, peer feedback enables learners to practice reading andwriting. The practical benefits include the flexibility of peer feedback
to be utilized in any stage of the writing process (e.g., prewriting,drafting, editing). These pedagogical benefits appeal to the English
nglishglish
writing teacher
er in Japan, especially in the university setting where thestudents need the explicit teaching of how to write while becoming
autonomous learners.
The
he difficulties of using peer feedback are also reported. “RubberRubberstamp”” peer comments such as “good”
good”” or “bad”
bad”” (Sommers, 1980;
Zamel, 1985) and lack of learner investment (Carson,
Carson, 1992; Carson &Nelson, 1994, 1996; Nelson & Carson, 1998; Zhang, 1995) are bothclaimed to hinder successful peer feedback. The imbalance of learners’’
writing skills and distrust of peer comments also require consideration..
However, thesehese limitations of peer feedback can be overcome to some5

Wakabayashi

extent by teacher support such as training (Berg, 1999; Hedgcock &Lefkowitz, 1992; Min, 2005, 2006;; Stanley, 1992; Zhu, 1995, 2001)
and proper guidance in the use of proper task materials.

Why Use a Peer Response Sheet?
The Peer Response Sheet (PRS) is a set of questions about the given
texts for the reviewers to follow and write in their comments during
the peer feedback session. Although peer feedback can be attempted
simply by exchanging texts among writers, PRS is a powerful aid for
effective peer feedback. The three major functions of the PRS are as::1) a peer feedback process guide, 2) a peer negotiation facilitator, and3) commentary notes for the subsequent revision. Through planningquestion items in the PRS, teachers can present the focus points forrevision, or the important factors of writing. Teachers can even guidelearners’’ peer negotiation process by structuring the question items.
With the PRS, learners would engage in challenging reviews that theyusually would not attempt to do. After the task, the PRS with writtencomments functionss as commentary notes for writers to refer to inrevising.
The PRS needs to be task-based and learner-based. Therefore, it
is important on the teacher’s’ss part to prepare an appropriate sheet
for the writing task at hand. At the same time, it is also important totake into account the learners’’ cognitive level in designing cognitive
strategies. Therehere
ere are three types of questions used in PRSs:
s:: structured
questions (e.g., Does the draft begin with the thesis statement??), semistructured questions (e.g., What is the thesis statement?
statement?), and openended questions (e.g., What would you suggest that the author do torevise this draft?) (Liu & Hansen, 2002). The level of structuredness
predicts the difficulty of the question items as the more structured thequestion items are, the easier it is for learnerss to manage the task. The
three types of questions can be combined in a PRS, yet it is observed

6Wakabayashi, OnCUE Journal, 2(1), pages 3-23

that structured or semi-structured questions are more commonly usedthan open-ended questions.

Empirical Study
Two surveys were conducted to investigate learners’’ perceptionsof the usefulness of two different formats of PRS. For thisis study, theresearcher prepared two different formats of PRS – a “traditional”
traditional””
format and an “alternative”
alternative”” format - for learners to use and examine
their comparative utility in the process of writing comments and oral
negotiation. The purpose of investigating the learners’’ perception of
two different formats of PRS was to develop alternatives that could fill
the gap between the help needed in peer feedback and the existing
PRSs.

Survey 1
Participants
There were 25 participants, all Japanese university students enrolled
in a five-day intensive English course at a university in the Kansai area.
The students were all female with varying majors and grades. Theyhey
eywere selected for the course based on the following two criteria: 1) an
essay about their motivation to learn English,, 2) TOEIC (Test of English
for International Communication) score of under 600.
00.. None of themhad taken TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) or experienced
peer feedback before.

Materials
Three kinds of materials were used: a TOEFL writing test for theparticipants to compose the first drafts, two formats of PRSs,s,, and a
post-task questionnaire.

7

Wakabayashi

TOEFL Writing TestFor
orr the participants to compose their first drafts, essay topics from
CBT (Computer Based Test) TOEFL writing test were used. The TOEFL
writing test was a good option because it was developed
eveloped to assess thetest taker’s basic academic writing skills required
uired at universities using
English as the medium of instruction. From the sample TOEFL essay
topics provided in the back of the TOEFL bulletin, the topics chosen forsurvey 1 were the following:
Topic 1: Some people prefer to live in a small town. Others prefer tolive in a big city. Which place would you prefer to live in? Use specificreasons and examples to support you choice.
Topic 2: Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
t?
Children should begin learning a foreign language as soon as they startschool. Use specific reasons and examples to support your answer.
Peer Response Sheet A
PRS-A was developed in reference to the existing PRSs provided
in the previous studies that the researcher obtained (Berg, 1999;
Connor & Asenavege, 1994; Hedgcock & Lefkowitz, 1992; Hosack,2003; Mangelsdorf, 1992; Mendonca & Johnson, 1994; Min, 2005;;
Ng, 1994; Paulus, 1999; Sengupta, 1998; Zhu, 2001). The PRSs had
a semi-structured or structured format, and the typical question items
they shared were included in PRS-A. The question items were also
selected based on the basic components of the TOEFL writing test
(topic statement, supporting evidence of the topic statement, and theconcluding remark). As in other existing PRSs, the focus was placed
more on the content level matters (e.g., organization) than surface
level matters (e.g., grammatical errors.) The emphasis on content levelproblems was based on revision research (Faigley & Witte, 1981;
Sommers, 1980; Zamel, 1985) that found skilled writers apply revision
more at the content level while unskilled writers focus too heavily on
surface level problems. All the question items were written in Japanese
8Wakabayashi, OnCUE Journal, 2(1), pages 3-23

for their use giving peer feedback in Japanese. Although linguistic
development in the target language could be expected through its
use in peer feedback, Japanese was chosen in this study to put moreemphasis on the peer feedback task itself rather than on the challenge
of using English.
Peer Response Sheet
heet
eet B
PRS-B was developed as an alternative format with more openended questions. The question items were constructed and arranged
based on three ideas of alternative format: 1) more writer participation,,
2) more oral negotiation,, and 3) use of a scale for rating. These threeideas were included as a reflection of the aforementioned constraintsof peer feedback: rubber-stamp peer comments and lack of learnerinvestment. Scale rating was included because it was the type ofquestion not included in the existing PRSs but which could promotelearner engagement. As in PRS-A, all the question items were written
in Japanese.
Post-task Questionnaire
The participants responded to a post-task questionnaire that asked
about the two formats of PRS they used in the peer feedback task. The
questions asked were:(1) Which Peer Response Sheet (A or B) did you find useful as
reviewer? Why?
(2) Which Peer Response Sheet (A or B) did you find useful as
writer?
riter?
ter? Why?
(3) Which question items did you find effective for peer feedback(for both A and B)? Why?
(4) Which question items did you find difficult to engage in peer
feedback (for both A and B)? Why?
hy?
y?
(5) Which question items did you find unnecessary for peer
feedback (for both A and B)? Why?
9

Wakabayashi

Procedure
The data
ata collection took place in the last two days of an English
intensive course offered in September 2006. After a mini-lecture on
TOEFL writing, thehe participants engaged in 30 minutes of TOEFL
writing on a paper using the essay topic 1
1. They were allowed to use
dictionaries and the TOEFL sample writing during the test. After thetest session, the participants formed 11 pairs and one group of three
to engage in 30 minutes peer feedback (10 minutes written comment
session and 10 minutes oral feedback session for each partner) inJapanese using PRS-A.. The revising of the first drafts was done as
homework for the next day. They were allowed to refer to any source
besides the received peer comments..
On the next day, thehe learners composed another essay for TOEFL
essay topic 2. After the writing session, the learners engaged in peer
feedback using PRS-B.. At the end of the second class, thehe participants
responded to the questionnaire concerning their opinions about thetwo formats of PRS they used and the peer feedback task..

Results
The responses of the post-task questionnaire revealed that asreviewers, 7 participants (28%) preferred
eferredferredred
ed PRS-A and 18 participants(72%) PRS-B. As writers, 2 students (8%) preferred PRS-A while thevast majority,, 23 (92%),, preferred PRS-B. Table 1 summarizes theparticipants’ preferencess between the two formats of PRS.

10

Wakabayashi, OnCUE Journal, 2(1), pages 3-23

Table 1

Summary of students’’ preferences for Peer Response Sheet type (survey
1)
Preference
Ass reviewer

As writer

Peer Response
Sheet A

Number of
Responses*
esponses*7

Peer Response
Sheet B

18

Peer Response
Sheet A

2

Peer Response
Sheet B

23

Reasons (number of
responses)**• Revision points wereclearly presented (3)• Easier to write comments
directly on the drafts (4)• Questions/responses fromwriters were helpful (6)• Open-ended questions
were helpful (9)• Scale-assessment was
useful (1)• Q8 was helpful (1)• Structured questions are
better than open-ended
questions (1)• Questions/responses fromwriters were helpful (9)• Open-ended questions
were helpful (6)• Helpful to have my points
and supports restated by
the reviewer (6)* The individual preferences for PRS types could vary either as reviewer
or as writer.
** Not all the learners provided the reasons for their preferences.

The
he question items found to be effective, difficult,, and unnecessary
are summarized in Table 2.. For PRS-A,
RS-A,
A,, the question item most reported
as effective was Q5 (check the sufficiency of text development
evelopment withpossible suggestions from the reviewer). Q6 (check the logicality ofthe text and explain the possible problems) was perceived to be themost difficult and Q3 (count the number of supporting examples
examples) as
the most unnecessary among the responses. For PRS-B, Q4 (check thetext’s’ss persuasiveness using scale-rating)scale-rating was reported as both the mosteffective and the most difficult.. Q6 ((state what you liked about the text
text)
was perceived as the most unnecessary..

11

Wakabayashi

Table 2
Summary of the responses about the question items perceived to beeffective, difficult, or unnecessary (survey 1)
PTRSA

Effective

Difficult

Unnecessary

2
1
1
7
13
4
10
10
2
7

1
3
2
4
6
9
3
4

3
2
8

Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10

PRSB

Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6

Effective

Difficult

11
6
10
19
11
6

2
2
2
9
9
4

Unnecessary

1
1
2

2
1

Survey 2
Participants
74 participants were enrolled in two different TOEFL courses atanother university in the Kansai area. They were all sophomore
students from varying majors. TOEFL course 1 was comprised of 24
male and 4 female students and TOEFL course 2 included 42 male and4 female students. The coursework of these two courses were the same
and were taught by the same professor. At the time of data collection,
one month had passed since the courses started, and therefore theparticipants already had experience of TOEFL essay writing.. However,theyhey
ey had never experienced peer feedback using PRS..
Materials
The same PRS-A, B, and post-task questionnaire used in survey
1 were used. Only the TOEFL writing topics differed from survey 1
because iBT (Internet based test) TOEFL was the target of the courses
instead of CBT TOEFL. Therefore, two types of writing task - independenttask and integrated task - were used to compose the first drafts. The
independent task offers the same type of question as in the CBT test.
12

Wakabayashi, OnCUE Journal, 2(1), pages 3-23

In the integrated task, test takers read a passage on a certain topic andlisten to a lecture on the same topic before a writing task is given. The
following essay topics were used for survey 2:
Topic 1 (independent task): Do you agree or disagree with thefollowing statement?
Actions speak louder than words. Use reasons and examples tosupport your response.
Topic 2 (integrated task): How does the information in the listening
passage add to the ideas presented in the reading passage?
Procedure
The data were collected in two classes
es of each course in November
2006. After 30 minutes of essay writing on a paper, 30 minutes ofpaired peer feedback session was held using PRS. The combinationof the types of TOEFL writing task and the variations of PRS were asshown in Table 3. During the composition, the participants were notallowed to use dictionaries or any source of help. After the secondclass, thehe participants responded to the questionnaire..
Table 3The combination of TOEFL writing task type and Peer Response Sheettype (survey
survey 2)
Type of TOEFL writing task

TOEFL course 1

TOEFL course 2

Independent
ndependent task
(writing only)

Peer Response Sheet A

Peer Response Sheet B

Integrated
ntegrated task(reading, listening, and writing )Peer Response Sheet B

Peer Response Sheet A

Results
Results of the preferencess between the two formats of PRS for TOEFL
course 1 are summarized in Table 4. Although not all the learners
expressed their preferences for PRS types, in the responses given, 20
participants (77%) preferred
eferredferredrred
red PRS-A and 5 participants (19%) PRS-B as
13

Wakabayashi

reviewers. As writers, 13 students (50 %) preferred PRS-A and 10 (38%) PRS-B.
Table 4
Summary of students’’ preferences of Peer Response Sheet type (survey
2: TOEFL course 1)
Preference

Ass reviewer

As writer

Number of
responses*

Peer Response Sheet A

20

Peer Response Sheet B

5Peer Response Sheet A

13Peer Response Sheet B

10

Reasons (number of
responses)**• Revision points wereclearly presented (8)• The
he other Peer Response
Sheet (B) was notuseful (5)• Difficult
ifficult to evaluate
someone’s’ss free writing(1)• Both sheets were good
actually but there was
not enough time to go
through everything (1)• The
he other Peer Response
Sheet (A) was notuseful (3)• It was more simple andeasier (1)• Scale-assessment was
helpful (1)• The problems of thedrafts were commented
precisely (5)• Scale-assessment was
helpfulful (2)• Questions/responses
uestions/responses/responses
from writers were
ere
helpful (2)• Open-ended questions
were helpful (3)* The individual preferences for PRS types could vary either as reviewer
or as writer.
** Not all the learners provided the reasons for their preferences.
The question items found to be effective, difficult,, and unnecessary
14Wakabayashi, OnCUE Journal, 2(1), pages 3-23

are summarized in Table 5.. For PRS-A,
RS-A,
A,, the question item most reported
as effective was Q7,
7,, whereby
by the reviewer underlines the confusing parts
artss
in the text.. Q6 ((check the logicality of the text and explain the possible
problems) was perceived to be the most difficult and Q8,, whereby thereviewer has to restate the confusing part, as the most unnecessary
among the responses. For PRS-B, the question item most reported as
effective was Q4 (check the text’s’ss persuasiveness using scale-rating).
scale-rating .
Amongmong the responses,, Q3 ((explain the interpreted support of the mainidea) and Q1 (give comments for the questions asked by the writer)
were most reported as difficult and unnecessary respectively.
Table 5
Summary of the responses about the question items perceived to beeffective, difficult, or unnecessary (survey 2: TOEFL course 1)
PRSA
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10

Effective

Difficult

Unnecessary

7
7
4
6
11
5
13
7
1
7

1
6
1
6
5
9
3
7
2
3

1
4
4
1
2

PRSB
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6

Effective

Difficult

Unnecessary

3
9
5
11
7
5

5
4
13
3
5
2

7
4
4
3
1
3

1
7
3

Results of the preferencess between the two formats of PRSss of
TOEFL course 2 are summarized in Table 6. As reviewers, 8 participants(17%) preferred
eferredferredrred
red PRS-A and 35 participants (76%) PRS-B. As writers, 10
students (22%) preferred PRS-A and 31 (67%) PRS-B. There was one
participant who found both A and B helpful as a writer.

15

Wakabayashi

Table 6
Summary of students’’ preferences of Peer Response Sheet type (survey
2: TOEFL course 2)

Ass reviewer

As writerPreference

Number of
Responses*
esponses*Peer Response Sheet A

8Peer Response Sheet B

35

Peer Response Sheet A

10Peer Response Sheet B

31

Reasons (number of
responses)**• Easier
ier to write comments
directly on the drafts(2)• Revision
evision points wereclearly presented (3)• Questions/responses
from writers were
useful (4)• Open-ended questions
were helpful (7)• The other Peer Response
Sheet (A) was notuseful (15)• Revision
evision points wereclearly presented (6)• Questions/responses
from writers were
helpful (5)• Easier to understand (7)• The other Peer Response
Sheet (A) was notuseful (7)• Scale-assessment was
helpfulful (2)• Partner’s
artner’s’ss comment was
unpredictable andinteresting (1)* The individual preferences for PRS types could vary either as reviewer
or as writer.
** Not all the learners provided the reasons for their preferences.
The question items found to be effective, difficult,, and unnecessary
are summarized ininTableTable 7.. For PRS-A,
RS-A,
A,, the question itemss most identified
as being effective were
ere Q5 (check(the sufficiency of text development
evelopmentwith possible suggestions) and Q7
7 (underline the confusing partsartss in thetext). Q4 (check the relevance of the examples to the main ideaidea) and16

Wakabayashi, OnCUE Journal, 2(1), pages 3-23

Q8 (restate the confusing part by the reviewer)
reviewer were most perceived
to be difficult and Q3 (count the number of supporting examples
examples) wasmost considered to be unnecessary. For PRS-B, the most reported as
effective were Q4 ((check the text’s’ss persuasiveness using scale-rating)scale-rating
and Q5 (mark the level of satisfaction with the conclusion using scalerating). Q6 (state what the reviewer liked about text) was most perceived
as both difficult and unnecessary.
Table 7
Summary of the responses about the question items perceived to beeffective, difficult, or unnecessary (survey 2: TOEFL course 2)
PRSA
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6
Q7
Q8
Q9
Q10

Effective

Difficult

Unnecessary

10
7
4
5
14
5
14
6
7
3

7
8
8
10
7
8
6
10
7
6

5
4
10
3
2
2
2
3
4
9

PRSB
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q5
Q6

Effective

Difficult

Unnecessary

4
15
11
16
16
3

6
3
5
7
8
9

4
1
2
2
5
11

Discussion
In survey 1, PRS-B was overwhelmingly preferred to PRS-A both asreviewers and writers. The difficulty expressed in using PRS-A indicatedthe participants’’ lack of confidence as reviewers and hesitation
towards judging the others’’ writings. Q6 ((check the logicality of thetext and explain the possible problems) in the PRS-A was reported tobe the most difficult task as reviewers. The
he reason for the difficulty wasthat the reviewers themselves were not sure how a logical text reads.
Also reported were hesitation towards giving suggestions and fear ofdeteriorating the partner’s text quality. One participant even blamed
her low language proficiency in finding the other’s’ss texts confusing.
As writers, the participants showed appreciation for receiving
17

Wakabayashi

suggestions on their own writing using PRS-A (Q5: check the sufficiency
cyof text development with possible suggestions from reviewer, was foundto be the most effective), and its positive side - revision points are clearlypresented – was recognized. However, PRS-B was a clear preference
for the participants. By using thisis PRS,, which aimed at more writerparticipation and more oral negotiation,, the anxiety of commenting
on the other’s’ss writing was moderated and active participation in peer
feedback was promoted. Open-ended questions could provide spacefor giving positive comments together with rather harsh but necessary
suggestions. The same reason could be given as to why Q10 ((state
what you liked about the text) in PRS-A was liked by the participants.
There is some question here as to whether structured question items
are more helpful than open-ended ones. Open-ended questions could
be more of a psychological help to comment on the other’s’ss texts.
In survey 2, mixed results were obtained. PRS-A was preferredto PRS-B by the participants in TOEFL course 1. The
hee utility of PRS-A,
that the revision points are clearly presented, was appreciated. Q7(underline the confusing parts in the texttext) and Q5 ((check the sufficiency
cyof text development with possible suggestions from reviewer)
reviewer were
found to be effective. This suggests that the participants expected
practical usefulness of the task material for better revision. However,from the reviewer’s’ss point of view, judging the clarity of a text (Q6) was achallenging task as in survey 1. The utility of PRS-B was also recognizedespecially by Q4, the scale scoring of the persuasiveness of a text.
Besides writer participation and oral negotiation, scale scoring was
the other idea that the PRS-B was based on, as an alternative format.
According to the reasons stated, the scale scoring was helpful for thewriters to understand the reviewer’s’ss suggestions. It was also observedthat almost all the participants as reviewers marked the scale scoring
when the open-ended
ended questions were left blank. This indicates thatscale scoring is helpful both for reviewers to provide peer feedback
and for writers to understand the reviewer’s’ss points in an activated peer
18

Wakabayashi, OnCUE Journal, 2(1), pages 3-23

negotiation.
otiation.
ation..
The participants in TOEFL course 2 preferred PRS-B to PRS-A for the
major reason that the latter did not match the task at hand. The TOEFL
integrated task demands the test takers to synthesize the informationfrom reading and listening, but the PRS-A and the other existing PRSs
referred to were constructed to review persuasive essays. This mismatchemphasizes the importance of task-based material preparation and theweak versatility of a structured PRS. A mismatched PRS is not only of
little use but could actually be counterproductive. Another possibility
is that the participants in survey 2 took into consideration the difficultyof the integrated task in not choosing PRS-A. By the same token, in the
TOEFL course 1, the preference for PRS-A,, used for an independenttask,, over PRS-B,, used for an integrated task,, could be a reflection of
the relative difficulty of the integrated task. At any rate, the participantsin TOEFL course 2 found the scale scoring (Q4 and Q5) effective
and expressed the usefulness of the writer’s’ss involvement in Q1 ((givecomments for the questions asked by the writer) and the small section
prepared for the writer to react to the feedback in Q2 (explain theinterpreted main idea of the text) and Q3 (explain the interpreted
support of the main idea).

Pedagogical Implications
In view of the results of the two surveys, two practical implications
are suggested for creating an effective PRS. The first implication isthat greater focus be placed on the instructional function of PRSs.
s.. Thefunction of PRSss should not be limited to the guidance
ance of peer feedback,,
but should also serve as task material that teaches learners important
points of writing. Therefore, question items should incorporate thefocal points of the writing in such a way that learners can cope withthem.. For
orr example, in the two surveys, the question item perceived tobe the most difficult asked to judge the logicality of a text. The learners
19Wakabayashi

expressed the difficulty of the question item saying that they did nothave the capacity to judge the logicality of the text. This problem could
be solved by constructing question items that explains the logicality of atext in a way that the learners could deal with. Teachers are encouraged
to construct question items while paying close regard to the levels of
the learners so as to better teach the focal points of writing.
The second implication is that affective factors of the learners should
be taken into account. Learners in both surveys shared hesitation ingiving peer comments to others. Compliments, open-ended question
items, and scale scoring all appeared to ease the hesitation,, suggestingthat complimenting and mechanical feedback could be of psychologicalhelp. Moreover, since the learners’’ hesitation can be interpreted asstemming from their reluctance to be critical towards others’’ writing,learners need to be reminded that they are not evaluating the others’’
writing,, but are collaborating together on making revisions andimprovements.

Conclusion
For writing teachers, peer feedback can be situated in theirir teachingpractice as a scaffolding teaching technique by which to promotelearners’’ reflective and critical learning. Underlying this study is thedefinition of peer feedback as being, beyond simply a type of feedback,a teaching methodology for learners’’ cognitive development. Peer
feedback is a potent task by which learners can achieve various
skills needed both as reviewers and writers, to help them become
autonomous writers. Through engaging in the task repeatedly, learners
should get used to giving and receiving critical comments and become
confident reviewers.
The teacher’s
eacher’s’s roleole in peer feedback is to support its effective conduct
based on the purpose of the writing and the learners’’ needs,, including
the provision of appropriate and flexible task material, in this study,

20Wakabayashi, OnCUE Journal, 2(1), pages 3-23

the PRS. Teachers who implement peer feedback must be aware of theimportance of this task material and prepare effective formatss for theirlearners. This in turn indicates that teachers who use peer feedback
are those who communicate with their learners and place them at thecenter of learning.
In this study, the utility of the existing format of PRS which focusedon helping bring about the subsequent revisionss was affirmed, andan alternative PRS,, which focused on increased peer negotiation was
well-appreciated by the learners. Although this is a small sample studyof which the results cannot be over-generalized,-generalized,
generalized, the results suggest theimportance of learner participation in preparing classroom tasks.
s.. Thisstudy limited learner participation to using and commenting on the
newly developed format, yet it is also hoped that both teachers andlearners would be involved in developing a variety of PRS alternatives
that support effective peer feedback.

References
Berg, B. 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.
Carson, J. (1992). Becoming
ecomingcoming biliterate: First language influences.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 1
1, 37-60.
Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1994). Writing groups: Cross-culturalissues. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3(1), 17-30.
Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptionsof ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 5(1), 1-19.
Chaudron, C. (1984). Evaluating writing: Effects of feedback onrevision. RELC Journal, 15(2), 1-14.
Connor, U.,, & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL
writing classes: How much impact on revision?? Journal of Second
21Wakabayashi

Language Writing, 3(3), 257-276.
Dörnyei, Z., & Murphey,ey,y, T. (2003). Group dynamics
ynamics in the language
anguageclassroom.
lassroom. Cambridge: Cambridge Language Teaching Library.
Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College
Composition and Communication, 32, 400-415.
Guerrero, M. C. M. de, & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD:
Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The
hee Modern Language
Journal, 84(i), 51-68.
Hedgcock, J., & Lefkowitz,, N. (1992). Collaborative oral/aural
revision in foreign language writing instruction.. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 4, 51-70.
Hosack, I. (2003).
2003).
). The effects of anonymous feedback on Japanese
university students’’ attitudes towards peer review. Ritsumeikan
hougaku bessatsu, 1, 297-322.
Liu, J.,, & Hansen, J. (2002). Peer response
esponse in second
econd language
anguage writing
ritingclassrooms.
lassrooms. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
ress.
ess.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition
classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal, 45, 274-284.
Mendonca, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations:
Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly,
28(4), 745-769.
Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer
reviewers. System, 33(2), 293-308.
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.
Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: Harnessing
arnessing students’’communicative power. In D.. M. Johnson & D.. H. Roen (Eds.),,Richness in writing.
writing (pp. 207-219). New York: Longman.
Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. (1998). ESL students’ perceptionsof effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 7, 113-132.
22

Wakabayashi, OnCUE Journal, 2(1), pages 3-23

Ng, R. (1994). Revision in the ESL class: A comparative study of theeffectiveness of peer and self-feedback. Hong Kong Journals
Online, 6, 61-81.
Nystrand, M.,., & Brandt, D. (1989). Response to writing as a context
for learning to write. In C. M. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response:
esponse:
Theory, practice,ractice, and research.
esearch. (pp. 209-230). Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English.
Paulus, T. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student
writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265-289.
Saito, H. (1994). Teachers’’ practices and students’’ preferences for
feedback on second language writing: a case study of adult ESL
learners. TESL Canada Journal, 11(2), 46-70.
Sengupta, S. (1998). Peer evaluation: “I am not the teacher.” ELT
Journal, 52, 19-28.
Sommers, N. (1980).
0).
). Revision strategies of student writers andexperienced writers. College Composition and Communication,
31(4), 378-87.
Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer
evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 217-233.
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly,19(1), 79-101.
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer
feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 4(3), 209-222.
Zhu, W. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on students’comments and interaction. Written Communication, 1(4), 492528.
Zhu, W. (2001). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer responsegroups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 251-276.

23