PEER-REVIEW STATIONS TO PROMOTE ACADEMICWRITING SKILLS
Claire Bower & Kathryn Jurns
Kanda University of International Studies
ABSTRACT
Peer-review has long been used by writing teachers as a reliable and effective way
to improve students’ writing. It can strengthen students' critical thinking and writing
as well as offer more detailed feedback throughout the writing process than an
instructor’s schedule may allow. In an English as a second language (ESL) context,
however, many of these benefits are lost. Social or cultural pressure along withdifferences in language ability may prohibit students from offering productive
feedback and at times even prove to be a hindrance (Leki, 1990). This paper will
outline a tool to counter some of the issues many ESL writing teachers face withpeer-review by introducing a practice developed for a second-year academic writingclass that utilizes students’ strengths. In this practice, student-reviewers focus on aparticular area of academic writing in which they already show skill or interest, suchas vocabulary or coherence, and review their peers’ papers in “stations,” focusing onthese areas alone. A benefit of the practice is a boost of confidence as they hone anddevelop specific writing skills and are seen as “experts'' by their classmates.
Additionally, authors are not required to have their writing reviewed in every area,
thereby increasing the chances that the feedback they receive is beneficial, practical,
and specific to their needs.
Key words: Peer-review, peer-feedback writing, academic writing, teaching composition, ESL
composition
INTRODUCTION
Peer review has embedded itself firmly in the conventions of the writing classroom, and mostwriting students have some experience with giving and receiving peer feedback during theiracademic career, regardless of their age or discipline. The second language writing (SLW)
context in particular has a long history with peer review, but not without its complications. The
peer-review process varies according to the circumstances, but traditional essay peer-review
assignments often take shape as relatively solitary, quiet endeavors during which students readand evaluate a classmate’s writing based on a rubric or other form of “guiding questions”
supplied by the instructor (Liu & Hansen, 2002). The evaluation criteria tend to require reviewers
to consider all aspects of the essay, both local and global, and the subsequent feedback consists
primarily of written comments and annotations on the paper, which may also be followed up
with some face-to-face response at a later date (Liu & Hansen, 2002). Previous studies on peer2review in SLW classrooms have yielded mixed results, often praising the effects on language
development but also highlighting some negative perceptions of peer review among students.
The activity outlined in this paper attempts to break away from the orthodox model outlined
above, with the aim of developing a more interactive exercise by applying a workstations
approach, where students take turns to both give and receive oral feedback during the same
peer-review session. Each station represents one of five writing aspects, and the advising
students act as specialists at a designated station, providing expertise in that area only. Advisees
are free to visit whichever station they wish to receive feedback on during the first half of thesession, after which participants change roles and repeat the activity. This paper first examinessome of the benefits and caveats observed from the research. It then explains the activity
procedure, and the outcomes and limitations. Finally, it concludes with a summary of thewriters’ experiences when implementing the task in their classrooms.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Why is Peer-review Important?
Regardless of any perceived flaws, peer review’s prominence in second language learning
remains strong. Learning is largely considered a social process, and human interaction, or“mediation”, is said to constitute its foundation (Villamil & Guerrero, 2019, p. 26). Vygotsky’s(1978) zone of proximal development framework is widely applied in classrooms via varying
degrees of differentiation and “instructional scaffolding”, which is the term coined to describe
the provision of support structures to assist learners in reaching their next developmental
learning stage. Vygotsky’s theory asserts that support structures can come from more advanced
classmates as well as teachers; thus peer mediation and collaboration are importantcomponents in this application (Vygotsky, 1978). Peer review, therefore, plays an important rolein student-centered learning and, as shown below, is particularly useful in writing contexts
where it may be difficult for the teacher to check every student’s work.
Numerous SLW studies into peer review have declared several benefits, including increased
practical and cognitive skills for learners, as well as value for instructors. Firstly, there is evidence
to suggest that it does have an overall positive influence on writing performance throughfostering critical thinking and self-reflection skills (Tsui & Ng, 2000; Diab, 2011). Diab (2011)
compared the effects of peer editing versus self-editing when revising and improving drafts, andfound that although both had merit, a greater interaction with the writing process meant thatstudents in the peer editing group became more critically aware of the gaps in their knowledge.
The researchers judged that the peer editors were able to focus their attention more objectively
on the writing and use social interaction to negotiate meaning, thereby noticing differences inmutual knowledge, which they actively used to reflect on and improve their work.
Secondly, peer review has the potential to significantly reduce a writing teacher’s workload andallow them to view students’ work from a more global perspective (Mittan, 1989, as cited in
Ferris & Hedgcock, 2005; Yangin Eksi, 2012). Providing constructive feedback is a crucial part oftheir job and also arguably the most time-consuming and challenging, especially when an
3

abundance of sentence-level errors can cause distraction and draw attention away from more
important aspects like logical organization of ideas and overall clarity. Implementing successful
peer feedback not only lessens the teacher’s burden, but it has the benefit of more clearly seeing
students’ understanding of good writing. As Mittan (1989, as cited in Ferris & Hedgcock, 2005)
points out, even if they are not at the level where they can produce excellent work, they have an
understanding of what constitutes high quality writing. Therefore, they can be rewarded for theknowledge they have beyond their writing ability.
Issues with Typical Peer-review Practice
Clearly, peer review has some positive implications for SLW; however, the literature also
highlights some caveats. The principal drawbacks mostly relate to affective factors and issues
with feedback quality, although the two often appear to overlap, with the former tending to
influence or cause the latter. Student attitudes are a major factor in the success of a peer-review
activity, and cultural differences are often cited as a root cause of ineffectual experiences. Thisis particularly pertinent when sociocultural issues come into play, namely collectivism (Hofstede,2001), social hierarchy (Yu & Lee, 2016), and saving face, where face is defined as “the evaluationof self based on internal and external judgments” (Earley, 1997, p.43).
Zhang (1995) reported highly negative views towards peer review in comparison to teacher
feedback and inferred that this negative perception had a strong link to the majority of theparticipants coming from an Asian background. Students from countries with a large power
distance (Hofstede, 2001), like in many Asian cultures, may perceive comments from their peers
to be of little worth (Nelson & Carson, 1998), and therefore view the activity as a waste of time.
In addition, the aforementioned concept of face-saving can influence communication in peer
review. While the premise of peer review matches many collectivist culture features and maylead to a positive group climate, the importance attached to maintaining harmony can lead to areluctance to criticize (Carson & Nelson, 1992; Nelson & Carson, 1998). In a peer review study
observing interactions between Chinese and Spanish learners, Carson and Nelson (1992) foundthat the Chinese students’ desire to avoid embarrassing their partner resulted in them either
giving a response so indirect that the criticism was not detected or withholding commentscompletely. This face-saving strategy may prevent group division, but at the expense of somestudents not receiving any feedback at all, which can lead to frustration for both parties.
Consequently, a negative attitude to peer review can form.
Additionally, when direct feedback is given, there is no guarantee that it will help the writer
make global revisions to their work. Several studies have shown that there is a danger forlearners to focus too heavily on local errors at the word and sentence level, and to give the wider
aspects little attention (Leki, 1990; Nelson & Carson, 1998), particularly when they are given
little training in effective peer review (Rahimi, 2013). Mangelsdorf’s 1992 study showed thatwhile students demonstrated a preference and desire for globally directed comments about idea
development and organization, only half of participants were satisfied with the responses
received from classmates in these areas. Reasons for this trend are varied; for example, a lack ofexpertise in certain review areas (Carson & Nelson, 1996), a tendency to confuse reviewing withediting (Leki, 1990), or a basic lack of training in how to constructively participate in a peer4

review task (Rahimi, 2013). As mentioned previously, cultural and affective influences canexacerbate all of these factors, simultaneously increasing pressure on students and decreasing
the chance of a successful outcome.
PROCEDURE
Background
Implementation of these workstations requires more preparation for the students and teacher
than the average peer-review activity. However, once training and a framework for action is inplace, the activity is established, and the students are familiar with their roles, there is little needfor additional instruction or preparation. The aim of the preparation time is to familiarize thestudents with the expectations of their particular writing skill area as well as establish the peerreview stations procedure for the class. There are four main steps to prepare and implement theactivity, which are introducing the categories and activity, creating the category studentgroups, a norming session, and the activity itself.
The activity was implemented by two instructors of a year-long academic writing course ofintermediate and high-level English students. One teacher taught two sections of intermediatelevel (mid-tier) students while the other taught two sections of the high-level (high-tier)students. The mid-tier teacher (MTT) and high-tier teacher (HTT) varied their approaches
slightly from each other to match the ability and flow of the class; however, each teacher
approached both sections of their class in the same way. The following will describe the fourstep procedure for implementing the practice and provide MTT or HTT variation as necessary.
Briefly Introduce the Categories and Activity
Before the idea of the activity was presented to students, the instructors decided on which
categories would be used for the stations. They were:
●
●
●
●
●

thesis and connection
structure and formattingorganization and cohesion
grammar and vocabulary
citations and references

Students checking “thesis and connection” would review the clarity of the thesis and how well
the different sections of the essay supported the thesis. The “structure and formatting” category
related to the order of the paper and correct formatting, whereas the “organization andcohesion” category reviewed an essay’s overall fluency and whether paragraphs stayed on topic.
Students reviewing “grammar and vocabulary” would look for correct grammar and vocabulary
as well as repeated words. Those checking “citations and references” would look for the
inclusion and correct usage and formatting of citations and references.
These categories were chosen because they seemed to cover most of what would be covered ina peer-review activity and seemed within the capabilities of the students. Additionally, the5difficulty and/or time it would take to check each of these categories as a reviewer seemed to beequal.
Each instructor took some class time to briefly explain what this new style of peer review wasusing a handout or a slideshow. This activity was introduced in the middle of the semester in thestudents’ sophomore year, and they were familiar with the concept and some of the
expectations of reviewing their peers’ essays. As this was a new style of peer-review; however,it was necessary for the instructors to establish the basic idea of the activity to the students aswell as a short explanation of the categories’ names and what that would mean as a reviewer.
Creating Category Student Groups
After the activity and categories were briefly explained, students were asked to look back attheir writing and the feedback they received and share their preferences on which category theywould like to review. The MTT had students fill out and turn in a chart (Figure 1), numbering theirpreferred category 1-5. The HTT had students submit a Google Form showing their top-three
category preferences.
Fig. 1.1 Writing Skill Category Preference Form
1

2

3

4

5

Thesis &connection
Structure &formatting
Organization& cohesion
Vocabulary &grammarCitations &references

At the same time that students were turning in their preferences, the instructors were also
reviewing students' work to decide their strengths, and therefore, in which reviewer group theyshould belong. The MTT started the activity earlier in the semester and the categories were
decided after the classes’ first essays had already been graded and returned. Therefore, they
had to look back on writing samples they had already reviewed, which was more time
consuming. The HTT started the activity later in the semester and was able to save time bygrading essays at the same time as categorizing the students’ writing.
6

Both teachers then took the students’ choices and compared them with their own category
preferences for students. At times, they aligned perfectly, and the student preference andteacher idea were the same. In situations where that was not the case, the teachers made theexecutive decision. The categories were split as evenly as possible, and instructors made thefinal decision on who would be a reviewer for which area.
Norming Session
Instructors conducted a norming session after the categories’ placements were announced.
When the activity and skill areas were first introduced, the descriptions of each were fairly brief.
For the norming session, a much more thorough description of the breakdown of eachcategory’s reviewing criteria was created and given to students as a handout (see Appendix).
Groups of students got together to review the handout to ensure that they understood theircategory. They were encouraged to ask questions and talk to each other as well as the teacher,
who was circulating, offering clarification as needed. Afterward, each student was given asample essay similar to the one they would be reviewing. Individually, students assessed thesample essay, paying attention to only their area. For example, the students in the “structureand formatting” category only looked at issues and successes in the paper related to its structureand formatting.
After roughly ten minutes of individual review, they compared their corrections and thefeedback they would give with others in their group for another 10 minutes. After students
compared their reviews with each other, the teacher sat down with each of the groups for an
additional 10 minutes to compare the groups’ reviews with those of the instructor. Most student
groups found errors and gave necessary notes and revisions individually and when they worked
with their peer group. When the instructor sat with them, they were able to make corrections as
required as well as answer any questions pertaining to the categories.
For the MTT, the norming session took an entire 90-minute class time. However, the HTT
explained the different categories in the class prior to the norming session and assigned theindividual review for homework. Their norming session took 45 minutes to an hour to completein class.
Peer-review Stations Activity
Before class began, the teacher arranged the desks as shown in Figure 1.2. Each pair of desks(station) had a card that had the category name and description. Each category’s card was adifferent color to ease recognition of the different stations through the activity. 1-2 members
from each group sat down at their individual station, so about half of the class was a reviewer.
Fig. 1.2 Peer-review Workstations Seating Chart

7

The remainder of the students would have their papers reviewed in areas of their choice.
Students were not required to have their essays reviewed in each category but had to attend
two different review stations. This ensured that all students were getting some review and thereviewers had something to do while helping students avoid superfluous feedback. Time limits
were established by the students and kept by the instructor. At the end of the time limit, allauthors having their papers reviewed would get up and go to a different station.
For those students who had gone to at least two stations and did not want to go to any more, or
those who were waiting for a particular station to be available, there were groups of desks thatwere not stations. Students could sit there and work through the feedback they received fromthe reviewers. This allowed them to put the review into immediate practice. While students werereviewing and correcting papers, the instructors were there to answer questions and give
additional feedback when asked.
For the MTT, this activity took two class periods. The first half of the class were reviewers on thefirst day; then those who were reviewers had their essays reviewed on the second day. The HTT
allowed one day for the activity. Instead of the reviewers switching between the first and secondclasses of the week, they switched between the first and second half of class.
DISCUSSION
Overall, the peer-review stations proved popular with the participants, and the instructors cameto view it as a valuable component of their academic writing classes. The students’ post-tasksummaries revealed very positive responses both to their classmates’ feedback and their own
performance. The majority specified explicit corrections made by their peers that ranged fromfixing basic formatting errors to identifying inconsistencies between the thesis and essay
content or problems with logic. This confirmed that they were able to transcend concentrating
on local errors only. More unexpected was the pleasure expressed in the students’ own abilities
to help their peers, and the confidence that they inferred they had gained when their partner
8

thanked them for advising them on points they either had completely missed or could notsuitably revise by themselves. Ultimately, the summaries communicated a distinct tone ofgratitude from the learners to their partners for helping them realize their own strengths, as well
as noticing their weaknesses. Additionally, during informal conversation, students expressedthat the activity was an invaluable part of the class and writing process and requested to repeat
it in the second semester. From the teachers’ side, their workload not only felt reduced, but theysensed an increased morale when giving the students individual feedback during personaltutorial sessions held after the peer-review stations task.
Limitations
There were two main limitations to the peer-review stations task setup and implementation.
Firstly, there was an occasional mismatch between teacher and students’ evaluation of theirwriting strengths and the reality when put into practice. This could be easily addressed by simply
allowing them to change roles in future enactments of the activity. Secondly, it was not always
easy to know whether all the advice was sound or accurate when assessing the students’performance, or whether it was being taken on board appropriately. Having students write ashort paragraph outlining their feedback immediately after the activity could help to illuminate
this. Attention should also be drawn to the practical and cognitive demands of the task; it may
not be appropriate for all class sizes and levels. The task would work best with a minimum
number of 10 students of at least lower intermediate ability.
CONCLUSION
Peer-review can be a significant help to both teacher and student, but, like all things, it is vitalthat the tool fit the job. If the teacher does not consider the hurdles students face whenapproaching this type of activity, they could be putting unintentional barriers in place. As
previously mentioned, one such hurdle is that of culture and its effect on students’ ability tocorrect their peers (Yu & Lee, 2016) or take their classmates’ evaluations to heart (Nelson &Carson, 1998). Though circumstantial, the review stations did help mitigate the issue. In theactivity, through correction and practice, students spent a year honing a specific writing skill that
not all in the class had. Not only did this boost their pride, it also gave them a sense of duty tofulfil expectations of their role as a reviewer in their field. Additionally, separately fostering skill
areas led them to be “experts” in their field, thus leading their classmates to have greater trustin the received student-feedback.
In peer-review, there is also an issue with students’ tendency to focus on local issues (Leki, 1990;
Nelson & Carson, 1998), especially if there is little training (Rahimi, 2013). As one could see inthe procedure, norming is a necessary step when implementing this activity, which guarantees
that students are getting training on how to be a reviewer in their field. Furthermore, thepurpose of the activity is that student-reviewers are only looking at particular aspects of a pieceof writing. When dividing the different skill areas, teachers can have stations that look at local
and global issues, ensuring that students receive multifaceted feedback.

9

Finally, one of the key benefits of any peer-review practice is the time it saves the teacher. This
practice does not negate the need for considerate feedback from the instructor, of course.
However, when implemented, this tool can help provide a positive experience and effective
critique for the authors. Feedback is one of the most important duties of a writing teacher, but
the time can be overwhelming and even cause teachers to burn out. Through this practice,
instructors can save time taken on distracting, minor errors to focus on more significant issues
and give the feedback only they could provide.

REFERENCES
Carson, J. & Nelson. G. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response groupinteraction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/S10603743(96)90012-0
Diab, N. M. (2011). Assessing the relationship between different types of student feedback andthe quality of revised writing. Assessing Writing, 16(4), 274–292.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2011.08.001
Early, P. C. (1997). Face, harmony, and social structure: An analysis of organizational behavior
across cultures. Oxford University Press.
https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=_gxRN9KKaR0C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=
false
Ferris, D. & Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice.
Lawrence Erlbaum Association, Inc.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, andorganizations across nations. Sage Publications.
Kurihara, N. (2017). Peer review in an EFL classroom: Impact on the improvement of student
writing abilities. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics. 4(1), 58-72.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8537/7907a24f89b0d4cb43b394f6fd2f97aa7235.pdf
Leki, I. (1990). Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes. CATESOLJournal. 3, 5-17. http://www.catesoljournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/CJ3_leki.pdf
Liu, J. & Hansen, J. G. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. University ofMichigan Press.
Lundstrom, K. & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review
to the reviewer's own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30-43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002
10

Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students
think? ELT Journal, 46(3), 274-284. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/46.3.27
Nelson, G. L. & Carson, J. G. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer
response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(2), 113-131.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90010-8
Rahimi, M. (2013). Is training student reviewers worth its while? A study of how training
influences the quality of students’ feedback and writing. Language Teaching Research, 17(1),67–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812459151
Tsui, A. B. & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of
Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00022-9
Villamil, O. S. & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (2019). Sociocultural theory: A framework forunderstanding the social-cognitive dimensions of peer feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland(Eds.). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. (2nd ed., pp. 225-44).
Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard University Press.
Yangin Eksi, G. (2012). Peer review versus teacher feedback in process writing: How effective?
International Journal of Applied Educational Studies. 13(1) 33-48.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321905974_Peer_Review_versus_Teacher_Feedbac
k_in_Process_Writing_How_Effective
Yu, S. & Lee, I. (2016). Peer feedback in second language writing. Language Teaching, 49(4),461-493. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000161
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writingclass. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209-222. https://doi.org/10.1016/10603743(95)90010-1

11

APPENDIX Student handout on category breakdown
Category breakdown
Thesis & connection

Organization & cohesion

What is the thesis of this essay?
Does the author include the topic, position, andsupport?
How is the support? Do you think it is strong support?
Does it truly support the position of the thesis(connection is not support)?
Is the first section of the essay connected to the
topic? Where can you see this? What about thesecond and third section of the essay?
What areas do not connect to the thesis?
Overall, does the essay prove the thesis?

Does the paper have a natural flow?
Do the sentences in a paragraph stay on the same topic?
Do they relate to the introduction sentence?
Are there multiple topics in one paragraph (should theparagraph be split)?
Are the sentences in a logical order?
Are the paragraphs in logical order?

Vocabulary

GrammarIs the vocabulary used correctly?
Are the parts of speech correct (verb, noun, adjective,
adverb etc,)?
Does the vocabulary sound academic or does theauthor use slang?
Is the same word repeated often? What arealternatives?

Are there fragments (sentences without subject or verb)?
Are there run-on sentences (many sentences smashedtogether)?
How is the punctuation? Are there commas or periods
missing?
Is the verb tense consistent?
Does the author use really simple grammar? How canthey make it more complex?

Structure & formatting

Citations & references

Does the essay have an introduction, body, andconclusion?
Does every paragraph have an introduction sentence,
supporting sentences, and conclusion sentence?
Are there enough paragraphs?
Is the support in the essay in the same order as what
was said in the thesis?
Intro-Hook, building sentences, and thesis? (patternof building sentences?)
Conclusion- restated thesis and closing thoughts?
(pattern of closing thoughts?)
Formatting:
12pt Times New Roman
Double spaced (no extra space between paragraphs)
Left aligned
The first line of every paragraph is indented.

Does the author include citations where they should?
Do they include references?
Are citations and references done correctly?

12