名古屋外国語大学論集第4号

2019年2月

Research NoteDeveloping Peer Review Skills Through the Use ofRubrics in EFL Writing
Steven CHARLES

Introduction
Peer review or peer-to-peer feedback serves a few functions in the teacher/student relationship. Namely, it increases students’ experience at analyzing writing,editing errors and builds greater awareness of grammar and essay structure. Peerreview also, perhaps more importantly, increases student autonomy as they takea more active role in the writing and editing process (Benson, 2013).
This research project tracks the peer feedback process of two second-year
writing classes. Feedback was given through the use of rubrics that break down
the segments of an essay (organization, language/accuracy, content, citations andreferences and rewrite) and allow the students to make comments and even givea grade on the writing of their peers. Also, these are the same rubrics that theteacher uses to assess students’ writing and thus provides greater transparency
in the teacher/student relationship.
The key point of this project was that the second class was given a rubric
complete with text explaining the four grade ranges of each segment while thefirst class was given a rubric that provided a list of essay segments and grade
ranges but did not include supporting text. The question posed by this project is201

whether or not students can give more effective feedback with extra explanatory
support in the rubric.
This project was conducted over the course of a 15-week term that included
three writing assignments. Both the teacher and the students provided feedbackon the second and third (final) drafts by highlighting errors and giving suggestions for improvement. In addition, both parties gave grades on both drafts.
Grades given by the students were hypothetical and not shown to the original
writers while only the teacher’s final grades were shown to the writers on thefinal draft. This was done to track the writers’ progress and show any differences
between the teacher’s and students’ assessments of the assignments.

Beliefs about Peer Review, Rubrics and Autonomy
Peer Review Peer feedback can reinforce teacher feedback and increase
students’ skills simultaneously. It also removes the teacher as the center of attention as peer review sessions focus primarily on students reading and reviewing
each other, with the teacher taking a decreased role in the classroom (Hyland,2014). This symbolizes a shift from a teacher-centered or hierarchical classroom
paradigm to a more student-centered or horizontal one.
As students take on the extra responsibility of peer editor, they “develop thecritical analysis and reading strategies they need to later examine their own writing” (Bitchener & Ferris, 2012). This, in theory, will create a positive feedback
cycle as students receive feedback from each other, develop analytical skills,
receive feedback from the teacher and improve as writers as they move onto
future writing assignments.
The downsides of peer review are numerous and should be mentioned.
Many students do not completely trust the feedback of other L2 students, lackconfidence in their own ability to give feedback and generally prefer the “expert”
feedback of the teacher (Hyland, 2016). As such, students need to be taught how
to read critically, how to give feedback (and what to give feedback on) and be202

Developing Peer Review Skills Through the Use of Rubrics in EFL Writing ■reassured that the teacher (the “expert”) will oversee the process and give thefinal grades.
Rubrics Rubrics given to students at the beginning of the course and again during peer review sessions serve the above ends. The students have the components
of an essay, the criteria to search for and the grade ranges at their disposal as theyread their peers’ drafts. This supporting document structures students’ analysis
and can also be used outside of the classroom as they write (or rewrite) theirown drafts. Finally, this rubric should be the same used by the teacher during
grading as it increases transparency in the classroom and allows students to see(and participate in) the grading process.
Autonomy While educational researchers have examined the topic of learnerautonomy, the research is largely based on the more individualistic Anglo/Westerncultures. As such, these ideas may not be applicable or appropriate in the morecollective East Asian societies. How to develop peer feedback skills in Japanese
students then becomes an issue for the Anglosphere expatriate teacher. However, if
Western societies can be characterized as idealizing self-determination while East
Asian societies can be characterized as promoting interpersonal relationships andgroup responsibility (Noels in Apple, Da Silva and Fellner, 2013), then perhaps theburden of introducing peer review to the Japanese classroom is reduced.
The peer review sessions are presented to students as a means of helping otherstudents as well as improving their own writing skills. Here, both individualistic(Western) and collective and interpersonal (East Asian) goals can be achieved
through repeated experiences with reviewing and giving feedback to otherstudents (Gobel, Thang & Mori, 2017).

Methodology
The rubrics used in the classroom were distributed at the beginning of the term
and it was explained to the students that these exact rubrics would be used by theteacher to grade students’ writing assignments. On peer review days (on the second
203and third drafts of the three assignments), students were given additional copies of
the rubric for the purpose of making comments and evaluating their peers’ drafts.
Peer Review Organization Students were assigned to small groups (3–5students) and anonymous drafts were shuffled around the groups. Anonymity
was chosen as it was believed that students would be more comfortable giving
critical feedback. The teacher instructed the students to read each draft two or
three times. The first reading was to find small form errors (spelling, grammar,etc.) and the second reading was done in conjunction with the rubric and was for
examining the organization, content and overall accuracy of the draft.
Students in groups were instructed to use the same rubric worksheet forthe same draft and, upon finishing, hand both sheets to the next student in thegroup. This served two purposes: peer reviewers had more opportunity to readand review more drafts and the original writers would receive feedback from
more of their peers.
In addition, students were instructed to print two copies of their drafts, with
one being used in the peer review session and the other being given to the teacher.
During the sessions, the teacher moved around the room to monitor the activity
and occasionally give advice and support if the teacher decided that a given
student was struggling with the process.
Use of Rubrics The rubrics given to each class differed in that the first classreceived a rubric with the three grade ranges (>80%, 70–80% and <70%) andthe criteria (organization, language/accuracy, content, citations and references
and rewrite). (See Figure 1 for a smaller version of the original.)
Figure 1:(>80)(70–80%)Organization
Language
Content
Citations
Rewrite204(<70%)

Developing Peer Review Skills Through the Use of Rubrics in EFL Writing ■The second class was given a different rubric that contained all the same information as the first plus in-text explanation of each grade range for each component.
(An abbreviated version of the original is shown below in Figure 2.)
Figure 2:
Organization

Language(>80%)All major
parts are fully
developed(70–80%)
All major parts arepresent but may
have problems.

Errors do notcause lack ofclarity

Errors cause lack ofclarity(<70%)
There are major
problems orinstructions werenot followed.
Errors causesignificant lackof clarity

The text explanation in the second rubric was written to provide support tostudents and guide them to make evaluations of their peers’ drafts. Students
were instructed to circle the box they thought appropriate and encouraged towrite additional freehand comments at the bottom of the page. The lack of text
explanation in the first rubric was designed to encourage students to decide on
their own evaluations of peer drafts in a more independent fashion.
Finally, both rubrics contained a small box labeled “Score” at the bottom leftof the page. Students were instructed to assign a hypothetical score to the drafts.
Students were explicitly instructed that giving differing scores within the peer
review groups was acceptable. These scores were recorded and averaged by theteacher and then removed from the rubric prior to being given to the originalauthor. These scores were recorded by the teacher for the purpose of comparing
them to the scores given by the teachers but they were not shown to the authors
as it was thought that the reviewers’ scores could falsely encourage or discourage
the student writers.

Results
When the results of student and teacher assessments were examined, variation
205

was clearly seen but no fixed patterns could be observed. The different rubrics
given to students did not appear to produce any significant variation in students’evaluations. With some drafts, the students assigned higher grades than theteacher (up to twelve points higher), while other drafts showed the opposite
with the teacher assessing the drafts in question more highly (up to twelve pointshigher) than the students. This generally indicates that student assessment skills
are producing different (sometimes wildly) results than the teacher. In othercases, teacher and student assessment were nearly the same. (Visual representations are shown below in Figures 1 and 2.)
Figure 1:

Figure 2:

While the quantitative data does not show a clear pattern of students developing peer review skills, the more qualitative data gathered informally exhibits
some growth of review skills. Students’ comments ranged from positive but
unspecific comments (“nice” and “good job”, for example) to more specific andfocused comments such as “develop conclusion more” and “watch grammar”,
indicating that students are generally aware of the usefulness of peer review.

206

Developing Peer Review Skills Through the Use of Rubrics in EFL Writing ■Conclusions
Even with the vague and mixed results, rubrics appear to have value as
evidenced by students’ thorough use of rubrics and frequent, effective comments
during peer review sessions. The second rubric with supporting text appears to beslightly more effective as the students’ evaluations were closer to the teacher’s
final evaluations, thus answering the research question in a mildly positively
manner. While the type of rubric may not have a large or definitive influenceon students’ peer review skills, it can be inferred that rubrics are useful as aninstrument to structure peer review due to the comments mentioned above.

Future Research
Future research projects could include more explicit instructions on peer
review with the teacher providing feedback on the student feedback. Students
should be developing their evaluation skills as they are simultaneously developing their writing skills in a positive feedback cycle. Also, future research projects
could focus more on qualitative data, namely the comments students write at thebottom of the rubric worksheets, subject to coding and interpretation. This goal
could also involve more structured teacher instruction. In conclusion, with theteacher providing instruction and guidance throughout the course term, students
can build a greater sense of autonomy as they take greater control of their writing
and overall learning.

References
Benson, P. (2013). Teaching and researching autonomy (2nd ed.). New York and London: Routledge.
Bitchener, J. & Ferris, D. R. (2012). Written corrective feedback in second language acquisition andwriting. New York and London: Routledge.
Gobel, P., Thang, S. M. & Mori, S. (2017). Revisiting Studies on Casual Attribution In ESL/EFL
Contexts: Toward an Alternative Model. In M. T. Apple, D. D. Da Silva & T. Fellner (Eds.), L2
selves and motivations in Asian contexts (pp.11–28). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Hyland, K. (2014). Second language writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hyland, K. (2016). Teaching and researching writing. New York and London: Routledge.

207

Noels, K. A. (2013). Learning Japanese; Learning English: Promoting Motivation Through Autonomy,
Competence and Relatedness. In M.T. Apple, D. Da Silva &Terry Fellner (Eds.), Language
learning motivation in Japan (pp.15–34). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Sato, M. (2013). Beliefs About Peer Interaction and Peer Corrective Feedback: Efficacy Of Classroom
Intervention. The Modern Language Journal, Vol. 97 (3), 611–633.
Wakabayashi, R. (2013). Learners’ Roles in a Peer Feedback Task: Do They View Themselves asWriters or Reviewers? The Journal of Asia TEFL, 10, (3), 31–57.

208