岐阜大学教育推進・学生支援機構年報 第９号【Original article】

Optimizing Peer Check for the ESL Writing Classroom
Exploring the Effectiveness of Peer Check Strategies in
Uncovering Global and Local Errors
Mark Guthrie1)
Frid Joanis2)
1) 2)
Organization for Promotion of Higher Education and Student Support,
Gifu University
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to explore the efficiency and effectiveness of peer review inEnglish writing classes in Japanese universities, and in what guise it should be implemented, byreporting the results of a study conducted on the matter. In the study, participants were thricetasked with checking model paragraphs for Local and Global errors individually, in pairs, or insmall groups of four or five over the course of a semester. The results of the study show thatparticipants working in groups consistently found the most errors overall, in Tests 2 and 3 pairs
found the most global errors, while the participants working individually consistently found thefewest errors throughout. Nonetheless, participants working individually, in pairs, and in small
groups all improved in the number of errors they corrected by the end of the semester.
Key words: L2 writing, groupwork, pair work, independent work, Japanese English learners,
peer check/review/feedback

1. Introduction
The use of feedback is defined by Narciss (2008, p.127) as being in its essence any
information given to a learner after their response (i.e. output), aimed at enlightening them about
their current learning or performance status. This feedback, in learning contexts, is a vital elementof second language acquisition (SLA). In traditional English as a Second Language (ESL)classrooms, students receive feedback from both the teacher and their peers, particularly in23

Optimizing Peer Check for the ESL Writing Classroom

speaking exercises where response is immediate. In fact, Lightbown & Spada (2013), argue thatthe language classroom is typically the sole location where error feedback is commonly found at
a high frequency. The reason for this is that language acquisition is a social undertaking as“learning is not something an individual does alone, but is a collaborative endeavor necessary
involving other individuals… [because]... [e]ffective error correction and language learning
depend crucially on mediation provided by other individuals'' (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994, p. 480).
The effects of peer feedback, review, and/or editing in the classroom has been extensively
researched, with a broad range of exploratory reports establishing that its usage is advantageous
to both L1 and L2 students (Rouhi & Azizian, 2013; Bijami, Kashef & Nejad, 2013; Baker, 2016).
Furthermore, as Lundstrom and Baker (2009) point out, due to its innate collaborative essence,peer feedback has gained increasing popularity in the writing classrooms over the last few decades.
They argue that this is primarily due to its evident advantages, particularly for students who
provide feedback to their peers. However, the authors of this research have, over many years of
personal experience in the Japanese education system, observed scant utilization of peer feedback
in English writing classes, which has been previously confirmed by Barker’s (2021, p115) viewthat “[m]any students will have little or no experience of either giving or receiving feedback on
written assignments.” Barker went on to add that only 25 percent of participants reported having
undertaken peer editing of Japanese writing at the junior high or the high school level, and as such
were unlikely to be skilled in the area. Thus, while peer feedback has been extensively researched,
there are still many points of interest and questions that remain.
The motivation of this study comes from the present authors’ desire to improve theefficiency and effectiveness of peer review in English writing classes in Japan. This study seeks
to determine whether peer review is best implemented individually, in pairs, or in groups bylooking at how many errors students can find in short writing compositions and comparing thosefindings in each context. While other research has proven the effectiveness of peer review, thepresent study seeks to explore the efficiency of peer checking in groups.

2. Methods
Context and participantsThis study was undertaken with four classes during a 15-week English writing university
course with 30-40 students in each class in the fall semester of 2022. The students comprised bothmale and female individuals who were in their first or second years, aged between 18 and 21.
Over the course of the semester, students participated in peer editing within rotating groups
consisting of 4 to 5 students. They analyzed one another’s 100-to-150-word compositions, which
explored various personal themes. Prior to beginning their weekly composition assignments for24岐阜大学教育推進・学生支援機構年報 第９号

the course, the students underwent a three-week review of basic grammatical structures, as well
as being made aware of a number of common errors made by Japanese students taken from An
A-Z of Common English Errors for Japanese Learners (Barker, 2010). As the majority of thestudents were not proficient in spoken English, they were permitted in these groups to use
Japanese as a method of communication. In this way they were better able to collaborate with one
another and engage in “collective scaffolding” (Donato,1994) by combining their linguistic
repertoires in order to explain concepts to one another.
For this research, one class consisting of 28 students was chosen as Group 1, anotherclass consisting of 28 students was chosen as Group 2, and two classes each consisting of 30-35
students were chosen as Group 3. Group 1 worked individually, Group 2 worked in pairs, andGroup 3 worked in small groups of 4 or 5. As attendance during the semester fluctuated, so did
the total number of students in each of the groups studied. Therefore, there were 23-28 students
in the individual group for each test, 24-28 students in the pair group (with 12-14 total pairs foreach test), and 65 students working in small groups (with 11-13 total groups for each test).
The tests
During the course of the module, the students were issued with three ‘test’ paragraphs
to correct: one (T1) prior to the students’ first peer check session in week 3, another (T2) in week
8 prior to the mid-term test, and the final one (T3) in week 14 prior to their final test. Each test
paragraph was written using language and vocabulary similar to that which the students’themselves would use. Additionally, they contained intentional mistakes that the students
themselves would make and were made aware of through the three-week grammar review as wellas through the lessons and feedback provided by the teachers throughout the semester. To ensurethat each of these paragraphs were of equal difficulty, they were composed by one of the authorsof the paper, reviewed by the other author, and then by three colleagues who also taught the samewriting class. However, it should be noted that only the writing classes of the authors were used
for this study.
In one class (henceforth known as Group 1) each student was given a paragraph to checkindividually and were tasked with identifying the mistakes and correcting them, simulating theindividual peer check of a partner’s work. In another class (henceforth known as Group 2), one
paper was given to a pair of students to check the test paragraphs together, and in the remaining
two classes (henceforth known as Group 3) the class was separated into groups of 4 or 5 students
and asked to work together in checking the test paragraphs. In all cases the students were given
seven minutes, the approximate amount of time students would be expected to spend on eachparagraph in the classroom setting, to uncover as many errors as possible, after which the teacher
revealed the answers to ensure that the exercise was educationally beneficial to the students.

25

Optimizing Peer Check for the ESL Writing Classroom

The errors
Each paragraph contained a total of 12 errors, made up of 9 Local errors, those that do
not cause problems in communication and understanding, and 3 Global errors, those that hinder
communication and disrupt meaning (Touchie, 1986). The Local errors - two capitalization
mistakes and one each of verb tense, conjunction, pronoun, punctuation, spelling, pluralization,and subject verb agreement - were all chosen as they represented the most common mistakes thatstudents in previous semesters had been observed to make. (It should be noted here that theauthors of this paper made an error in creating the first test, and what was labeled as a subject
verb agreement error was in fact a verb tense error. As such, it has been omitted from analysis,though it remains included in the overall error count). The Global errors—sentence combinations,word order, and paragraph order/flow—however, were not strictly covered in the initial three
week grammar and error review, though students should have been taught about them at the highschool level and reviewed them in lessons throughout the module.

3. The results
Local vs Global - an overview
Overall, all groups, Group 1 (Individuals), Group 2 (Pairs), and Group 3 (Groups of 4or 5), generally improved over the course at finding the errors presented in the test paragraphs. In
the first test (T1), Group 1 found 31.85% of errors, Group 2 found 42.86%, and Group 3 found51.92%. In the third test (T3), this rose to 50.00% (an 18.51% increase), 59.03% (a 16.17%
increase), and 64.39% (a 12.47% increase), respectively, marking out Group 1 as the mostimproved overall throughout the course of the module. Though this shows relatively significant
improvement, it should be noted that there was a drop in error detection in all groups between thesecond test (T2) and T3: Group 1 decreased 0.36% in the percentage of found errors, Group 2
decreased 3.15%, and Group 3 decreased 4.55%. This leads the authors of this paper to question
whether T3 was more difficult, perhaps subconsciously skewed for difficulty as teachers sought
to increase complexity due to higher expectations placed on students as they developed throughthe course.

26

岐阜大学教育推進・学生支援機構年報 第９号

Table 1. Total errors for Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3
Total Errors
Group 1 (Individuals)

Group 2 (Pairs)

Group 3 (Small Groups)

Test 131.85%

42.86%

51.92%

Test 250.36%

62.18%

68.94%

Test 350.00%

59.03%

64.39%

44.07%

54.69%

61.75%

Average errors
found (all tests)

While Group 3 found the most errors in all tests, these were mostly Local errors (T1
67.52%, T2 86.87, T3 79.80%). Additionally, Group 3 found the fewest Global errors in T2(15.15%) and T3 (18.18%). Between T1 and T2, Group 1 more than doubled their ability to findGlobal errors (7.14% in T1 to 15.94% in T2), and then again in T3 (33.33%). However, Group 2
showed the greatest improvement in this area, more than quadrupling their ability to identify
Global errors in the first two tests from 4.76% to 20.51%, and almost doubling that again in T3,
where they identified 38.89%, marking them out as the most adept in this area.

Table 2. Total Local and Global errors for Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3
Total Local Errors for All Groups
Group 1 (Individuals)

Group 2 (Pairs)

Group 3 (Small Groups)

Test 1 Local

40.08%

55.56%

67.52%

Test 2 Local

61.84%

76.07%

86.87%

Test 3 Local

55.56%

65.74%

79.80%

52.49%

65.79%

78.06%

Average Local errors
found (all tests)

Total Global Errors for All Groups
Group 1 (Individuals)

Group 2 (Pairs)

Group 3 (Small Groups)

Test 1 Global

7.14%

4.76%

5.13%

Test 2 Global

15.94%

20.51%

15.15%

Test 3 Global

33.33%

38.89%

18.18%

18.80%

21.39%

12.82%

Average Global errors
found (all tests)

27

Optimizing Peer Check for the ESL Writing Classroom

Local vs Global - a focused view
As mentioned, Group 3 (groups of 4 or 5) found the most difficulty identifying andcorrecting Global mistakes. Though they improved in correcting word order mistakes, finding
15.35% in T1, 45.45% in T2, and 54.55% in T3, they failed to identify any sentence combinations
or paragraph order/flow issues in any of the three tests. This lies in stark contrast to Group 1(individuals) and Group 2 (Pairs), who in T1 found word flow issues (21.42% and 14.29%), in T2
improved on this (26.08% and 46.15%) whilst also locating 21.74% and 15.38% of combining
sentences mistakes, and then in T3 adding 21.43% and 41.67% of paragraph order mistakes totheir improved word flow (35.71% and 58.33%) and combining sentences (42.86% and 16.67)
errors.

Graphs 1-3. Global errors for Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3.

When it came to correcting conjunctions, Group 3 was consistently excellent, correcting
92.30% in T1, and 100% in both T2 and T3, while Group 1 improved over the course, correcting
67.86% in T1 and 75% in T3, with pairs seeing similar results (85.71% in T1 and 91.67% in T3).
In addition, Group 1 saw some improvement in punctuation identification, rising from 61.71% in
T1 to 78.57% in T3, though this is a decline from T2, where they located 91.30%. Group 2 andGroup 3 fared less well in this aspect, with both Groups showing a steady decline from T1(64.29% and 100%) to T3 (41.67% and 90.90%), though the latter remained consistently the bestat identifying and correcting these mistakes throughout.
Though Group 2 saw consistent improvement in identifying plural errors (51.14% in
T1, 61.54% in T2, and 66.67% in T3), the only area in which all classes saw continuous
improvement throughout was pronouns: Group 1 at 42.86% in T1, 43.48% in T2, and 67.86% in
T3; Group 2 at 35.71% in T1, 69.23% in T2, and 75.55% in T3; and Group 3 at 30.77% in T1,
90.90% in T2, and 100% in T3, marking out Group 3 as not only the most improved in this area,
but also the most consistently accurate from T2 onwards.

28岐阜大学教育推進・学生支援機構年報 第９号

One other area that saw a similar pattern throughout Groups 1, 2, and 3 was in spelling.
While all improved from T1 to T2 (Group 1 from 17.86% up to 86.96%, Group 2 from 14.29%
to 100%, and Group 3 from 53.84% to 100%) every Group dropped dramatically in T3 (10.71%,
33.33%, and 54.55% respectively). This wild fluctuation, particularly the dramatic drop off
between T2 and T3, is one of the reasons why the authors suspect that T3 was subconsciously
created as more difficult than its predecessor.

Graphs 4-6. Local errors (plurals, pronouns, and spelling) for Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3

The aforementioned mistake in T1 makes it difficult to gauge progress in subject verb
agreement error detection, however, between T2 and T3, Groups 1 and 2 showed improvement,with the former rising from 47.83% to 89.29%, and the latter going from 90.90% to 100%. Though
Group 2 showed some decline, it was marginal, from 92.31% to 91.67%.
When it came to verb tense errors, all Groups showed improvement from T1 to T2 (Group
1 30.35% to 60.87%, Group 2 42.85% to 69.23%, and Group 3 34.62% to 81.82%), however there
was a precipitous drop for all in T3 (14.29%, 25% and 45.50% respectively). T2 aside, Group 3
once again showed that they were most adept at uncovering these Local errors, however, due tothe dramatic difference between T2 and T3, there is once again the suspicion that T3 was createdas more difficult than its precursors.

29

Optimizing Peer Check for the ESL Writing Classroom

Graphs 7-9. Local errors (subject verb agreement and verb tense) for Group 1, Group 2, andGroup 3

4. The findings
All classes generally improved in both identifying and correcting mistakes within the test
paragraphs over the course of the module. This is something that could have been predicted, as
students became used to reviewing each other's work, and their writing skill sets developed
through both the shared knowledge acquired from their peers and the feedback received from theirteachers, which was given both in their paragraph assignments and in the classroom. However, it
is clear that throughout the course, Group 3 was consistently more accomplished, something that
could perhaps have been expected, as culturally, “Japanese use strategies which maximize thestrength of the group” (Yamada, H. 1990, p. 272), and as such would be likely to be predisposed
towards proficiency in this environment.
Perhaps the most striking discovery is that, while Group 3 was by some distance more
adept at identifying and correcting the more black-and-white Local errors, by stark contrast they
consistently lagged behind the other Groups when it came to the Global issues. While by T3, bothGroup 1 and Group 2 had become proficient at locating and correcting at least some of all threeforms of Global errors—word order, sentence combinations, and paragraph order/flow—Group 3
were only able to do so with the former. There is a possibility that this disparity is a result of adiffering emphasis on Global errors in the classroom, as the classes from the Group 1 and Group
2 students were taught by one teacher, and the classes of the Group 3 students taught by another.
However, this rationale can perhaps be discounted, as following each test, all students were shown
the answers, and in every instance the reasoning behind the errors were made clear. As a result, it
can be supposed that all students should have been aware of the potential for Global errors in thetests, at least from T2 onwards.
Another supposition that could be made is that the seven minutes allotted for thecorrections of the tests, while adequate for Group 1 and Group 2, was insufficient for Group 3 to30

岐阜大学教育推進・学生支援機構年報 第９号

identify the more complex concepts of the Global errors. Though proficient at pointing out themore grammar-focused Local issues, problems that have a more concrete conclusion, it perhaps
takes more time to reach a consensus amongst four or five people when it comes to the potentiallymore objective Global issues. One explanation for this could be a reticence to put forth one’s
opinion in a communal environment, as according to Madeen and Sugimoto (2019), Japan is theworld leader in terms of “Strong Uncertainty Avoidance,” a situation that leads Japanese students
to avoid stating an opinion in a large group on issues about which they may lack confidence.
It could also be theorized that the issue lies on the other side of the uncertainty coin, withthe problem stemming from how Japanese work collectively to come to a conclusion, and how
the concept of enryo affects decision making. Variously translated as ‘reserve’, ‘tact’, and‘thoughtfulness’, enryo culture, “inhibits Japanese speakers from saying directly what they want,
and it also makes it culturally inappropriate to ask others directly what they want” (Goddard andWierzbicka, 1997, pg 237). It could be surmised that this culture permeates into the classroom
setting, and though it is straightforward to assess a black-and-white Local error, morethoughtfulness is required for the Global errors, a situation exacerbated by there being numerous
others in Group 3 with whom a tactful position was required. This could lead to greater hesitancein putting forward a suggestion and such opinions are withdrawn, or it could be that more time isrequired for those indirect interactions to come to a successful fruition.

5. Limitations
There are a few limitations to this present study. The most obvious limitation is the small
sample size of 128 students. Having limited participants means that our analysis may notaccurately represent the broader population of Japanese university students. While this may betrue, our analysis suggests that the study of peer checking in this context is an area of interest for
further study. Another limitation was the time constraint (of 7 minutes for completion of the peer
checking activity) within the study. As mentioned in the previous section, Group 3 likely needed
more time to deliberate and build consensus. If given then time, then it is possible that Group 3’s
results may have been different when looking for Global errors.

6. Conclusions and considerations for future research
From the collected data, it can be concluded that over time and with practice, whether
it be individually, in pairs, or in groups, students can improve their ability to identify and correct
errors when engaging in a peer checking process. It is also clear that peer-checking in groups is31

Optimizing Peer Check for the ESL Writing Classroom

the most efficient strategy to eradicate most problems, particularly if they are Local errors.
However, unless cultural considerations such as social uncertainty and enryo are adequately
addressed, group-based peer checking will fail to rectify Global errors to a satisfactory degree,
and as a result, students will see their writing perplex readers, as “Global errors should almost
always be corrected because they cause confusion…” (Freiermuth, 1997, online).
Through data analysis and classroom observation, this paper proposes three strategies thatcan be undertaken to rectify this problem and thus facilitate students in reaching their potential as
writers in English. One would be to have students work in groups to rectify Local errors, before
breaking out into pairs to tackle the more complex Global mistakes. Whilst maximizing thepotential for error correction, this has the advantage of sidestepping the aforementioned cultural
impositions that stall progress. However, this process may be disadvantageous in how it requires
an additional stage in the procedure that may lead to confusion or unnecessary time wasting when
dividing into pairs. Another approach would be to utilize smaller groups for the peer check process,meaning that there are fewer conversational barriers to gaining a consensus. This potentiallycombines the most positive elements of both groups and pairs—high levels of both Local andGlobal error identification— though there is also the contrary possibility, that fewer Local
mistakes would be discovered and that the cultural impositions would remain, meaning that
Global issue discovery is reduced. Finally, the third strategy would be to include a greater levelof peer-check training prior to the start of the process. In this way, teachers could instruct students
in how to approach and rectify Global errors, consequently fostering an atmosphere in whichthose cultural issues can be addressed and overcome, so that students are more adept at raising
Global mistakes released from the constrictions of uncertainty and enryo.
As the results show, peer checking, particularly in groups and pairs, can be a highly
effective tool in writing classes, and students continuously improve with more practice. However,it has become clear that when it comes to ensuring efficiency and accuracy, particularly in the
Global issues, further research is required to explore the best of the aforementioned strategies.
Yet, should that research crack the efficiency code, peer review can be not only an invaluable
teaching tool, it can also help develop students into better and more accomplished writers.

Bibliography
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learningin the zone of proximal development. The modern language journal, 78(4), 465-483.
Baker, K. M. (2016). Peer review as a strategy for improving students’ writing process. Active
Learning in Higher Education, 17(3), 179-192.

32

岐阜大学教育推進・学生支援機構年報 第９号

Barker, D. (2010). An A-Z of Common English Errors for Japanese Learners (English Edition). BTB
Press
Barker, D. (2021). What Students Learn from Peer Editing L1 Writing. 『岐阜大学教育学部研究報
告. 教育実践研究・教師教育研究』23, 115-124.
Bijami, M., Kashef, S. H., & Nejad, M. S. (2013). Peer feedback in learning English writing:
Advantages and disadvantages. Journal of Studies in Education, 3(4), 91-97.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in a second language. Vygotskian approaches to second
language research, 33-56.

Freiermuth, M. R., (1997). L2 Error Correction: Criteria and Techniques, The Language
Teacher, Issue 21.9, https://jalt-publications.org/tlt/articles/2197-l2-error-correctioncriteria-and-techniques
Goddard, Cliff and Wierzbicka, Anna (1997). Discourse and Culture. In Teun A. van Dijk (ed.),Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage Publications, pp 231-259.
Lightbrown, P., & Spada, N. (2013). How Languages are Learned: Oxford Handbooks for Language
Teachers Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review tothe reviewer's own writing. Journal of second language writing, 18(1), 30-43.
Madeen, E., & Sugimoto, H. (2019). THE STATUS OF CREATIVE WRITING AS AN ACADEMICDISCIPLINE: WHERE IT THRIVES AND DIVES–WITH A SPECIAL FOCUS ON JAPANAND ITS “KATAIZED” CULTURE. 『東京都市大学共通教育部紀要』( Journal of liberalarts and sciences at Tokyo City University), 12, 153-163.
Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In Handbook of research on
educational communications and technology (pp. 125-143). Routledge.
Rouhi, A., & Azizian, E. (2013). Peer review: Is giving corrective feedback better than receiving it inL2 writing?. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1349-1354.
Touchie, H.Y. (1986). SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING ERRORS THEIR TYPES, CAUSES,AND TREATMENT. JALT Journal Volume 8, No. 1, 75-80
Yamada, H. (1990). Topic management and turn distribution in business meetings: American versus
Japanese strategies. Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, vol. 10, no. 3,
1990, pp. 271-295.

33

Optimizing Peer Check for the ESL Writing Classroom

ライティング教室におけるピアチェックの最適化
グローバルおよびローカルエラーを明らかにする
ピアチェック戦略の効果の探求

ガスリー・マーク 1)
ジョーニス・フリード 2)1) 2)
岐阜大学教育推進・学生支援機構
要旨
本論文の目的は，日本の大学における英語ライティングクラスでのピアチェックの効率と効果，及びどのような方法で実施すべきかを探究することである。このテーマに関する研究の結果を報告することで，そのガイドラインを提供する。研究では，参加者に対して 1 学
期を通じて，段落の例のローカルエラーとグローバルエラーを，個別に，ペアで，または 4
人から 5 人の小グループで三度チェックする課題を与えた。研究の結果，グループで作業する参加者が，最も多くの総合的なエラーを見つけることが示され，テスト 2 とテスト 3 では，ペアが最も多くのグローバルエラーを発見した。一方，個別に作業する参加者は一貫して最も少ないエラーしか見つけることができなかった。しかしながら，個別に作業する参加者，ペア，小グループで作業する参加者はいずれも，発見するエラーの数を学期末までに改善した。
キーワード：第二言語（L2）ライティング，グループワーク，ペアワーク，独立作業，
日本人英語学習者，ピアチェック／レビュー／フィードバック

34