L2 Writing and Checklist Peer Review Angela Meyer Sterzik & Karen Scott-Murray

L2 Writing and Checklist Peer L2 Writing and Checklist Peer Review Review

Angela Meyer SterzikAngela Meyer Sterzik

& &

Karen Scott-MurrayKaren Scott-Murray

Peer Review Meyer Sterzik & Scott-MurrayPeer Review Meyer Sterzik & Scott-Murray

Novice vs. Skilled Writers Novice vs. Skilled Writers (Barkaoui, 2007)(Barkaoui, 2007)

Novice WritersNovice Writers1.1. Revision Beliefs:Revision Beliefs: editing editing

at the end is enoughat the end is enough

2.2. Audience Awareness:Audience Awareness: very little attention very little attention given to reader; focus given to reader; focus on topicon topic

Skilled WritersSkilled Writers1.1. Revision Beliefs:Revision Beliefs:

meaning based meaning based changes occur changes occur throughout in relation to throughout in relation to audience and writing audience and writing purposepurpose

2.2. Audience Awareness:Audience Awareness: focus on effects on focus on effects on reader, presentation of reader, presentation of self to reader, req’d self to reader, req’d schema and interest of schema and interest of readerreader


Novice vs. Skilled WritersNovice vs. Skilled Writers (Barkaoui, 2007) (Barkaoui, 2007)

NoviceNovice3. 3. Time and Frequency: Time and Frequency:

almost none, and often almost none, and often only at final-draft stageonly at final-draft stage

4. 4. Revision Processes: Revision Processes: little to no regulation little to no regulation (‘stuck’ on form), limited (‘stuck’ on form), limited repertoire, no strats for repertoire, no strats for global probs, fail to look global probs, fail to look at surrounding text, fear at surrounding text, fear of re-readingof re-reading

SkilledSkilled3. 3. Time and Frequency:Time and Frequency:

regularly, early drafts regularly, early drafts used for idea creation used for idea creation and explorationand exploration

4. 4. Revision Processes: Revision Processes: re-re-read and assess for new read and assess for new ideas, sophisticated ideas, sophisticated repertoire of revision repertoire of revision techniques, switch btwn techniques, switch btwn sub-processes sub-processes (generate) and strats (generate) and strats (diagnose, compare)(diagnose, compare)


Novice vs. Skilled WritersNovice vs. Skilled WritersNoviceNovice

5. 5. Revision Focus: Revision Focus: micro-micro-level: correct local & level: correct local & surface mechanics and surface mechanics and lexical probs, ignore lexical probs, ignore content issues. content issues.

6. 6. Revision Outcomes: Revision Outcomes: overestimate overestimate comprehensibility, writer-comprehensibility, writer-based prose, fail in based prose, fail in meaningful rhetorical meaningful rhetorical /org. changes, can make /org. changes, can make text weakertext weaker

SkilledSkilled

5. 5. Revision Focus: Revision Focus: wide wide range: global & local range: global & local aspects, rhetorical and aspects, rhetorical and org. issues, org. issues, ↑ changes ↑ changes that change meaning.that change meaning.

6. 6. Revision Outcomes: Revision Outcomes: improve text from improve text from readers’ view (reader-readers’ view (reader-based prose), stronger based prose), stronger texts b/c planning and texts b/c planning and pre-text revisionpre-text revision


Theoretical FrameworksTheoretical Frameworks

Process approach: multiple drafts based on Process approach: multiple drafts based on meaning based meaning based revisions revisions

4 stages within the Process Approach: 4 stages within the Process Approach: expressive, cognitive, social and discourse expressive, cognitive, social and discourse

communitycommunity(Grabe & Kaplan, 1996). (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996).



Checklist Peer review falls into 3 of the 4. Checklist Peer review falls into 3 of the 4.

Expressive: no – this is initial idea Expressive: no – this is initial idea generation and no revision is required.generation and no revision is required.

Cognitive: yes – problem identification and Cognitive: yes – problem identification and solving (writing in relation to problem)solving (writing in relation to problem)

Social: yes – writing is viewed within a social Social: yes – writing is viewed within a social context context by membersby members of the social context. of the social context.

Discourse: yes – writers and readers Discourse: yes – writers and readers interactions with text – collaborationinteractions with text – collaboration



Zone of Proximal Development Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978)(Vygotsky, 1978)

Scaffolding required to learn is provided Scaffolding required to learn is provided through through interaction interaction with experts and other with experts and other non-expertsnon-experts. .

The goal is for the reader to assist the writer The goal is for the reader to assist the writer in recognizing and attending to in recognizing and attending to comprehension issues as outlined by the comprehension issues as outlined by the checklist – leading to independent revision checklist – leading to independent revision skills. skills. (Anton & Di Camilla, 2000; DeGuerro & Villamil, 2000). (Anton & Di Camilla, 2000; DeGuerro & Villamil, 2000).


Two Types of ChecklistsTwo Types of Checklists

Surface (editing) checklists: grammar, Surface (editing) checklists: grammar, punctuation etc.= punctuation etc.= non-meaning based non-meaning based

Rhetorical (meaning) checklists: text Rhetorical (meaning) checklists: text structure, organization, or relevance/ structure, organization, or relevance/ strength of support = strength of support = meaning-basedmeaning-based


Surface ChecklistsSurface Checklists

Based on level and proficiency (number of checks)Based on level and proficiency (number of checks)Capitalization, indentation, headings, font, bold, Capitalization, indentation, headings, font, bold,

punctuation, word forms, sentence structures, punctuation, word forms, sentence structures, parallelism, paragraphs, referencing etc…parallelism, paragraphs, referencing etc…

Include what the students should know, but also Include what the students should know, but also have a ‘new’ focus (known to new). For have a ‘new’ focus (known to new). For example:example:

Recent focus is compound sentences – include a Recent focus is compound sentences – include a section to focus on sentences that are section to focus on sentences that are compound…or aren’t but could be…compound…or aren’t but could be…


Meaning Based Checklist Meaning Based Checklist

1.1. The thesis statement clearly states the The thesis statement clearly states the author’s position Y/N and WHY_____ author’s position Y/N and WHY_____

2.2. Body 1: the topic sentence gives support that Body 1: the topic sentence gives support that is is related to the thesisrelated to the thesis Y/N Why?______ Y/N Why?______

3.3. Is the support fact or opinion? F/OIs the support fact or opinion? F/O1.1. Is it strong/mid/weak support? Why?______Is it strong/mid/weak support? Why?______

4.4. The minor support enhances/explains the The minor support enhances/explains the major support Y/N Why?_______major support Y/N Why?_______

5.5. The author clearly links the supports to the The author clearly links the supports to the thesis Y/N How?_________thesis Y/N How?_________


Consideration and DangerConsideration and Danger

Training Required:Training Required:for use of a rhetorical peer review checklist, they for use of a rhetorical peer review checklist, they

must be trained in procedures and must be trained in procedures and editing / editing / rhetoricalrhetorical differences differences

Limited use: Limited use: even with meaning based checklists, reviewers are even with meaning based checklists, reviewers are

more likely to make editing changes & writers more likely to make editing changes & writers more likely to make a larger proportion of editing more likely to make a larger proportion of editing corrections (forego many of the suggested corrections (forego many of the suggested meaning changes) meaning changes)

(Berg, 1999; Silva, 1993; Paulus, 1999; Villamil and De Guerrero, (Berg, 1999; Silva, 1993; Paulus, 1999; Villamil and De Guerrero, 1996; Zhang, 1999). 1996; Zhang, 1999).


WHY?WHY?Students from collectivist cultures: concerned Students from collectivist cultures: concerned

with group solidarity, have a strong aversion to with group solidarity, have a strong aversion to criticism = more likely to limit to praise, criticism = more likely to limit to praise, agreement, and minimal change suggestions agreement, and minimal change suggestions (Carson and Nelson, 1996; Ferris, 2003; Zhang, 1999). (Carson and Nelson, 1996; Ferris, 2003; Zhang, 1999).

L2 learners can question the abilities of their L2 learners can question the abilities of their peers to give relevant, rhetorical feedback and peers to give relevant, rhetorical feedback and tend to prefer to implement meaning based tend to prefer to implement meaning based changes that come from teacher feedback changes that come from teacher feedback (Carson and Nelson, 1996; Ferris, 2003; Paulus, 1999; Zhang, 1999). (Carson and Nelson, 1996; Ferris, 2003; Paulus, 1999; Zhang, 1999).


So How Do We Use Them?So How Do We Use Them?

You all know how to make and use editing You all know how to make and use editing checklists…checklists…

Here is one example of how to train, use, Here is one example of how to train, use, and implement rhetorical checklists…and implement rhetorical checklists…

Karen…Karen…


Preparing the StudentPreparing the Student

Show them the BENEFITSShow them the BENEFITS

Practice both editing and revisingPractice both editing and revisingPractice articulating argumentsPractice articulating argumentsPractice communicating ideasPractice communicating ideasDevelop critical analysis skillsDevelop critical analysis skillsLearn from each otherLearn from each otherShow how they can improve their own Show how they can improve their own

workwork


If the students are not prepared If the students are not prepared for the task…for the task…


NecessitiesNecessitiesClear modelling and reinforcementClear modelling and reinforcementProduce constructive ideas and detailsProduce constructive ideas and detailsStudents are committed to the processStudents are committed to the processStudents trust each otherStudents trust each otherA clear understanding between opinion and fact.A clear understanding between opinion and fact.


The Positive SnowballThe Positive Snowball


Explain the BenefitsExplain the Benefits


The Positive UmbrellaThe Positive Umbrella


ComplimentsCompliments


SuggestionsSuggestions


CorrectionsCorrections


ReviewReview


The Positive Role of the EditorThe Positive Role of the Editor Title – Reflect the content? Did it grab your Title – Reflect the content? Did it grab your

attention?attention? Thesis – Clear, strong, consistent?Thesis – Clear, strong, consistent? Are there arguments against the thesis?Are there arguments against the thesis? Does the body of work support the thesis?Does the body of work support the thesis? Did the author address possible objections to Did the author address possible objections to

supporting arguments?supporting arguments? Can you think of more objections?Can you think of more objections? What is the best part of the essay?What is the best part of the essay? What part of the essay needs attention before What part of the essay needs attention before

handing it in?handing it in?


The Positive Role of the AuthorThe Positive Role of the Author

Were you concerned about any part of Were you concerned about any part of your essay before it was reviewed? Which your essay before it was reviewed? Which parts? Why? (Discussion)parts? Why? (Discussion)

Which suggestions have been most Which suggestions have been most helpful to you? Why?helpful to you? Why?

Which suggestions didn’t you understand? Which suggestions didn’t you understand? (Discussion)(Discussion)


Putting it all togetherPutting it all together


ReferencesReferences Anton, M. & DiCamilla, F. (2000). Sociocognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Anton, M. & DiCamilla, F. (2000). Sociocognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom.

The Canadian Modern Language Review, The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54 (3), 314 – 34254 (3), 314 – 342 Barkaoui, K. (2007). Revision in second language writing: What teachers need to know. Barkaoui, K. (2007). Revision in second language writing: What teachers need to know. TESL Canada TESL Canada

JournalJournal, 25 (1). , 25 (1). Berg, C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Berg, C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality.

Journal of Second Language Writing, Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (3), 215 – 241.8 (3), 215 – 241. Carson, J. and Nelson, G. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Carson, J. and Nelson, G. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction.

Journal of Second Language Writing,Journal of Second Language Writing, 5 (1), 1 – 19. 5 (1), 1 – 19. Cumming, A. (1995). Fostering writing expertise in ESL composition instruction: Modeling and evaluation. In Cumming, A. (1995). Fostering writing expertise in ESL composition instruction: Modeling and evaluation. In

D. Belche & G. Braine (Eds.). D. Belche & G. Braine (Eds.). Academic writing in a second language: Essays in research and Academic writing in a second language: Essays in research and pedagogy.pedagogy. (pp. 375-397). NJ: Ablex Publishing. (pp. 375-397). NJ: Ablex Publishing.

De Guerrero, M. and Villamil, O. (2000). Activating the ZPD : Scaffolding in L2 peer revision. De Guerrero, M. and Villamil, O. (2000). Activating the ZPD : Scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern The Modern Language Journal, Language Journal, 84 (i), 51 – 68. 84 (i), 51 – 68.

Ferris, D. (2003). Responding to writing. In B. Kroll (Ed.). Ferris, D. (2003). Responding to writing. In B. Kroll (Ed.). Exploring the dynamics of second language writing.Exploring the dynamics of second language writing. (pp.119 – 140).UK: Cambridge University Press. (pp.119 – 140).UK: Cambridge University Press.

Grabe, W. and Kaplan, R. (1996). Grabe, W. and Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and Practice of Writing.Theory and Practice of Writing. UK: Longman. . UK: Longman. . Paulus, T. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Paulus, T. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Journal of Second Second

Language Language Writing, Writing, 8 (3), 265 – 289.8 (3), 265 – 289. Villamil, O. and De Guerrero, M. (1996). Villamil, O. and De Guerrero, M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom : Social-cognitive activities, Peer revision in the L2 classroom : Social-cognitive activities,

mediating strategies, and aspects of social behaviour. mediating strategies, and aspects of social behaviour. Journal of Second Language Writing, Journal of Second Language Writing, 5 5 (1), (1), 51 – 75. 51 – 75.

Vygotsky, L.S., (1978). Vygotsky, L.S., (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Harvard University Press.

Zhang, S. (1999). Thoughts on some recent evidence concerning the affective advantage of peer feedback. Zhang, S. (1999). Thoughts on some recent evidence concerning the affective advantage of peer feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (3), 321 – 326. 8 (3), 321 – 326.

Documents

L2 Writing and Checklist Peer Review Angela Meyer Sterzik & Karen Scott-Murray