This study aimed to determine differences in the uptake of peer and teacher feedback after writing students received longitudinal feedback from only one of these sources. It also investigates the types of feedback given by peers and a teacher in order to explain those any differences. Data was collected from 64 Japanese university students in four classes. It was found that peer feedback was more often non-specific, whereas teacher feedback was more often specific and more often uptaken. Moreover, while more frequent teacher feedback led to misunderstandings or unsuccessful revisions, more frequent peer feedback led to successful revisions. Furthermore, while the teacher gave more feedback using coded marks and general comments, peer feedback was made up of more uncoded marks and direct comments. It may increase the uptake of peer feedback if peer reviewers are trained to give specific feedback and general, rather than direct, comments.
AshwellT (2000) Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multi-draft composition classroom: is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method?Journal of Second Language Writing9(3): 227–57.
2.
BitchenerJ (2008) Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing17(2) 102–18.
3.
BitchenerJKnochU (2010) The contribution of written corrective feedback to language development: a ten month investigation. Applied Linguistics31(2): 193–214.
4.
CaulkN (1994) Comparing teacher and student responses to written work. TESOL Quarterly28(1): 181–97.
5.
ChandlerJ (2003) The efficacy of various different kinds of feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing12(3): 267–96.
6.
ChaudronC (1984) Evaluating Writing: Effects of feedback on revision. RELC Journal15(2): 1–14.
7.
CohenACavalcantiM (1990) Feedback on compositions: teacher and student verbal reports. In: KrollB (ed) Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
ConnorUAsenavageK (1994) Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: how much impact on revision?Journal of Second Language Writing3(3): 257–76.
9.
FerrisDPezoneSTadeCTintiS (1997) Teacher commentary on student writing: Descriptions and implications. Journal of Second Language Writing6(2): 155–82.
10.
FerrisDRobertsB (2001) Error feedback in L2 writing classes: how explicit does it need to be?Journal of Second Language Writing10(3): 161–84.
11.
GoldsteinL (2004) Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: teachers and students working together. Journal of Second Language Writing13(1) 63–80.
12.
HadleyGHadleyH (1996) The culture of learning and the good teacher in Japan: an analysis of student views. The Language Teacher20(9): 53–55.
13.
HallC (1990) Managing the complexity of revising across languages. TESOL Quarterly24(1): 43–60.
14.
HedgcockJLefkowitzN (1992) Collective oral/aural revision in foreign language writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing1(3): 255–76.
15.
HylandF (2000) ESL writers and feedback: giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching Research4(1): 33–54.
16.
KehC (1990) Feedback in the writing process: a model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal44(4): 294–304.
17.
LeeSKrashenS (2002) Predictors of success in writing in English as a foreign language: reading, revision behavior, apprehension and writing. College Student Journal36(4): 532–43.
18.
LekiI (1990) Coaching from the margins: issues in written response. In: KrollB (ed.) Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57–68.
19.
LoewenS (2004) Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning focused ESL lessons. Language Learning54(1): 153–88.
20.
LysterRRantaL (1997) Corrective feedback and learner uptake: negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition19(1): 37–66.
21.
MackeyAPhilpJ (1998) Conversational interaction and second language development: recasts, responses and red herrings. Modern Language Journal82(3): 338–56.
OhtaA (2000) Re-thinking recasts: a learner-centred examination of corrective feedback in the Japanese language classroom. In: HallJVerplaesteL (eds) The Construction of Second and Foreign Language Learning through Classroom Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 47–71.
24.
PaulusT (1999) The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing8(3): 265–89.
25.
PienemannM (1989) Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments and hypotheses. Applied Linguistics10(1): 52–79.
26.
PorteG (1996) When writing fails: how academic context and past learning experiences shape revision. System24(1): 107–16.
27.
SenguptaS (1998) Peer evaluation: ‘I am not the teacher’. ELT Journal52(1): 19–26.
28.
SheenY (2004) Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across instructional settings. Language Teaching Research8(3): 263–300.
29.
SheenY (2007) The effect of focussed written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly41(2): 255–83.
30.
SwainM (1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. In: CookGSeidhoferB (eds) Principles and Practices in the Study of Language (pp). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 125–44.
31.
TsuiANgM (2000) Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments?Journal of Second Language Writing9(2): 147–71.
32.
VillamilOGuerreroM (1998) Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics19(4): 491–514.
33.
VygotskyL (1986) Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
