Peer Reviewing Across the Atlantic: Patterns and Trends in L1 and L2 Comments Made in an Asynchronous Online Collaborative Learning Exchange Between Technical Communication Students in Sweden and in the United States
Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online July, 2010
Peer Reviewing Across the Atlantic: Patterns and Trends in L1 and L2 Comments Made in an Asynchronous Online Collaborative Learning Exchange Between Technical Communication Students in Sweden and in the United States
In a globally networked learning environment (GNLE), 16 students at a university in Sweden and 17 students at a university in the United States exchanged peer-review comments on drafts of assignments they prepared in English for their technical communication classes. The instructors of both sets of students had assigned the same projects and taught their courses in the same way that they had in the previous year, which contrasts with the common practice of having students in partnering courses work on the same assignment or on linked assignments created specifically for the GNLE. The authors coded the students’ 816 comments according to their focus and orientation in order to investigate the possible differences between the comments made by the L2 students in Sweden and those made by the L1 (English as a second language) students in the United States, the possible impact of peer reviewing online, and the influence of the instructors’ directions on the students’ peer-reviewing behavior.
American Association of Colleges and Universities. ( 2009). General education for global learning. Retrieved December 30, 2009, from http://www.aacu.org/sharedfutures/gened_global_learning/
2.
Anderson, P.V. ( 2007). Technical communication: A reader-centered approach. International student edition (6th ed.). Boston: Thomson-Wadsworth.
3.
Artemeva, N., & Logie, S. ( 2003). Introducing engineering students to intellectual teamwork: The teaching and practice of peer feedback in the professional communication classroom. Language and Learning Across the Disciplines, 6, 62-85.
4.
Batt, T.A. ( 2005). The rhetoric of the end comment. Rhetoric Review, 42, 207-223.
5.
Beach, R., & Friedrich, T. ( 2006). Response to writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 222-234). New York: Guilford .
6.
Bitchener, J. ( 2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback . Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102-118.
7.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. ( 2009). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63, 204-211.
8.
Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. ( 2001). Peer learning in higher education: Learning from & with each other. London: Kogan Page .
9.
Breuch, L.K. ( 2004). Virtual peer review: Teaching and learning about writing in online environments. Albany, NY: SUNY.
10.
Carson, J., & Nelson, G. ( 1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing , 5, 1-19.
11.
DiGiovanni, E., & Nagaswami, G. ( 2001). Online peer review: An alternative to face-to-face ? ELT Journal, 55, 263-272.
12.
DiPardo, A., & Warshauer Freedman, S. (1988). Peer response groups in the writing classroom: Theoretic foundations and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 58, 119-149.
13.
Dippold, D. ( 2009). Peer feedback through blogs: Student and teacher perceptions in an advanced German class. ReCALL, 21, 18-36.
14.
Dubinsky, J. ( 2008). When the global is local: Building a local, global community through partnership and pedagogy. In D. Starke-Meyerring & M. Wilson (Eds.), Designing globally networked learning environments: Visionary partnerships, policies, and pedagogies (pp. 170-184). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense.
15.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. ( 2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-368.
16.
European Commission. (2009, May 30). Multilingualism. Retrieved December 30, 2009, from http://ec.europa.eu/education/languages/at-a-glance/doc1458_en.htm
17.
Falchikov, N. ( 2005). Improving assessment through student involvement: Practical solutions for aiding learning in higher and further education. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
18.
Fischer, K. ( 2009, May 21). Internationally, the business of education is booming. Chronicle of Higher Education, A1-A32.
19.
Fitch, B., Kirby, A., & Amador, L.M.G. (2008). Closing the distance education: Using technology to bring together indigenous and non-indigenous students of Mexico, the United States, and Canada. In D. Starke-Meyerring & M. Wilson (Eds.), Designing globally networked learning environments: Visionary partnerships, policies, and pedagogies (pp. 145-155). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense.
20.
Gibson, C. B., & Cohen, S. G. (Eds.). (2003). Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21.
Gibson, C.B., & Manuel, J.A. ( 2003). Building trust: Effective multicultural communication processes in virtual teams. In C. B. Gibson & S. G. Cohen (Eds.), Virtual teams that work: Creating conditions for virtual team effectiveness (pp. 59-86). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22.
Green, M.F., Luu, D., & Burris, B. ( 2008). Mapping internationalization on U.S. campuses . Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
23.
Gustafsson, M., Reiss, D., & Young, A. ( 2006). Writing, literature, and technology: Online writing and conversational learning. Journal of College Writing, 8, 5-18.
24.
Hanrahan, S.J., & Isaacs, G. ( 2001). Assessing self- and peer-assessment: The students’ views. Higher Education Research & Development, 20, 53-70.
25.
Herrington, T. ( 2008). The Global Classroom Project: Multiple relationships in global partnering. In D. Starke-Meyerring & M. Wilson (Eds.), Designing globally networked learning environments: Visionary partnerships, policies, and pedagogies (pp. 37-51). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense.
26.
Humbly, J., Maylath, B.A., Mousten, B., Vandepitte, S., & Veisblat, I. ( 2005). Learning localization through trans-Atlantic collaboration . In G. F. Hayhoe (Ed.), Proceedings of the IEEE International Professional Communication Conference, 10-13 July 2005, University of Limerick, Ireland (pp. 578-595). New York: IEEE.
27.
Hyland, F. ( 2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students . Language Teaching Research, 4, 33-54.
28.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. ( 2006a). Feedback on second language students’ writing: State-of-the-art article. Language Teaching, 39, 83-101.
29.
Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (Eds.). (2006b). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. UK: Cambridge University Press.
30.
Kramsch, C. ( 2006). From communicative competence to symbolic competence . Modern Language Journal, 90, 249-252.
31.
Kynell-Hunt, T. ( 2000). Writing in a milieu of utility: The move to technical communication in American engineering 1850-1950. Stamford, CT: Ablex.
32.
Liu, J., & Sadler, R. ( 2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 193-227.
33.
McCool, M. ( 2008). Negotiating the design of globally networked learning environments: The case of collaborative online learning module. In D. Starke-Meyerring & M. Wilson (Eds.), Designing globally networked learning environments: Visionary partnerships, policies, and pedagogies (pp. 200-217). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense.
34.
Melton, J. ( 2008). Beyond standard English: Re-thinking language in globally networked learning environments. In D. Starke-Meyerring & M. Wilson (Eds.), Designing globally networked learning environments: Visionary partnerships, policies, and pedagogies (pp. 185-199). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense.
35.
Miami University. ( 2008, October 7). G and G-cluster courses in the global Miami plan: Criteria for submission. Retrieved December30, 2009, from http://www. units.muohio.edu/led/Global%20Miami%20Plan/globalmiamiplan.html
36.
Mousten, B., Vandepitte, S., & Maylath, B.A. ( 2008). Intercultural collaboration in the trans-Atlantic project: Pedagogical theories and practices in teaching procedural instructions across cultural contexts. In D. Starke-Meyerring & M. Wilson (Eds.), Designing globally networked learning environments: Visionary partnerships, policies, and pedagogies (pp. 129-144). Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense.
37.
Nelson, G., & Murphy, J. ( 1992). An L2 writing group: Task and social dimensions . Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 171-193.
38.
Paretti, M.C., & McNair, L.D. (2008). Communication in global virtual activity systems. In P. Zemliansky & K. St.Amant (Eds.), Handbook of research on virtual workplaces and the new nature of business practices (pp. 24-38). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
39.
Paretti, M.C., McNair, L., & Holloway-Attaway, L. (2007). Teaching technical communication in an era of distributed work: A case study of collaboration between U.S. and Swedish students. Technical Communication Quarterly, 16, 327-353.
40.
Patchan, M.M., Charney, D., & Schunn, C.D. ( 2009). A validation study of students’ end comments: Comparing comments by students, a writing instructor, and a content instructor . Journal of Writing Research, 1, 124-152.
41.
Rollinson, P. ( 2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59, 23-30.
42.
Ross, J., & Chao, X. ( 2008, November 18). Minnesota’s campuses are going global: The number of foreign students is up sharply, thanks to aggressive recruiting . StarTribune. Retrieved December30, 2009, from http:// www.startribune.com/ templates/Print_This_Story?sid=34580629
Schultz, J.M. ( 2000). Computers and collaborative writing in the foreign language curriculum. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language learning: Concepts and practice (pp. 121-150). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
45.
Simmons, J. ( 2003). Responders are taught, not born. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46, 684-693.
46.
Sotillo, S. ( 2005). Corrective feedback via instant messenger learning activities in NS-NNS and NNS-NNS dyads. CALICO Journal, 22, 467-496.
47.
Starke-Meyerring, D. ( 2005). Meeting the challenges of globalization: A framework for global literacies in professional communication programs. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 19, 468-499.
48.
Starke-Meyerring, D. ( 2008, November 14). Cross-boundary knowledge making in globally networked learning environments. Paper presented at SUNY Center for Online Collaborative Learning (COIL), Purchase, NY.
49.
Starke-Meyerring, D., & Andrews, D. ( 2006). Building a shared virtual learning culture. Business Communication Quarterly, 69, 25-49.
50.
Starke-Meyerring, D., & Wilson, M. ( 2008). Learning environments for a globally networked world . In D. Starke-Meyerring & M. Wilson (Eds.), Designing globally networked learning environments: Visionary partnerships, policies, and pedagogies (pp. 1-17). Rotterdam , the Netherlands: Sense.
51.
Thorne, S.L. ( 2003). Artifacts and cultures-of-use in intercultural communication . Language Learning and Technology, 7, 38-67.
52.
Van Buren, R. ( 1980). The levels of edit (2nd ed.). Pasadena, CA: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology.
53.
Ware, P., & Kramsch, C. ( 2005). Toward an intercultural stance: Teaching German and English through telecollaboration. Modern Language Journal , 89, 190-205.
54.
Ware, P., & Warschauer, M. (2006). Electronic feedback and second language writing. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing (pp. 105-122). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
