Understanding EFL students’ participation in group peer feedback of L2 writing: A case study from an activity theory perspective

Abstract

While the last three decades have witnessed a growing body of research on peer feedback in first language (L1) and second language (L2) writing, research about students’ motives for participating in group peer feedback has remained underexplored. In order to fill this important gap, this case study, guided by the constructs of activity and motive in activity theory, investigates two Chinese university students’ motives for participating in group peer feedback activities in the EFL (English as a foreign language) writing classroom. Multiple sources of data were collected, including video recordings of peer feedback sessions, semi-structured interviews, stimulated recalls and student texts. Data analyses indicate that EFL students’ group peer feedback activities are driven and defined by their motives, which are shaped and mediated by the sociocultural context. The findings also show that student motives could have direct influence on students’ participation in group peer feedback activities and their subsequent revisions. This study contributes new knowledge to the field by relating students’ motives to other key elements in peer feedback such as peer stances, group interaction and student revisions of L2 writing, yielding a deepened understanding of students’ participation in and engagement with peer feedback in EFL writing.

Keywords

Activity theory EFL writing group work motives peer feedback

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Engeström

(1987). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.

Engeström

(2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14, 133–156.

Ferris

D.R.

Liu

Sinha

Senna

(2013). Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22, 307–329.

Gass

S.M.

Mackey

(2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Lam

S.T.E.

(2010). Issues of cultural appropriateness and pedagogical efficacy: Exploring peer review in a second language writing class. Instructional Science, 38, 371–394.

Hyland

(2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83–101.

Jin

(2007). Computer-mediated peer response in a level-IV ESL academic writing class: A cultural historical activity theoretical perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, USA.

Jin

Zhu

(2010). Dynamic motives in ESL computer-mediated peer response. Computers and Composition, 27, 284–303.

Jonassen

D.H.

Rohrer-Murphy

(1999). Activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47, 61–79.

10.

Lantolf

J.P.

Thorne

S.L.

(2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

11.

Leeser

M.J.

(2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81.

12.

Leont’ev

A.N.

(1978). Problems of the development of mind. Moscow: Progress.

13.

Leont’ev

A.N.

(1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In Wertsch

J.V.

(Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37–70). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

14.

Liu

Hansen

(2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

15.

(2010). Chinese EFL learners’ decision-making while evaluating peers’ texts. International Journal of English Studies, 10, 99–120.

16.

Mendonça

Johnson

(1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745–769.

17.

Miles

M.B.

Huberman

A.M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

18.

Min

H.T.

(2006). The effects of training peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118–141.

19.

Min

H.T.

(2008). Reviewer stances and writer perceptions in EFL peer review training. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 285–305.

20.

Nelson

G.L.

Carson

J.G.

(1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 113–131.

21.

Nelson

G.L.

Murphy

J.M.

(1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27, 135–41.

22.

Rahimi

(2013). Is training students reviewers worth its while? A study of how training influences the quality of students’ feedback and writing. Language Teaching Research, 17, 67–89.

23.

Storch

(2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119–158.

24.

Storch

(2004). Using activity theory to explain differences in patterns of dyadic interactions in an ESL class. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 457–480.

25.

Storch

Aldosari

(2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17, 31–48.

26.

Strauss

Corbin

(1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

27.

Vygotsky

L.S.

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

28.

Woo

Chu

(2013). Peer-feedback and revision process in a wiki mediated collaborative writing. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61, 279–309.

29.

Yang

Badger

(2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179–200.

30.

Zhao

(2010). Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: A comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 15, 3–17.

31.

Zheng

(2012). Understanding the learning process of peer feedback activity: An ethnographic study of exploratory practice. Language Teaching Research, 16, 109–126.

32.

Zhu

(2001). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 251–276.

33.

Zhu

Mitchell

(2012). Participation in peer response as activity: An examination of peer response stances from an activity theory perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 362–386.