Inspired by Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and Storch’s framework of peer interaction, this study investigated the nature and outcome of peer interaction in EFL (English as a foreign language) learners’ peer review and revision activities. During two 16-week semesters, 32 lower-intermediate learners participated in an Advanced Writing university course. Each of the learners wrote and revised six one-paragraph writing assignments and exchanged peer negotiated feedback in pairs. The qualitative analysis of their recorded dialogues revealed that although the learners were nearly at the same proficiency level, they adopted a variety of patterns of interaction including collaborative, expert/novice, dominant/dominant, and dominant/passive. Collaborative and dominant/passive patterns were the most and the least frequent patterns, respectively. The analysis of feedback types indicated that the collaborative pairs exchanged the highest number of feedback in total and could extend their focus to content and organization of the texts more than the other pairs. The lowest number of feedback was observed in pairs adopting a dominant/passive pattern of interaction. Further analysis showed that while collaborative learners succeeded in revising the majority of their errors correctly and had the greatest short-term writing development, the passive learners failed at both to a large extent. These findings are discussed drawing on relevant theoretical and practical literature, and implications for second language (L2) writing instructors and researchers are suggested.
AdamsR. (2007). Do second language learners benefit from interacting with each other? In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies (pp. 29–51). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
Ahmadi SafaM.RozatiF. (2016). The impact of scaffolding and nonscaffolding strategies on the EFL learners’ listening comprehension development. The Journal of Educational Research, 0, 1–10.
3.
BallingerS. (2013). Towards a cross-linguistic pedagogy: Biliteracy and reciprocal learning strategies in French immersion. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 1, 131–148.
4.
BrownJ.D.BaileyK.M. (1984). A categorical instrument for scoring second language writing skills. Language Learning, 34, 21–42.
5.
ChoiH.IwashitaN. (2016). Interactional behaviours of low-proficiency learners in small group work. In SatoM.BallingerS. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 113–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
6.
DamonW.PhelpsE. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 9–19.
7.
DevosN.J. (2016). Peer interactions in new content and language integrated settings. Cham: Springer.
8.
DonatoR. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In LantolfJ.P.AppelG. (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
9.
EllisR. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focused instruction on L2 acquisition. International Association of Applied Linguistics Review, 19, 18–41.
10.
Fernández DobaoA. (2016). Peer interaction and learning: A focus on the silent learner. In SatoM.BallingerS. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 33–61). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
11.
Fernández DobaoA.BlumA. (2013). Collaborative writing in pairs and small groups: Learners’ attitudes and perceptions. System, 41, 365–378.
12.
FerrisD. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
FosterP.OhtaA.S. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26, 402–430.
14.
García MayoM.P.PicaT. (2000). L2 interaction in a foreign language setting: Are learning needs addressed. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 38, 35–58.
15.
HughesG. (2010). Identity and belonging in social learning groups: The importance of distinguishing social, operational and knowledge-related identity congruence. British Educational Research Journal, 36, 47–63.
16.
KimY.McDonoughK. (2008). The effect of interlocutor proficiency on the collaborative dialogue between Korean as a Second Language learners. Language Teaching Research, 12, 211–234.
17.
LantolfJ.P.ThornS.L. (2007). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. In VanPattenB.WilliamsJ. (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (pp. 201–224). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
LeeI. (2017). Classroom writing assessment and feedback in L2 school contexts. Singapore: Springer.
19.
LeeserM.J. (2004). Learner proficiency and focus on form during collaborative dialogue. Language Teaching Research, 8, 55–81.
20.
Martin-BeltránM. (2010). Positioning proficiency: How students and teachers (de)construct language proficiency at school. Linguistics and Education, 21, 257–281.
21.
Martin-BeltránM.ChenP.GuzmanN.MerrillsK. (2016). How adolescents use social discourse to open space for language learning during peer interactions. In SatoM.BallingerS. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 319–348). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
22.
McDonoughK.CrawfordW.J.De VleeschauwerJ. (2016). Thai EFL learners’ interaction during collaborative writing tasks and its relationship to text quality. In SatoM.BallingerS. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 185–208). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
23.
MinH.T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 32, 293–308.
24.
MoranskiK.TothP.D. (2016). Small-group meta-analytic talk and Spanish L2 development. In SatoM.BallingerS. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 291–316). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
25.
NassajiH. (2017). Negotiated oral feedback in response to written errors. In NassajiH.KartchavaE. (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 114–128). Oxon: Routledge.
26.
NassajiH.KartchavaE. (2017). Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning. New York: Routledge.
27.
NicolD.ThomsonA.BreslinC. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39, 102–122.
28.
NortonB. (2001). Non-participation, imagined communities, and the language classroom. In BreenM. (Ed.), Learner contributions to language learning: New directions in research (pp. 159–171). London: Pearson Education Limited.
29.
NortonB. (2010). Language and identity. In HornbergerN.McKayS. (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and language education (pp. 349–369). Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
30.
Oxford Placement Test (2001). Oxford Placement Test. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31.
PhilpJ. (2016). New pathways in researching interaction. In SatoM.BallingerS. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 377–395). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
32.
PhilpJ.AdamsR.IwashitaN. (2014). Peer interaction and second language learning. New York: Taylor & Francis.
33.
PhilpJ.WalterS.BasturkmenH. (2010). Peer interaction in foreign language classroom: What factors foster a focus on form?Language Awareness, 19, 261–279.
34.
RobersonA.P. (2014). Patterns of interaction in peer response: The relationship between pair dynamics and revision outcomes. Unpublished PhD thesis, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
35.
Ross-FeldmanL. (2007). Interaction in the L2 classroom: Does gender influence learning opportunities? In MackeyA. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition (pp. 53–77). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36.
RouhshadA. (2013). Nature of negotiations in face-to-face and computer-mediate communication. Paper presented at American Association of Applied Linguistics (AAAL) conference, Dallas, TX, March.
37.
RouhshadA.StorchN. (2016). A focus on mode: Patterns of interaction in face-to-face and computer-mediated contexts. In SatoM.BallingerS. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 267–289). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
38.
SatoM. (2007). Social relationships in conversational interaction: A comparison between learner–learner and learner–NS dyads. Japan Association of Language Teaching Journal, 29, 183–208.
39.
SatoM. (2015). Density and complexity of oral production in interaction: The interactionist approach and an alternative. International Review of Applied Linguistics, 53, 307–329.
40.
SatoM. (2017). Interaction mindsets, interactional behaviors, and L2 development: An affective-social-cognitive model. Language Learning, 67, 249–283.
41.
SatoM.BallingerS. (2012). Raising language awareness in peer interaction: A cross-context, cross-method examination. Language Awareness, 21, 157–179.
42.
SatoM.BallingerS. (2016). Understanding peer interaction: Research synthesis and directions. In SatoM.BallingerS. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 1–30). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
43.
SatoM.LysterR. (2012). Peer interaction and corrective feedback for accuracy and fluency development: Monitoring, practice, and proceduralization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 34, 591–626.
44.
SatoM.ViverosP. (2016). Interaction or collaboration? Group dynamics in the foreign language classroom. In SatoM.BallingerS. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 91–112). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
45.
SchoonenR.SnellingsP.StevensonM.Van GelderenA. (2009). Towards a blueprint of the foreign language writer: The linguistic and cognitive demands of foreign language writing. In ManchónR.M. (Ed.), Learning, teaching, and researching writing in foreign language contexts. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
46.
StorchN. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119–158.
47.
StorchN. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 153–173.
48.
StorchN. (2018). Written corrective feedback from sociocultural theoretical perspectives: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 51, 262–277.
49.
StorchN.AldosariA. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17, 31–48.
50.
TruscottJ. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46, 327–369.
51.
Van LierL. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In LantolfJ.P. (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
52.
VygotskyL.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
53.
WatanabeY.SwainM. (2007). Effects of proficiency differences and patterns of pair interaction on second language learning: Collaborative dialogue between adult ESL learners. Language Teaching Research, 11, 121–142.
54.
YoshidaR. (2008). Learners’ perception of corrective feedback in pair work. Foreign Language Annals, 41, 525–541.
55.
YoungA.TedickD.J. (2016). Collaborative dialogue in a two-way Spanish/English immersion classroom. In SatoM.BallingerS. (Eds.), Peer interaction and second language learning: Pedagogical potential and research agenda (pp. 135–160). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
56.
YuS.LeeI. (2015). Understanding EFL students’ participation in group peer feedback of L2 writing: A case study from an activity theory perspective. Language Teaching Research, 19, 572–593.
57.
ZhaoS.Y.BitchenerJ. (2007). Incidental focus on form in teacher–learner and learner–learner interactions. System, 35, 431–447.
58.
ZhengC. (2012). Understanding the learning process of peer feedback activity: An ethnographic study of exploratory practice. Language Teaching Research, 16, 109–126.
59.
ZhuQ.CarlessD. (2018). Dialogue within peer feedback processes: Clarification and negotiation of meaning. Higher Education Research & Development, 37, 883–897.
