This study reports on part of a larger research project that investigates the role of students’ first language in learning English as a foreign language (EFL) in the context of Japanese higher education. Despite the prevalent use of peer review in EFL writing classes, students’ use of different languages and the effects of English proficiencies on collaborative interaction as mediated in written peer feedback remain underresearched. To add to the rather sparse literature, this study comparatively analysed peer feedback provided by high- and low-proficiency Japanese EFL students and conducted stimulated recall interviews to determine the factors affecting their language choices. The text analysis presented a stark contrast in students’ language choices stemming mainly from a difference in the type of feedback provided by each group: ‘corrective feedback’ versus ‘complimentary overall comment’. The stimulated recall interview accounts suggested that this polarization is attributable mostly to the proficiency gap between peer dyads and the affective need to contribute to the peer-review process. Inconsistent with the reports of previous studies that peer review benefits all students involved, the advanced-level participants voiced serious doubts about its effectiveness.
AllenD.KatayamaA. (2016). Relative second language proficiency and the giving and receiving of written peer feedback. System, 56, 96–106.
2.
AllenD.MillsA. (2016). The impact of second language proficiency in dyadic peer feedback. Language Teaching Research, 20, 498–513.
3.
AntónM.DiCamillaF.J. (1999). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. Modern Language Journal, 83, 233–247.
4.
BarnardR.de LucaR.LiJ. (2015). First-year undergraduate students’ perceptions of lecturer and peer feedback: A New Zealand action research project. Studies in Higher Education, 40, 933–944.
5.
BeanJ.C. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom. 2nd edition. Jossey-Bass.
6.
BerggrenJ. (2015). Learning from giving feedback: A study of secondary-level students. ELT Journal, 69, 58–70.
7.
BrammerC.ReesM. (2007). Peer review from the students’ perspective: Invaluable or invalid?Composition Studies, 35, 71–85.
8.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
9.
CaoZ.YuS.HuangJ. (2019). A qualitative inquiry into undergraduates’ learning from giving and receiving peer feedback in L2 writing: Insights from a case study. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 63, 102–112.
10.
ChenC.W.-y. (2010). Graduate students’ self-reported perspectives regarding peer feedback and feedback from writing consultants. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11, 151–158.
11.
ChoK.MacArthurC. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20, 328–338.
12.
ChoK.MacArthurC. (2011). Learning by reviewing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 73–84.
13.
ConnorU.AsenavageK. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision?Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 257–276.
14.
CrossmanJ.M.KiteS.L. (2012). Facilitating improved writing among students through directed peer review. Active Learning in Higher Education, 13, 219–229.
15.
de GuerreroM.C.M.VillamilO.S. (1994). Social-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. Modern Language Journal, 78, 484–496.
16.
de GuerreroM.C.M.VillamilO.S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. Modern Language Journal, 84, 51–68.
17.
DerhamC.BallooK.WinstoneN. (2022). The focus, function and framing of feedback information: Linguistic and content analysis of in-text feedback comments. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 47, 896–909.
18.
DiCamillaF.J.AntónM. (2012). Functions of L1 in the collaborative interaction of beginning and advanced second language learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22, 160–188.
19.
DiPardoA.FreedmanS.W. (1988). Peer response groups in the writing classroom: Theoretic foundations and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 58, 119–149.
GarcíaO.LiW. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan.
22.
García MayoM.P.HidalgoM.Á. (2017). L1 use among young EFL mainstream and CLIL learners in task-supported interaction. System, 67, 132–145.
23.
Hamp-LyonsL. (1991). Scoring procedures for ESL contexts. In Hamp-LyonsL. (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic contexts (pp. 241–276). Ablex.
24.
Hamp-LyonsL. (2006). Feedback in portfolio-based writing courses. In HylandK.HylandF. (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 140–161). Cambridge University Press.
HattieJ.TimperleyH. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.
27.
HesseF.CareE.BuderJ.SassenbergK.GriffinP. (2015). A framework for teachable collaborative problem solving skills. In GriffinP.CareE. (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Methods and approach (pp. 37–56). Springer.
28.
HuG. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9, 321–342.
29.
HylandF. (2000). ESL writers and Feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching Research, 4, 33–54.
30.
HylandF.HylandK. (2001). Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 185–212.
31.
HylandK.HylandF. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83–101.
32.
JacobsH.L.ZingrafS.A.WormuthD.R.HartfielV.F.HugheyJ.B. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Newbury House.
33.
KimS. (2019). Japanese student writers’ perspectives on anonymous peer review. ELT Journal, 73, 296–305.
34.
KimS. (2023a). ‘Who expresses an honest opinion as it stands in Japan?’: Cultural issues and Japanese L2 students’ experiences of face-to-face and anonymous peer review. Higher Education Research & Development, 42, 322–335.
35.
KimS. (2023b). ‘Sorry, I don’t good English’: Japanese L2 students’ written peer feedback in the face-to-face and anonymous review modes. Journal of Writing Research. Available at: https://www.jowr.org/pkp/ojs/index.php/jowr/article/view/941 (accessed August 2023).
36.
KimS.ChangC.-H. (2022). Japanese L2 learners’ translanguaging practice in written peer feedback. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25, 1363–1376.
37.
KimS.LanY. (2021). L2 writers’ perspectives on face-to-face and anonymous peer review: Voices from China. Porta Linguarum, 35, 149–164.
38.
LantolfJ.P.ThorneS.L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press.
39.
LeeM.-K. (2015). Peer feedback in second language writing: Investigating junior secondary students’ perspectives on inter-feedback and intra-feedback. System, 55, 1–10.
40.
LeeY.-W.GentileC.KantorR. (2008). Analytic scoring of TOEFL® CBT essays: Scores from humans and e-rater®. ETS Research Report Series, 2008, i–71.
41.
LiuJ.SadlerR.W. (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.
42.
LonghurstE.N. (2020). Omoiyari: The Japanese art of compassion. HarperCollins.
43.
LundstromK.BakerW. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30–43.
44.
MangelsdorfK.SchlumbergerA. (1992). ESL student response stances in a peer-review task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 235–254.
45.
MooreP.J. (2013). An emergent perspective on the use of the first language in the English-as-a-foreign-language classroom. Modern Language Journal, 97, 239–253.
46.
NelsonG.L.CarsonJ.G. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 113–131.
47.
PatchanM.M.SchunnC.D. (2015). Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: How students respond to peers’ texts of varying quality. Instructional Science, 43, 591–614.
48.
RahimiM. (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.
49.
ReddyK.HarlandT.WassR.WaldN. (2021). Student peer review as a process of knowledge creation through dialogue. Higher Education Research & Development, 40, 825–837.
50.
RichardsK. (2009). Trends in qualitative research in language teaching since 2000. Language Teaching, 42, 147–180.
51.
RobinsonP. (2007). Criteria for classifying and sequencing pedagogic tasks. In García MayoM.P. (Ed.), Investigating tasks in formal language learning (pp. 7–26). Multilingual Matters.
52.
SatoM. (2017). Interaction mindsets, interactional behaviors, and L2 development: An affective-social-cognitive model. Language Learning, 67, 249–283.
53.
StorchN. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 119–158.
54.
StorchN. (2004). Using activity theory to explain differences in patterns of dyadic interactions in an ESL class. Canadian Modern Language Review, 60, 457–480.
55.
StorchN.AldosariA. (2013). Pairing learners in pair work activity. Language Teaching Research, 17, 31–48.
56.
ToppingK.J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48, 20–27.
57.
TsengS.-C.TsaiC.-C. (2007). On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school computer course. Computers and Education, 49, 1161–1174.
58.
TsuiA.B.MNgM. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments?Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 147–170.
59.
Van BeuningenC.G.De JongN.H.KuikenF. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62, 1–41.
60.
VillamilO.S.de GuerreroM.C.M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behaviour. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 51–75.
61.
VillamilO.S.de GuerreroM.C.M. (2006). Sociocultural theory: A framework for understanding socio-cognitive dimensions of peer feedback. In HylandK.HylandF. (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 23–41). Cambridge University Press.
62.
VygotskyL.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
63.
VygotskyL.S. (1986). Thought and language. Revised edition. MIT Press.
64.
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.
65.
WeigleS.C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge University Press.
66.
WilliamsC. (2018). Language input effects on L2 composition peer review feedback. TESOL International Journal, 13, 33–46.
67.
WuZ. (2019). Lower English proficiency means poorer feedback performance? A mixed-methods study. Assessing Writing, 41, 14–24.
68.
YangM.BadgerR.YuZ. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179–200.
69.
YehC.-C. (2018). L1 versus L2 use in peer review of L2 writing in English. Asian EFL Journal, 20, 124–147.
70.
YuS. (2016). An exploratory study on the role of L1 use in peer written feedback of L2 writing. Porta Linguarum, 25, 135–146.
71.
YuS.HuG. (2017a). Understanding university students’ peer feedback practices in EFL writing: Insights from a case study. Assessing Writing, 33, 25–35.
72.
YuS.HuG. (2017b). Can higher-proficiency L2 learners benefit from working with lower-proficiency partners in peer feedback?Teaching in Higher Education, 22, 178–192.
73.
YuS.LeeI. (2014). An analysis of Chinese EFL students’ use of first and second language in peer feedback of L2 writing. System, 47, 28–38.
74.
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.
75.
YuS.LeeI. (2016a). Exploring Chinese students’ strategy use in a cooperative peer feedback writing group. System, 58, 1–11.
76.
YuS.LeeI. (2016b). Understanding the role of learners with low English language proficiency in peer feedback of second language writing. TESOL Quarterly, 50, 483–494.
77.
ZhangX.YuS. (2022). Training student writers in conducting peer feedback in L2 writing: A meaning-making perspective. Applied Linguistics Review, 13, 439–460.
78.
ZhaoH. (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.
79.
ZhengC. (2012). Understanding the learning process of peer feedback activity: An ethnographic study of exploratory practice. Language Teaching Research, 16, 109–126.
80.
ZhouY.YuS.LiuB.JiangL. (2022). Examining the role of writing proficiency in students’ feedback literacy development. Applied Linguistics Review. Advance online publication. http://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2021-0133
81.
ZhuW. (2001). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 251–276.
82.
ZhuW.MitchellD.A. (2012). Participation in peer response as activity: An examination of peer response stances from an activity theory perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 46, 362–386.
