L2 Writing and Checklist Peer Review Angela Meyer Sterzik & Karen Scott-Murray

Peer Review Meyer Sterzik & Scott-Murray Novice vs. Skilled Writers (Barkaoui, 2007) Novice Writers 1. Revision Beliefs: editing at the end is enough 2. Audience Awareness: very little attention given to reader; focus on topic Skilled Writers 1. Revision Beliefs: meaning based changes occur throughout in relation to audience and writing purpose 2. Audience Awareness: focus on effects on reader, presentation of self to reader, req’d schema and interest of reader

Peer Review Meyer Sterzik & Scott-Murray Novice vs. Skilled Writers (Barkaoui, 2007) Novice 3. Time and Frequency: almost none, and often only at final-draft stage 4. Revision Processes: little to no regulation (‘stuck’ on form), limited repertoire, no strats for global probs, fail to look at surrounding text, fear of re-reading Skilled 3. Time and Frequency: regularly, early drafts used for idea creation and exploration 4. Revision Processes: re- read and assess for new ideas, sophisticated repertoire of revision techniques, switch btwn sub-processes (generate) and strats (diagnose, compare)

Peer Review Meyer Sterzik & Scott-Murray Novice vs. Skilled Writers Novice 5. Revision Focus: micro- level: correct local & surface mechanics and lexical probs, ignore content issues. 6. Revision Outcomes: overestimate comprehensibility, writer- based prose, fail in meaningful rhetorical /org. changes, can make text weaker Skilled 5. Revision Focus: wide range: global & local aspects, rhetorical and org. issues, ↑ changes that change meaning. 6. Revision Outcomes: improve text from readers’ view (reader- based prose), stronger texts b/c planning and pre-text revision

Peer Review Meyer Sterzik & Scott-Murray Theoretical Frameworks Process approach: multiple drafts based on meaning based revisions 4 stages within the Process Approach: expressive, cognitive, social and discourse community (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996).

Peer Review Meyer Sterzik & Scott-Murray Theoretical Frameworks Checklist Peer review falls into 3 of the 4. Expressive: no – this is initial idea generation and no revision is required. Cognitive: yes – problem identification and solving (writing in relation to problem) Social: yes – writing is viewed within a social context by members of the social context. Discourse: yes – writers and readers interactions with text – collaboration

Peer Review Meyer Sterzik & Scott-Murray Theoretical Frameworks Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978) Scaffolding required to learn is provided through interaction with experts and other non-experts. The goal is for the reader to assist the writer in recognizing and attending to comprehension issues as outlined by the checklist – leading to independent revision skills. (Anton & Di Camilla, 2000; DeGuerro & Villamil, 2000).

Peer Review Meyer Sterzik & Scott-Murray Two Types of Checklists Surface (editing) checklists: grammar, punctuation etc.= non-meaning based Surface (editing) checklists: grammar, punctuation etc.= non-meaning based Rhetorical (meaning) checklists: text structure, organization, or relevance/ strength of support = meaning-based Rhetorical (meaning) checklists: text structure, organization, or relevance/ strength of support = meaning-based

Peer Review Meyer Sterzik & Scott-Murray Surface Checklists Based on level and proficiency (number of checks) Capitalization, indentation, headings, font, bold, punctuation, word forms, sentence structures, parallelism, paragraphs, referencing etc… Include what the students should know, but also have a ‘new’ focus (known to new). For example: Recent focus is compound sentences – include a section to focus on sentences that are compound…or aren’t but could be…

Peer Review Meyer Sterzik & Scott-Murray Meaning Based Checklist 1. The thesis statement clearly states the author’s position Y/N and WHY_____ 2. Body 1: the topic sentence gives support that is related to the thesis Y/N Why?______ 3. Is the support fact or opinion? F/O 1. Is it strong/mid/weak support? Why?______ 4. The minor support enhances/explains the major support Y/N Why?_______ 5. The author clearly links the supports to the thesis Y/N How?_________

Peer Review Meyer Sterzik & Scott-Murray Consideration and Danger Training Required: Training Required: for use of a rhetorical peer review checklist, they must be trained in procedures and editing / rhetorical differences Limited use: Limited use: even with meaning based checklists, reviewers are more likely to make editing changes & writers more likely to make a larger proportion of editing corrections (forego many of the suggested meaning changes) (Berg, 1999; Silva, 1993; Paulus, 1999; Villamil and De Guerrero, 1996; Zhang, 1999).

Peer Review Meyer Sterzik & Scott-Murray WHY? Students from collectivist cultures: concerned with group solidarity, have a strong aversion to criticism = more likely to limit to praise, agreement, and minimal change suggestions (Carson and Nelson, 1996; Ferris, 2003; Zhang, 1999). Students from collectivist cultures: concerned with group solidarity, have a strong aversion to criticism = more likely to limit to praise, agreement, and minimal change suggestions (Carson and Nelson, 1996; Ferris, 2003; Zhang, 1999). L2 learners can question the abilities of their peers to give relevant, rhetorical feedback and tend to prefer to implement meaning based changes that come from teacher feedback (Carson and Nelson, 1996; Ferris, 2003; Paulus, 1999; Zhang, 1999). L2 learners can question the abilities of their peers to give relevant, rhetorical feedback and tend to prefer to implement meaning based changes that come from teacher feedback (Carson and Nelson, 1996; Ferris, 2003; Paulus, 1999; Zhang, 1999).

Peer Review Meyer Sterzik & Scott-Murray So How Do We Use Them? You all know how to make and use editing checklists… Here is one example of how to train, use, and implement rhetorical checklists… Karen… Karen…

Peer Review Meyer Sterzik & Scott-Murray Preparing the Student Show them the BENEFITS Practice both editing and revising Practice both editing and revising Practice articulating arguments Practice articulating arguments Practice communicating ideas Practice communicating ideas Develop critical analysis skills Develop critical analysis skills Learn from each other Learn from each other Show how they can improve their own work Show how they can improve their own work

Peer Review Meyer Sterzik & Scott-Murray If the students are not prepared for the task…

Peer Review Meyer Sterzik & Scott-MurrayNecessities Clear modelling and reinforcement Clear modelling and reinforcement Produce constructive ideas and details Produce constructive ideas and details Students are committed to the process Students are committed to the process Students trust each other Students trust each other A clear understanding between opinion and fact. A clear understanding between opinion and fact.

Peer Review Meyer Sterzik & Scott-Murray The Positive Snowball

Peer Review Meyer Sterzik & Scott-Murray Explain the Benefits

Peer Review Meyer Sterzik & Scott-Murray The Positive Umbrella

Peer Review Meyer Sterzik & Scott-Murray Compliments

Suggestions

Corrections

Review

The Positive Role of the Editor Title – Reflect the content? Did it grab your attention? Title – Reflect the content? Did it grab your attention? Thesis – Clear, strong, consistent? Thesis – Clear, strong, consistent? Are there arguments against the thesis? Are there arguments against the thesis? Does the body of work support the thesis? Does the body of work support the thesis? Did the author address possible objections to supporting arguments? Did the author address possible objections to supporting arguments? Can you think of more objections? Can you think of more objections? What is the best part of the essay? What is the best part of the essay? What part of the essay needs attention before handing it in? What part of the essay needs attention before handing it in?

Peer Review Meyer Sterzik & Scott-Murray The Positive Role of the Author Were you concerned about any part of your essay before it was reviewed? Which parts? Why? (Discussion) Were you concerned about any part of your essay before it was reviewed? Which parts? Why? (Discussion) Which suggestions have been most helpful to you? Why? Which suggestions have been most helpful to you? Why? Which suggestions didn’t you understand? (Discussion) Which suggestions didn’t you understand? (Discussion)

Peer Review Meyer Sterzik & Scott-Murray Putting it all together

Peer Review Meyer Sterzik & Scott-Murray References Anton, M. & DiCamilla, F. (2000). Sociocognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54 (3), 314 – 342 Anton, M. & DiCamilla, F. (2000). Sociocognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54 (3), 314 – 342 Barkaoui, K. (2007). Revision in second language writing: What teachers need to know. TESL Canada Journal, 25 (1). Barkaoui, K. (2007). Revision in second language writing: What teachers need to know. TESL Canada Journal, 25 (1). Berg, C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (3), 215 – 241. Berg, C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (3), 215 – 241. Carson, J. and Nelson, G. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5 (1), 1 – 19. Carson, J. and Nelson, G. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5 (1), 1 – 19. Cumming, A. (1995). Fostering writing expertise in ESL composition instruction: Modeling and evaluation. In D. Belche & G. Braine (Eds.). Academic writing in a second language: Essays in research and pedagogy. (pp ). NJ: Ablex Publishing. Cumming, A. (1995). Fostering writing expertise in ESL composition instruction: Modeling and evaluation. In D. Belche & G. Braine (Eds.). Academic writing in a second language: Essays in research and pedagogy. (pp ). NJ: Ablex Publishing. De Guerrero, M. and Villamil, O. (2000). Activating the ZPD : Scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84 (i), 51 – 68. De Guerrero, M. and Villamil, O. (2000). Activating the ZPD : Scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84 (i), 51 – 68. Ferris, D. (2003). Responding to writing. In B. Kroll (Ed.). Exploring the dynamics of second language writing. (pp.119 – 140).UK: Cambridge University Press. Ferris, D. (2003). Responding to writing. In B. Kroll (Ed.). Exploring the dynamics of second language writing. (pp.119 – 140).UK: Cambridge University Press. Grabe, W. and Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and Practice of Writing. UK: Longman.. Grabe, W. and Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and Practice of Writing. UK: Longman.. Paulus, T. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (3), 265 – 289. Paulus, T. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (3), 265 – 289. Villamil, O. and De Guerrero, M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom : Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behaviour. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5 (1), 51 – 75. Villamil, O. and De Guerrero, M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom : Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behaviour. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5 (1), 51 – 75. Vygotsky, L.S., (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L.S., (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Zhang, S. (1999). Thoughts on some recent evidence concerning the affective advantage of peer feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (3), 321 – 326. Zhang, S. (1999). Thoughts on some recent evidence concerning the affective advantage of peer feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (3), 321 – 326.