A.R. Scott-Monkhouse teaches English (general, EAP/ESP) at Parma University (Italy). She holds a DELTA and a CertPT teaching qualification, and is a Cambridge Assessment English examiner. She is actively engaged in CPD and has been involved in teacher training in Italy and abroad. She is interested in the student as an individual, and focuses on NLP, suggestopedia and Gardner’s theory on multiple intelligences applied to language teaching. She has published several papers on teaching and assessing ESP/EAP, and on the role of emotions in teaching and learning. Email: anila@unipr.it

 

Introduction

[EAP = English for Academic Purposes;

STEM = Science, technology, engineering and mathematics]

The idea for this activity came out when the 2019-’20 edition of EAP course for STEM PhD students had to be completely restyled for remote delivery during the total lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020). It can however be used in face-to-face classes too.

In the course, written production was based on initial analysis of model-texts and was process-oriented rather than product-oriented (Zemach 2007). Indeed, “A process approach to writing is very valuable […] for learner development purposes. It encourages learners to reflect and become more critical of what they read. It promotes self-correction, which in turn leads to learner independence. In addition, it requires learners to work in pairs or groups at times, which promotes cooperation and creates solidarity among the students. And above all, a process approach to writing equips learners with a number of skills which are very useful when writing in the real world, regardless of their mother tongue or the foreign language they are studying” (Valazza 2006: 29). Examples of writing tasks assigned were: motivational letter, professional profile, comment to visual input, process description, abstract. Writing was to be considered a journey and included several stages: an autonomous read and research stage (usually in terms of flipped classroom), in-class analysis of models, brainstorming ideas, planning, drafting, revising and rewriting several times, editing and publishing a text to be uploaded to a shared folder.

The activity is aimed at young adult students (Ss) at B2/C1 level of English, but it can be adapted to different levels and ages.

It can also be adapted to peer-reviewing in Speaking activities, which might however be more challenging because Ss have less time to reflect.

The objectives are to:

• encourage collaborative learning
• develop the 4Cs (21^st century skills: communication, collaboration, critical thinking, creativity)
• discuss and agree on shared criteria (team work, negotiation)
• reflect on assessment of writing
• develop self-assessment skills
• develop speaking skills when providing oral feedback (precision and clarity)
• develop writing skills when giving written feedback (precision and clarity)
• develop writing skills in terms of electronic correspondence (register, style)
• develop attention and sensitivity to the reader/listener
• prepare for prospective professional situations, when Ss might be subject to peer reviewing and/or act as reviewers of the work of others

 

Lesson plan

Materials

• Feedback form with assessment criteria
• Access to email facilities

Preamble

The technique described in this activity can be used over a whole course, and indeed this is actually recommended if it is to yield long-term positive results. It needs to follow work focusing on the development of writing skills related to specific text-types (e.g. story, article, etc.) after looking at model texts and analysing the features and language which characterise the different genres.

The activity adopts a roleplay approach in which the Teacher (T) assigns the roles. This is to allow Ss to feel free when delivering their feedback and avoid embarrassment when giving news which may not be well accepted. In addition, it prevents Ss from being ‘too nice’ to each other, which might lead to the peer reviewing activity missing its whole purpose.  

The T needs to pay attention to the instructions-giving stage and check that roles, tasks, feedback forms and assessment criteria are fully understood. Concept-questions are recommended.

 

Part 1: Describing assessment criteria and agreeing on their scope (15-20 mins)

The T outlines the criteria to be referred to when assessing written production (see Appendix 1 for an example) and clarifies any doubts. The class discusses and agrees on the descriptors. It is useful if the T shares the same criteria s/he adopts when grading the Ss’ work, so as to help them understand the rationale, self-assess and improve their own written production.

The feedback form includes a section for practical suggestions to the reviewee and a take-home point for the reviewer. The T should stress the importance of this learning point, and explain that it can be anything, from a grammar item (e.g. a verb pattern) to something they have learned from the text itself (e.g. a way of describing something, a piece of information, etc.) or from carrying out the reviewing (e.g. paying more attention to their own use of punctuation). This is so that “By evaluating student writing against criteria and providing constructive feedback, peer reviewers do not only help reviewees improve their assignments but they also develop as writers themselves.” (Kostopoulou and O’Dwyer 2021: 72), and become better able to assess their own progress (Kane 2018).

 

Part 2: Assignment of roles and reviewing stages (duration dependent on length of texts)

The T explains that the Ss are to become the reviewer of each other’s work. In their review the Ss take into account what they have learned by analysing model texts and refer to the criteria agreed on. Each student plays two roles: Reviewer 1 for one student, and Reviewer 2 for another student. Both reviewers use the same assessment form, but the two reviewers’ attitudes are very different (see  below).

The Ss come to realise how complex assessing writing is (e.g. how many aspects and features are to be taken into account), and how a reviewer needs to balance different attitudes when carrying out any kind of assessment to ensure that the review is as objective as possible.

The T mixes and matches the Ss’ work (this can be carried out as blind reviewing or not).

NB: the T must make sure that student A assesses student B’s work, and vice versa in stage Reviewer 1, whilst in stage Reviewer 2 student A assesses student X’s work, student B assesses student Y’s work, and vice versa, i.e. each student provides feedback to two different reviewees and at the same time receives feedback from two different reviewers. An Excel spreadsheet is a useful tool so the T can keep track of the pairs and make sure the same Ss are not always working together (see Appendix 2 for an example).

Ss can assess their peers’ work in class, while the T monitors and provides help if necessary, or out of class as homework.

2A: Reviewer 1

Reviewer 1 is lenient and friendly to the reviewee. S/he has a softer approach, and tends to highlight the positive features of the work and some area for improvement with some recommendation for action.

Reviewer 1 provides the feedback orally. This means that the form can be filled in with just short (even handwritten) notes as it is only supposed to serve as a prompt for the speaker.

Reviewer 1 assesses the text s/he has been assigned, fills in the form, prepares and rehearses their talk.

This is followed by Part 3A.

2B: Reviewer 2

Reviewer 2 is strict and tends to be extremely critical. S/he has a harsher approach, and tends to highlight the weaknesses of the work and make strong suggestions for improvement.

Reviewer 2 provides written feedback, so the form must be completed very accurately because the reviewee needs to be able to understand the observations with no further explanation from the reviewer.

Reviewer 2 assesses the text s/he has been assigned, and fills in the form carefully, making sure that the comments are clear and easy to interpret.

This is followed by Part 3B.

Part 3: Feedback exchange  

Part 3A: Oral feedback exchange  (15-20 mins)

Ss are organised into pairs according to the texts they have assessed and give each other oral feedback. The reviewee can ask clarification questions and takes notes of the feedback s/he receives.

Part 3B: Written feedback exchange  (20-30 mins)

Each S becomes the editor of an imaginary journal and sends an email attaching the feedback from Reviewer 2 to the reviewee (i.e. each S has a new role, moving from Reviewer 2 to Editor). If the conventions of formal correspondence have been covered within the course, Ss need to use suitable language and pay attention to register. Each student must

- think of a subject line

- explain who they are and refer to the text being reviewed and the attachment

- use appropriate salutations at the beginning and end

- send the email to the author (with the T cc’ed).

The stage of email exchanges grants both peer-teaching and a form of socio-cultural approach to learning; it helps develop skills related to written interaction, and attention to formal register and digital communication features. As Liang (2010) pointed out in her literature review, online peer response that blends spoken, written, and electronic communication helps raise awareness of the readership, promotes student motivation, participation, and collaboration,  and encourages the use of peer ideas in revisions. However, as Berg (1999: 216)  points out “Responding to writing is not a skill with which most students […] have had extensive experience. It is therefore unrealistic to assume that they will be able to effectively read and respond to someone else’s writing, constructively react to a response to their own writing from a peer, and, based on the peer response activity, successfully revise their texts.” For this reason, the T is involved in the Ss’ exchange of emails, and monitors the reviews to make sure that the reviewer is on track, and has expressed their own learning point too; s/he can then gradually become less actively present as the students’ autonomy and confidence increase (Guth 2006).

Part 4: Re-writing stage (duration dependent on length of texts)

The Ss re-write their text taking into account the feedback they have received from both reviewers, then hand in their final version. This can be done in class, while the T monitors and provides help if necessary, or out-of-class as homework.

The T can ask to leave all changes traceable so s/he can see how the text has been amended. S/he might also wish to allow all Ss to see each other’s work through a shared (e-)folder.

Possible development: Ss might gradually adopt this method of peer-reviewing autonomously. The T could actually highlight the benefits of the activity and encourage them to do so.

Part 5 (possible follow-up): Comment and proofreading of a made-up email  (15 mins)

The T can create an email consisting of sentences from the different emails s/he has been carbon-copied in (see Appendix 3 for an example). The class can work together as a whole group or in pairs/smaller groups to correct/improve the text.

This is to raise awareness of style, register, tone, features of electronic correspondence, vocabulary, and mistakes.

It is important that the T also helps the Ss develop sensitivity to the reviewee’s needs and feelings (attention to the reader).

 

Appendix 1

Here is an example of Feedback form to be discussed with the Ss.

The T can share the criteria s/he uses to assess their Ss’ production so they can interpret the grades they receive and improve their own written assignments before handing them in.

 

Review Form

1. Basic Information

Writer:

Reviewer:

Criteria

Content: covering all the points from the rubric, length, information presented accurately and with no gaps

Communicative achievement: layout, adequate style and register, use of suitable phrases, requirements of the specific type of text (e.g. email, report, blog post, etc.)

Organization and Readability: clarity and structure of text, use of paragraphs, punctuation, logical development of thought/flow of ideas, coherence of ideas, cohesion of text, sentence structure and syntax, use of linkers (conjunctions) and connectors (pronouns)

Grammar: variety and range of grammatical structures (e.g. verb tenses; comparatives; articles)

Vocabulary: variety and range of vocabulary; word order; explanation of acronyms; spelling and capitalisation

 

2. Evaluation

Evaluation	Comment and Grade Please fill with a grade of 5 (highest) to 1 (lowest)
Overall evaluation
Content
Communicative Achievement
Organization and Readability
Grammar
Vocabulary
Strengths (what makes this a good piece of writing?)
Areas in need of improvement (where/how does it need to be improved?)
Suggestions (what do you recommend doing?)
Take-home point (what have you learned from this text/activity?)

 

 

 

Appendix 2

Here is an example of a spreadsheet for Reviewer matching. Notice how the pairs are shuffled.

[NB: the names used here were generated using https://namefake.com/]

 

Reviewer 1

surname	name	pairing	email
Kohler	Estel	1	XXYY@email.com
Addams	Annetta	1	YYXX@email.com
Bahringer	Camila	2	ZZXX@email.com
Russell	Michele	2	YYZZ@email.com
Weinmann	Elos	3	XYXY@email.com
Steuber	Lawrence	3	YXXX@email.com
Ferrari	Anastasio	4	YXXY@email.com
Denesyk	Joan	4	XYXX@email.com

 

Reviewer 2

surname	name	pairing	email
Addams	Annetta	1	YYXX@email.com
Bahringer	Camila	1	ZZXX@email.com
Denesyk	Joan	2	XYXX@email.com
Kohler	Estel	2	XXYY@email.com
Ferrari	Anastasio	3	YXXY@email.com
Steuber	Lawrence	3	YXXX@email.com
Russell	Michele	4	YYZZ@email.com
Weinmann	Elos	4	XYXY@email.com

 

 

Appendix 3

Here is an example of a made-up email to comment and proofread together.

References

Berg, E.C., (1999) The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of second language writing 8(3). pp. 215-241. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1060374399801155 (accessed 8 January 2023).

Guth, S., (2006) “Writing for PhD students: a distance e-learning course in academic writing”. In M. G. Lo Duca, F. Dalziel and D. Griggio (eds.), IL C.L.A. verso l’Europa: e-learning, testing, portfolio delle lingue (IL C.L.A. per le lingue straniere, esperienze e prospettive 4), pp. 321-333. Padova: CLEUP.

Kane, C., (2018) Peer-teaching methods in the classroom. Independence IATEFL LASIG 74. pp. 15-18

Kostopoulou, S., and O’ Dwyer, F., (2021) “ “We learn from each other”: peer review writing practices in English for Academic Purposes." In C. Argondizzo and G. Mansfield (eds.), Language Learning in Higher Education, 11(1), pp. 67-91. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter.

Liang, MY., (2010) Using synchronous online peer response groups in EFL writing: revision-related discourse. Language Learning & Technology, 14(1). pp. 45-64.

Valazza, G., (2006) Process or product? English Teaching Professional 44. p. 29.

Zemach, D., (2007) The process of learning process writing. Essential Teacher 4(1). pp. 12-13

 

Please check the Pilgrims f2f courses at Pilgrims website.

Please check the Pilgrims online courses at Pilgrims website