1 International Journal of Teaching, Education and Language Learning November 2015, Volume 2, Number 4, pp. 1-11

ISSN: 2373-7921 (print) 2373-793X (online)

Secret Paper: A Practical Peer Review Technique Todd Jobbitt*

Abstract Orienting students in proper peer review techniques is not overly challenging in EFL L2 contexts but once actual feedback begins, most students willingly ignore the step of having a peer with whom they are unfamiliar review their paper. Assigning a student to review a peer’s paper can therefore be an unpleasant experience, both for the teacher and the student – but it does not have to be, especially for adult students. One way around students’ wanting to have a close friend review their paper is to ‘secretly’ assign the paper to another pupil, thereby ensuring anonymity for both reviewers and receivers. This process can help students focus more on the task of providing constructive feedback and less on worrying about how their classmate (likely a close friend or acquaintance) may be affected by receiving such feedback, an important aspect in high-context cultures. This paper illustrates one simple technique for a blind peer review and highlights why it can be a helpful change of pace from more traditional peer review processes.

Keywords: EFL, L2, peer feedback, writing, teaching techniques, affect

Acknowledgements: This work was supported by the Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund of 2015

*

Assistant Professor, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Seoul, South Korea, Email: [email protected]

2 International Journal of Teaching, Education and Language Learning (IJTELL) November 2015, Vol.2, No.4, pp.1-11

Definition of Peer Review Simply, peer review is “a process by which peers read and respond to writing” (Trim, 2007, p. v). Although the exact interpretation of whether feedback should be given (Truscott, 1996, 2007; Ferris, 1996, 2006), how errors should be selected (Truscott, 2008), or even which feedback questions (Williams, 2003) or research questions should be asked (Bruton, 2010) remains open to lively academic debate, it is generally accepted that peer review, when writing multiple drafts (Paulus, 1999), is helpful to L2 writers. It should not be forgotten that the entire point of peer review, after all, is to help students become better at writing. Early research by White and Arndt (1991, as cited in AlHazma & Schofield, 2007) helpfully identified three revision techniques that students may follow to improve their writing: 1) write multiple drafts with ongoing revision; (2) use a checklist when revising; (3) use not only self-assessment but also peer revision (peer feedback or peer review). The scope of this paper falls under the final step, but in a much more limited aspect as to how to carry out peer review in an L2 setting in a highcontext culture. Understanding the purpose(s) of peer review is important for both the instructor and the students. According to Trim (2007, p. v) there are two main reasons to use a peer review in educational contexts: 1. To aid student writers in improving the success of their drafts by “testing” them on fellow students who act as readers/reviewers and offer feedback 2. To learn more about the topic, research, and/or the writing process through conversation and the exchange of ideas between writers and readers And, there are five main steps:

Jobbitt, T. 3 “Secret Paper: A Practical Peer Review Technique”

1. Identify peer review partners/participants 2. Exchange drafts to be reviewed 3. List items to be targeted in the review 4. Read drafts/comment 5. Exchange reviewed drafts These steps are basically the same across different interpretations of how peer review may be managed in a writing classroom (dyads, triads, or larger groups).

Assessing students’ perceptions of peer review Perhaps every collegiate writing instructor has struggled with the idea about whether or not conduct peer review, its merits and demerits, given considerably tight semester schedules. For me, this concern is borne under the weight of only being able to teach one 90-minute course a week. I truly wondered if my students and I would find the value in trying peer review given such a short amount of class time. To help with this process over the past few years, I have asked students to give their perceptions on peer review via written journal responses, all the while revising the peer review process with each subsequent semester. Students’ verbal and journal responses, not unusually, have continued to closely mirror those as presented by Rollinson (2005), in which students expressed “instinctively that only a better writer – or a native speaker – is qualified to judge or comment on their written work” and that peer feedback would be “more or less the same as theirs” (p. 23). Other challenges are evident, too, within my teaching context. First, learning backgrounds can be a challenge. For example, my students are pre-service and in-service

4 International Journal of Teaching, Education and Language Learning (IJTELL) November 2015, Vol.2, No.4, pp.1-11

teachers who have from a variety of learning ability, from having no overseas experience to many years of living and being educated overseas, or basically fluent. Subsequently, the mixed academic ability, combined with (perhaps) more teacher-centered experiences, within the class can lead to uneasy feelings about how or whether peers may actually be able to give substantive feedback to one another, noted by Mangelsdorf (1992) and echoed in one journal response, where a student exclaimed, “I think if the level of each individual is too different… peer review goes not effectively.” Managing such recurring student thoughts has been challenging over the years; however, I have continued to use peer review because I believe that it does contribute to (1) the students’ personal writing improvement, and also (2) to their overall professional development for present (and hopefully, future) teaching contexts.

Background For the past seven years I have been teaching a graduate school process writing class to pre- and in-service teacher-trainees called Writing and Logic 1, in Korea. During this time period, I have been practicing with and clarifying student peer review methods, which has been interesting and a little vexing, professionally. As noted, one of the main challenges of in-class peer review is that students often want to have their paper looked at by a close friend, or someone they know well. As is well known, sharing with a friend goes against typical peer feedback processes, as having a friend review a paper leads to less critical feedback (friends want to be nice to one another) and thus, less help in actually being able to revise the paper to a more polished form.

Jobbitt, T. 5 “Secret Paper: A Practical Peer Review Technique”

Although these steps can be explained to students, implementing them fully can be a challenge for teachers; such was the case in my class, against all given instruction. Also, since teachers want students to have overall positive writing experiences, they may be worried that a potential ‘negative’ classroom process may not help with studentteacher rapport, evaluations, stakeholder beliefs, etc. My students’ perceptions on the entire peer review process, therefore, have been a continual point of concern, for both them and me. Student concerns are serious, and I devoted serious time to thinking about how I could help the students participate more actively with peer review but while remaining anonymous, as this seemed to make students more comfortable with giving feedback. I had originally tested the idea of giving students the opportunity to exchange their paper with a partner of their choosing, but this seemed to result in more anxiety and unhelpful feedback, observations supported in affective research in ESL writing by Zhang (1995), where students, if given a choice, would prefer to have the teacher, and not peers, provide feedback; however, I did not give that option, as I felt that my students needed to practice peer review firsthand, as teacher-trainees, so that they could understand it more clearly for their future classroom teaching. Arranging the class in a circle and having students pass their paper to the “second person on the left” helped reduce the friend issue somewhat, but an uneasiness about the peer review process still prevailed. Eventually, as I reflected and researched on these issues, two separate writing activities helped me find inspiration. While thinking of a journal writing activity that I believed was called “Secret Journal”, and searching online, I found “Secret Friends Journal” (originally by Charlotte

6 International Journal of Teaching, Education and Language Learning (IJTELL) November 2015, Vol.2, No.4, pp.1-11

Green & John Green, 1993), as referenced and expanded upon by Stewart (1996) in his paper, “Secret Journal Partners for Motivation, Fluency and Fun”. His process is quite simple: students from two separate writing classes (with separate instructors) are assessed and paired up after a general ‘matchmaker’ survey. They then write a minimum of one page in response to a writing prompt. Next, each respective teacher collects the journals to exchange them with the other class’ journals, and then passes them out to their own students for peer response. No names are on the journals, just an assigned number for the student that is kept secret by the teacher. One important point to mention is that this is not a peer review activity, but a peer response activity. The second activity that I remembered was ‘Peerless Peer Review’ by Jean B. Porter (in Day, 2014) where students in one classroom are split into small groups of three to five students, with each student being given a peer review worksheet and a paper from a peer from another group. The students are not allowed to grade a paper from anyone in their own group. My idea is a combination of these two ideas, and I call it “Secret Paper”.

How to do it Secret Paper combines elements of the two activities, above. However, before starting, one important pre-step needs to be given. First, remind students (either when typing their paper, or in class) to not type or write their name (or any other forms of identifying information) on their paper. After this, the steps can be given in a simple numbered format, as follows.

Jobbitt, T. 7 “Secret Paper: A Practical Peer Review Technique”

First, tell the students: “I’m going to give you a numbered envelope with a peer review sheet inside it.” Give each student a brown, letter-sized (A4) envelope with a number written on the inside flap. Next, tell the students, “Put your paper into the envelope. Jot down or make a note of the number on the inside flap.” I use a contentfocused review paper when having students give feedback on second drafts. Then, gather all of the papers, and then pass the papers out to the other students. To do this in the least confusing manner possible, I collect all of the papers, adding a paper to the bottom of the stack with each contributing student, having walked down each row from left to right, front to back. Once I reach the last person in the last right-hand row, I give that last person the envelope on the top of the stack, and walk back in the same manner. To vary this, and so that students may not infer that I am just “flipping” the envelopes, I randomly pick every other envelope or so from the top of the pile as I walk back through the rows. Next, students then review the paper, providing written comments on peer review sheet and marginal comments on the draft. Finally, once students finish reviewing, they put the papers back into the envelope; I pick up the envelopes in reverse order, and return them. It takes a quick minute or two, with the students verifying the number on the inside flap, to return all of the papers. One important point worth mentioning here is that because of the once a week, 90-minute-only meet time, these peer reviews must be done in one classroom period.

Variations Variations for this activity are plentiful. One idea, which does not employ the use of envelopes, would be to apply animal names (monkey, giraffe, etc.) or whatever else

8 International Journal of Teaching, Education and Language Learning (IJTELL) November 2015, Vol.2, No.4, pp.1-11

you wish (like celebrity names) to each student, that the student could write on their paper. To do this, simply make up a number of slips, put them in a bowl, and have students draw a slip out. The student then uses this slip as their “name”, writing it on the paper. This might be appropriate or not, depending on student age and ability, class context, or the subject theme that is being studied in the class at the time. Additionally, the animal name could be combined with a number. Another idea would be to color-code the papers, kind of like a jigsaw grouping. Say, in a class of 16 students, assign four colors (red, blue, pink, green) one color to each group of four students; give each group the same-colored paper (making each group homogenous). After each homogenous group meets, tell the students: “One color from each group (one red, one blue, one pink, one green), will now form and make a new (heterogeneous) group.” Peers may have an awareness of the people in the group, but the actual paper-owner should not be clear.

Why It Works Secret Paper works because students are actually reviewing the paper of someone that they do not know well, or at least not well enough to have them be more than a classroom acquaintance. This can be an unimportant point in a high-context culture, where close-knit peer groups can be a norm, and when students do not really want to share their writing. It also works because students have less or no control over the process – it is a teacher-led decision about who gets which paper. This again is an important point in a traditional South Korean educational context, where teacher authority is traditionally

Jobbitt, T. 9 “Secret Paper: A Practical Peer Review Technique”

paramount. Paradoxically, even as teachers are being taught to work with students and be more of a facilitator in classroom processes these days, and students are taught to be more cooperative in their classroom learning (Richards, 2006), this technique relies on the teacher being in total control. The point being that a clear peer review structure is needed (Hansen & Liu, 2005), over an extended period of time, both for student comfort and familiarity (Ferris, 2014).

Conclusion Performing peer review for the first time can be a tedious experience for students and student teachers alike. Having a clear peer review instruction process and helpful techniques to deal with issues that may arise can greatly alleviate anxiety about entire process. These clear guidelines can help promote student interest, motivation and overall satisfaction in a writing course. It is hoped that the techniques and tips offering in this article are met with an openness to apply them in multiple learning contexts that best fit learner needs and course objectives.

10 International Journal of Teaching, Education and Language Learning (IJTELL) November 2015, Vol.2, No.4, pp.1-11

References Al-Hazmi, S. H. & Schofield, P. (2007) Enforced revision with checklist and peer feedback in EFL writing: The example of Saudi University students. Scientific Journal of King Faisal University, 8(2), 237-267 Bruton, A. (2010) Another reply to Truscott on error correction: Improved situated designs over statistics. System, 38(3), 491-498. doi:10.1016/j.system.2010.07.001 Ferris, D. (1996) The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to Truscott. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(1), 1-11. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6 Ferris, D. (2006) Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the shortand long-term effects of written error correction. In Ken Hyland & Fiona Hyland (Eds), Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues, (pp. 81-104). New York: Cambridge University Press. Ferris, D. R. & Hedgecock, J. S. (2014) Teaching L2 Composition. New York: Routledge Hansen, J.G. & Liu, J. (2005) Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59(1). doi:101093/elt/cci004 Mangelsdorf, K. (1992) Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal, 46(3), 274-284. doi: 10.1093/elt/46.3.274 Paulus, T. M. (1999) The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265-289 Richards, J. C. (2006) Communicative Language Teaching Today. New York: Cambridge University Press

Jobbitt, T. 11 “Secret Paper: A Practical Peer Review Technique”

Stewart, J. (1996) Secret journal partners for motivation, fluency and fun. ITESLJ, 2(7). Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Stewart-SecretJournals.html Trim, M. (2007) What Every Student Should Know about Practicing Peer Review. New York: Pearson Longman Truscott, J. (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369. doi: 10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80110-6 Truscott, J. (2007) The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately, Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003 Truscott, J. & Hsu, A. Y. (2008) Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 292-305 Williams, J. G. (2003) Providing feedback on ESL students’ written assignments. ITESLJ, 9(10) Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Williams-Feedback.html Zhang, S. (1995) Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209-222. doi:10.1016/1060-3743(95)90010-1

Author Profile: Todd Jobbitt is an Assistant Professor in the Graduate School of Education at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Seoul, Korea. His research interests include L2 composition, peer review and error correction.