




































 Maatouk & Payant 19 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 19–31 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/341 

Theoretical Analysis, Classroom Practice, Opinion Essays 

 

Moving Beyond Individual Peer Review Tasks:  

A Collaborative Written Corrective Feedback Framework 

 

Zeina Maatouk 

Université du Québec à Montréal 

 

Caroline Payant 

Université du Québec à Montréal 

 

Abstract 

 

English as an additional language (EAL) teachers include peer feedback activities during the 

writing process to foster autonomy amongst EAL writers and support target language 

development. Research has demonstrated the importance of providing peer feedback training to 

learners in order to improve the efficacy of peer revision (Rahimi, 2013). Peer feedback review 

activities, however, are often individual tasks despite the evidence that collaborative writing 

activities are essential for EAL learners (Wigglesworth & Storch, 2012). This classroom practice 

article introduces a threefold pedagogical training designed for English for academic purposes 

(EAP) learners which combines individual and collaborative peer review activities. The proposed 

peer collaborative written corrective feedback framework (C-WCF) scaffolds novice academic 

writers through the peer review process while emphasizing collaborative learning.  

 

Introduction 

 

Within the field of second language writing, there is extant literature on pre-service and in-

service teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding written corrective feedback (WCF). 

Traditionally, commenting on students’ work was a task assumed by teachers (Ghahari & 

Sedaghat, 2018; Hansen & Liu, 2005); however, in a number of English as an additional 

language (EAL) contexts, we note the inclusion of peer WCF practices (Chang, 2016; Yu & Lee, 

2016). During peer WCF, EAL learners read and comment on a peer’s written production. 

Research to date has compared the efficacy of teacher and peer WCF (M. K. Lee, 2015; Séror, 

2011; Tsui & Ng, 2000; Zhang, 1995) and examined the benefits of peer WCF on target 

language development (Diab, 2010, 2011; Lundstrom & Baker, 2009). Engaging learners in peer 

WCF activities “[empowers] students to play an active role in classroom writing assessment” (I. 

Lee, 2016, p. 262); however, research shows that EAL learners struggle with this task, a finding 

that has prompted educators to develop and implement peer WCF training programs (Diab, 2010, 

2011; Hu, 2005; Lam, 2010; M. K. Lee, 2015; Min, 2005, 2006, 2008; Rahimi, 2013; Zhao, 

2018).  

 

Peer WCF activities have primarily consisted of individual reading and commenting 

tasks. From a socio-constructivist framework, cognitive development is socially situated and 

occurs as a result of interaction between an expert and a novice (Lantolf, Thorne, & Poehner, 

2015). With EAL students, teachers have traditionally been considered to be the expert; however, 

there is ample evidence that learners can also provide each other with a scaffold by engaging in 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/341


 Maatouk & Payant 20 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 19–31 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/341 

collaborative writing (Wigglesworth & Storch, 2012). Despite the growing support for 

collaborative writing activities (Fernández Dobao, 2012; Neumann & McDonough, 2015; 

Slavkov, 2015; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2012), we observe that peer feedback continues to be 

operationalized as an individual task where a learner, perhaps following a brief conversation with 

the author, reads and comments individually. However, research indicates that when learners 

engage in oral discussions to share written feedback with their peers, they are able to support 

each other through negotiating and resolving disagreements (Tian & Li, 2018). To foster greater 

interaction during the initial stages of the peer review process, we are proposing a collaborative 

written corrective feedback (C-WCF) framework that (1) provides learners with tools and 

strategies that scaffold the peer WCF process and (2) emphasizes collaborative reviewing and 

learning. In this paper, following a brief discussion of the merits of peer WCF, we propose a 

threefold plan to conduct C-WCF with EAL learners in the context of an academic writing class. 

 

Peer Feedback: Effects on EAL Writing 

 

Implementing peer feedback activities with EAL learners has become a regular practice in 

writing classrooms. Peer feedback can take place during any stage of the writing process (e.g., 

brainstorming, topic generation, outlining); however, it typically unfolds after the first draft has 

been written, namely, during the revision stage (Hansen & Liu, 2005).  

 

Recent research indicates that engaging learners in peer feedback practices offers 

numerous benefits. In a first instance, we find that the authors who receive feedback improve the 

quality of their written text with fewer treatable errors left uncorrected (Diab, 2010, 2011). It also 

increases students’ motivation (Ghahari & Sedaghat, 2018; Tsui & Ng, 2000) and instills a sense 

of audience (M. K. Lee, 2015; Rahimi, 2013; Tsui & Ng, 2000). Engaging in peer feedback 

practices also appears to impact the reviewer’s own writing practices. Berggren (2015) and 

Lundstrom and Baker (2009), who examined whether giving feedback alone had an impact on 

the reviewer’s subsequent production, observed that those who provided feedback, even though 

they did not receive any in return, showed gains in their written production.  

 

Research has also examined learners’ perceptions toward teacher and peer WCF. Early 

research suggested that learners overwhelmingly preferred teacher feedback to peer feedback 

(Tsui & Ng, 2000; Zhang, 1995) and did not trust the quality of peer WCF (Tsui & Ng, 2000). 

Although there is some evidence that learners are open to working with peer WCF, recent 

evidence continues to indicate that EAL writers find the feedback provided by peers to focus 

excessively on local errors, find it to be vague (M. K. Lee, 2015; Rahimi, 2013), and feedback 

providers continue to doubt the usefulness of their feedback (Tian & Li, 2018).  

 

In order to mitigate these negative perceptions and maximize the benefits of WCF, 

practitioners have emphasized the necessity of implementing peer feedback training and of 

creating greater opportunities for collaboration at the various stages of the process.  

 

Peer Feedback Training 

 

Training EAL learners to provide feedback has been the subject of a number of empirical studies 

(Allen & Mills, 2016; Diab, 2010; Lam, 2010; M. K. Lee, 2015; Levine, Oded, Connor, & 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/341


 Maatouk & Payant 21 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 19–31 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/341 

Asons, 2002; Min, 2005, 2006, 2008; Rahimi, 2013; Tsui & Ng, 2000; Yang & Meng, 2013). 

Peer feedback training can take many forms, ranging from awareness-raising discussions to 

teacher-led explicit modelling. In fact, teachers can model the peer feedback process through the 

use of examples of appropriate (or inappropriate) peer comments (Hu, 2005), role-play, and 

demonstration videos (Allen & Mills, 2016; Levine et al., 2002). Other studies have explored the 

use of guiding questions to ensure more focused and comprehensible comments (Hu, 2005; 

Levine et al., 2002; Min, 2005, 2006, 2008) and the use of checklists (M. K. Lee, 2015; Tsui & 

Ng, 2000). Training can also take place during student-teacher conferences where teachers 

discuss the feedback the reviewer provided to a peer in order to improve the quality of the 

comments (Min, 2005, 2006, 2008; Rahimi, 2013). Other peer WCF training focused on how 

writers can make use of the feedback. For example, Rahimi (2013) provided students with 

explicit instruction on identifying global errors that hindered comprehension through projecting 

models. For each identified error, he explained to the learners how modifying the problematic 

structure could improve the essay and encouraged them to identify such errors in their peers’ 

writing. Lam (2010) focused his explicit instruction on the difference between treatable and non-

treatable errors (Ferris, 2002; Guénette & Jean, 2012). The former type is related to linguistic 

features that are rule-governed (e.g., plural markers) whereas the latter is related to idiosyncratic 

features (e.g., word choice), and a learner may struggle to correct these without explicit 

guidance. Reviewers were also asked to keep a log of the errors they noticed in the text as well as 

their type. Finally, Diab (2010) provided form-focused instruction on identifying selected error 

types. Reviewers were asked to identify errors, determine their nature and log them into a table 

along with the line number and the correction. In these cases, keeping the error logs helped 

learners utilize the explicit instruction they received.  

 

The impact of training on EAL learners’ writing practices is positive: training benefits the 

quality of students’ written output since authors tend to incorporate a greater number of 

comments into their revised drafts (Min, 2006; Rahimi, 2013). In addition, the type of feedback 

tends to change, moving away from only treating local issues to also treating global issues (i.e., 

content, organization, and structure) (Min, 2005; Rahimi, 2013). Finally, trained learners tend to 

engage more with the process of peer feedback and develop a more positive attitude towards this 

practice (Hu, 2005; Min, 2005, 2008).  

 

Training has focused on preparing learners to provide higher quality local and global 

feedback; however, it is of equal importance to consider how training impacts the quality of the 

collaborations, namely, pair dynamics. Min (2008) examined the impact of training with English 

language learners in Taiwan and reported that learners demonstrated a more collaborative stance 

after training, frequently engaged in negotiation of ideas with the writers, and produced more 

empathetic comments. Zhao (2018) conducted a study involving EAL learners in China aiming 

to describe patterns of interaction that unfold between peers following a training. Drawing on 

Storch’s (2002) taxonomy of dyadic patterns of interaction, Zhao reported a majority of 

collaborative patterns such that both learners contributed information and provided mutual 

scaffolding to ensure successful task completion.  

 

The peer WCF process typically begins with an individual component: the reviewer who 

will provide feedback receives a copy of a text and individually reviews it. Novice EAL 

reviewers, however, have experienced some discomfort with this practice because they do not 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/341


 Maatouk & Payant 22 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 19–31 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/341 

consider themselves to be experts. To overcome struggles associated with peer WCF, 

collaborative feedback activities have been proposed (M. K. Lee, 2015; Nguyen & Filipi, 2018). 

Nguyen and Filipi (2018) implemented a multiple-draft/multiple-party feedback process which 

incorporated a collaborative peer-feedback activity. It consists of four students working in small 

groups where each student is assigned to comment on a particular aspect of writing, namely, 

ideas, organization, vocabulary, or grammar. Findings show that students appreciate that the 

process was learner-centred. It increases motivation and benefits their writing skills. In turn, M. 

K. Lee (2015) introduced a collaborative reviewing component: intra-peer WCF. Intra-peer WCF 

consists of two students individually reviewing the same text produced by a third peer. Before 

sharing their feedback with the author, the two reviewers share their comments and negotiate the 

feedback to be shared with their peer. A single, compiled feedback form is then returned to the 

author. With this collaborative technique, reviewers were more motivated to provide feedback 

and writers were more trusting of the feedback, making learners more favourable to participate in 

a peer review activity (M. K. Lee, 2015).  

 

While a number of pedagogical papers provide ideas for implementing training (Hansen 

& Liu, 2005; Ren & Hu, 2012; Rollinson, 2005), to the best of our knowledge, intra-peer WCF 

has not been integrated into their training suggestions. The present paper presents a threefold 

training model that aims at scaffolding learners through a variety of reflective tasks and 

collaborative C-WCF sessions with EAL learners. 

 

Collaborative-Written Corrective Feedback Training Model 

 

Context 
 

This peer C-WCF training was designed for English for Academic Purposes (EAP) learners. 

EAP classes are a common pathway for learners who wish to integrate English-medium 

university programs. For example, in British Columbia, EAP programs may consist of up to four 

levels, at the end of which learners are able to “[function] effectively in formal, extended, 

unpredictable, and challenging situations typical of the teaching and learning environments at 

Canadian colleges, vocational institutes, and universities” (British Columbia Ministry of 

Advanced Education, 2019, p. 17). In programs such as these, EAP students may attend around 

15 to 20 hours of English language instruction per week aiming at developing their academic 

reading, writing, speaking and listening skills. Within writing EAP classes, genre-based and 

process-based approaches to writing are typically the norm (Wette, 2014), and learners are often 

required to participate in peer WCF activities.  

 

 To maximize the benefits associated with peer WCF and collaborative writing, we now 

turn to the proposed peer C-WCF. The model is divided into three phases: before peer feedback 

provision, during peer review and after peer revision, presented in Figure 1. A detailed step-by-

step guide is provided for teachers in the Appendices.  

 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/341


 Maatouk & Payant 23 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 19–31 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/341 

 
Note. I = Individual component; C = Collaborative component 

 

Figure 1. Stages of the peer C-WCF training model  

 

Phase 1: Before Peer C-WCF  
 

Although it may be possible that some learners are familiar with peer WCF activities, it is 

imperative to explore the rationale and benefits of this practice. The initial stage of the C-WCF 

training comprises three short activities: (1) to reflect on the objectives of the written production, 

(2) to request help with the identified aspects of their texts they remain unsure about and (3) to 

explore discourse strategies to communicate effectively with their peers. 

 

Reflecting on written production. Before sharing their work, learners are guided 

through an individual reflection task on their written texts. Specifically, during this initial step, 

learners identify which aspects of their writing they believe they performed well and which 

caused greater struggle. The latter will become the elements of their texts they would like to 

receive feedback on. To guide them in this process, they are given a form (Appendix 1) with 

reflection questions about the writing task and writing process. By completing this initial 

individual reflection, learners are encouraged to take a critical look at their own production. 

Immediately following this individual reflection, students share their responses. This can be 

completed either in dyads or as a whole group activity. These exchanges can raise students’ 

awareness about common struggles, lower negative emotions towards writing-related activities, 

and help them discover strategies used by their peers to overcome similar challenges. Given that 

class time is limited, the individual reflection can be completed at home and teachers can elicit 

their students’ responses as a short 10-minute warm-up.  

 

Requesting feedback. Based on this initial individual reflection and group discussion, 

learners are invited to prepare their peer-request form (see Appendix 2). It is important for 

learners to identify these areas before engaging in the C-WCF activities to help elicit focused 

feedback. The guiding questions on the peer-request form can include, for example: What could 

my peer help me with? What is the main element I want him/her to look at? To avoid very 

general responses, we encourage teachers to model responses. Once learners have completed 

their forms, they share them with their reviewer.  

• Reflect (I)

• Request (I)

• Explore (C) 

Before C-WCF

• Read (I)

• Feedback (I)

• Compare (C)

• Conference (C)

During

• Reflect (I)

• Report (C) 

Post C-WCF

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/341


 Maatouk & Payant 24 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 19–31 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/341 

Exploring functional language. The final (optional) step prior to engaging in the main 

peer C-WCF activity focuses on the identification of functional language needed to elicit and to 

respond to feedback in a way that fosters collaboration and respect. Teachers can model target 

structures by performing a scripted role-play or by modeling with a learner (see sample structure 

in Table 1). 

 

Table 1 

 

Functional language (adapted from I. Lee, 2016, p. 265)  

Language needed for the writer Language needed for the reviewer 

I would like to have feedback on… 

Could you please explain this comment …? 

What are your comments on…? 

What did you think about…? 

This is very helpful. 

Can you explain what you wanted to say here? 

You did well on… 

Did you consider writing… 

This part can be improved by… 

I liked/enjoyed this part… 

As your reader, I felt that… 

 

 Alternatively, teachers can draw on prompts to explore linguistic strategies that will lead 

to greater and more meaningful negotiation. Example prompts, adapted from Hansen and Liu 

(2005) include: 1) How can you tell the writer you do not understand the idea? 2) What kind of 

clarification questions can you ask? 3) Which language is more polite to indicate your 

confusion? Taking the time to work on functional language reduces the frequency of direct and 

sometimes offensive requests (e.g., “This is wrong,” “You need to change this,” “I don’t 

understand any of this”).  

 

In sum, preparing learners by drawing on role-plays or whole group discussions serves to 

demonstrate optimal ways to conduct peer C-WCF review discussions. This preliminary work 

can be done in class, especially if learners are new to peer feedback; however, as the semester 

progresses, learners can complete a majority of these tasks before class.  

 

Phase 2: During C-WCF 
 

Having completed Phase 1 of the training, learners are divided into groups of three and proceed 

to Phase 2. For this phase, each learner will bring two copies of their text to class or, if working 

in a computer lab, share their texts prior to the C-WCF activity. This C-WCF stage comprises 

four steps: (1) to individually read a peer’s text, (2) to individually provide feedback on the text, 

(3) to compare feedback and pool feedback using the form, (4) to return and discuss feedback 

with the author. Step 3 will most likely be new to learners, but this additional step greatly 

improves the experience.  

 

Reading: Individual reading task. To begin the C-WCF process, first allocate time for 

the two reviewers to conduct a first individual reading of the same paper, without marking it. 

This first reading is intended to focus the reviewers’ attention on the ideas and macrostructure. 

As such, students must be reminded that they are to put their pens away and focus on reading 

their respective copies. Given that papers may vary in length or that some students are fast 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/341


 Maatouk & Payant 25 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 19–31 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/341 

readers, they can also be invited to read the paper twice, to give time for all the readers to 

complete the reading task.  

 

 Feedback: Individual commenting task. After the individual reading, the reviewers 

read the feedback peer-request form (previously completed by the author, Appendix 2) and begin 

working on an individual WCF task. During this time, the authors whose papers are being 

commented on, form a group (ideally in another room or at a distance from the reviewers) and 

work on a free writing task or language-focused task. Alternatively, they can begin to read their 

peers’ work.  

 

Comparing: Collaborative commenting task. The third step is the collaborative 

component of the C-WCF activity, the new component of the peer review process. To boost the 

reviewers’ confidence and to increase the quality of the feedback, the two reviewers take some 

time to discuss their initial feedback. During this oral component, the reviewers share their 

feedback and identify areas of convergence and of divergence. When the reviewers’ feedback 

converges, the reviewers should include these recommendations in the final feedback to the 

author. Given that both reviewers identified these elements, the reviewers may experience 

greater confidence in the quality of their feedback. In moments where their feedback diverges 

from each other, they will be forced to discuss their feedback and arrive at a joint solution. This 

negotiation stage is critical in developing their understanding of academic writing. Teachers may 

want to monitor these discussions and offer their input. Sharing notes can also lead to identify 

gaps in the feedback, namely, errors identified by only one of the reviewers. Again, these 

negotiations become critical moments in their own writing development and this additional step 

will ensure that the authors receive constructive and reliable feedback. Once the two reviewers 

agree on the comments, they fill out the third column of the feedback form. This will be the 

information to share with the authors.  

 

Conferencing: Sharing final feedback. The reviewers are now ready for the final step: 

meeting the author to provide their feedback orally. Sharing the written feedback orally has 

numerous benefits for the reviewers and the authors. During the small group conference, the 

reviewers present their recommendations to the authors. This creates a space for the author to ask 

for clarifications regarding the received comments but further enables the author to clarify their 

ideas if they believe the reviewers misunderstood the text. Overall, this C-WCF format reduces 

learner anxiety, increases awareness of academic texts, and promotes collaborative learning. See 

Appendix 3 for a sample instruction to be shared with learners.  

 

Phase 3: After Peer WCF  
 

During the final phase of the review activity, students are guided through a post-review reflective 

activity. Each student completes an individual checklist (Appendix 4). This checklist promotes 

reflection from the perspective of both the reviewer and the author. This form also helps the 

teacher gauge students’ perception of adopting a peer C-WCF framework. A group discussion 

could follow to conclude the activity. 

  

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/341


 Maatouk & Payant 26 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 19–31 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/341 

Pedagogical Considerations 

 

This collaborative peer feedback model is comprised of three stages and can easily be adapted. 

We encourage teachers to execute the complete model at the start of the semester given the 

importance of peer feedback training that we highlighted at the outset. For subsequent writing 

tasks, however, teachers may omit certain components, for instance, the functional language 

component, if learners have demonstrated their ability to communicate effectively with their 

peers. Other steps of Phase 1, such as form completion, can be completed at home so as not to 

take valuable class time. Teachers can also choose to alternate between offering teacher feedback 

only for short writing tasks and combining this peer C-WCF model with teacher feedback for 

more complex writing tasks that require multiple drafts (Nguyen & Filipi, 2018).  

 

The C-WCF model is intended to scaffold the peer-review process and is designed to 

include numerous collaborative activities. For this model to be successfully implemented, it is 

important for learners to arrive with printed copies of the texts. Also, during the individual and 

collaborative commenting tasks, it is important for teachers to have a plan for the authors whose 

texts are being reviewed. Without such a plan, we found that these students quickly go off task 

and disrupt the flow of the activity.  

 

Conclusion 
 

Peer feedback is an essential activity in an EAL class and will support novice writers to develop 

a positive outlook towards collaborative learning. Learners must be accompanied throughout the 

process of revising their peers’ written productions. This three-stage training model aims at 

guiding the learners through the various phases of providing comments, beginning with planning 

for the feedback, providing it, and finally, assessing it. It combines written and oral feedback in a 

safe environment. In the context of an EAP class, the proposed model can also help introduce 

learners to collaborative models of learning that they will encounter in their target university 

courses. Teachers can adapt and optimize this tool in light of their students’ previous experiences 

with peer feedback and their beliefs towards it. Finally, responding to the call of Yu and Lee 

(2016) of providing more information on training targeting collaboration, it would be interesting 

to conduct a classroom-based study to empirically examine students’ perceptions before and after 

undergoing this collaborative training model. 

 

References 
 

Allen, D., & Mills, A. (2016). The impact of second language proficiency in dyadic peer 

feedback. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 498–513. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814561902  

Berggren, J. (2015). Learning from giving feedback: A study of secondary-level students. ELT 

Journal, 69(1), 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccu036 

British Columbia Ministry of Advanced Education. (2019). Articulation guide for English as a 

second language programs in the British Columbia post-secondary transfer system. 

Retrieved from http://www.bccat.bc.ca/articulation/index.cfm  

Chang, C. Y. H. (2016). Two decades of research in L2 peer review. Journal of Writing 

Research, 8(1), 81–117. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2016.08.01.03  

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/341
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814561902
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccu036
http://www.bccat.bc.ca/articulation/index.cfm
https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2016.08.01.03


 Maatouk & Payant 27 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 19–31 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/341 

Diab, N. M. (2010). Effects of peer- versus self-editing on students’ revision of language errors 

in revised drafts. System, 38, 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.12.008  

Diab, N. M. (2011). Assessing the relationship between different types of student feedback and 

the quality of revised writing. Assessing Writing, 16(4), 274–292. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2011.08.001  

Fernández Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, 

pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 40–58. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002  

Ferris, D. (2002). Treatment of error in second language writing. Ann Arbor: The University of 

Michigan Press. 

Ghahari, S., & Sedaghat, M. (2018). Optimal feedback structure and interactional pattern in 

formative peer practices: Students’ beliefs. System, 74, 9–20. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.02.003  

Guénette, D., & Jean, G. (2012). Les erreurs linguistiques des apprenants en langue seconde: 

quoi corriger, et comment faire? Correspondance, 18(1), 15–19. Retrieved from 

http://correspo.ccdmd.qc.ca/index.php/document/cinq-pistes-pour-favoriser-le-

developpement-des-competences-a-lecrit/les-erreurs-linguistiques-des-apprenants-en-

langue-seconde-quoi-corriger-et-comment-le-faire/  

Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci004  

Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching 

Research, 9(3), 321–342. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr169oa  

Lam, R. (2010). A peer review training workshop: Coaching students to give and evaluate peer 

feedback. TESL Canada Journal, 27(2), 114. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v27i2.1052  

Lantolf, J. P., Thorne, S. L., & Poehner, M. E. (2015). Sociocultural theory and second language 

learning. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition 

(pp. 207–226). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Lee, I. (2016). Putting students at the centre of classroom L2 writing assessment. Canadian 

Modern Language Review, 72(2), 258–280. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.2802  

Lee, M. K. (2015). Peer feedback in second language writing: Investigating junior secondary 

students’ perspectives on inter-feedback and intra-feedback. System, 55, 1–10. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.08.003  

Levine, A., Oded, B., Connor, U., & Asons, I. (2002). Variation in EFL-ESL peer response. 

TESL-EJ, 6(3), 1–18. Retrieved from http://www.tesl-ej.org/ej23/a1.html  

Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (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(1), 30–43. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002  

Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293–308. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003  

Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing 

quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 118–141. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003  

Min, H. T. (2008). Reviewer stances and writer perceptions in EFL peer review training. English 

for Specific Purposes, 27(3), 285–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2008.02.002  

  

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/341
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.12.008
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2011.08.001
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.12.002
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2018.02.003
http://correspo.ccdmd.qc.ca/index.php/document/cinq-pistes-pour-favoriser-le-developpement-des-competences-a-lecrit/les-erreurs-linguistiques-des-apprenants-en-langue-seconde-quoi-corriger-et-comment-le-faire/
http://correspo.ccdmd.qc.ca/index.php/document/cinq-pistes-pour-favoriser-le-developpement-des-competences-a-lecrit/les-erreurs-linguistiques-des-apprenants-en-langue-seconde-quoi-corriger-et-comment-le-faire/
http://correspo.ccdmd.qc.ca/index.php/document/cinq-pistes-pour-favoriser-le-developpement-des-competences-a-lecrit/les-erreurs-linguistiques-des-apprenants-en-langue-seconde-quoi-corriger-et-comment-le-faire/
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci004
https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr169oa
https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v27i2.1052
https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.2802
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.08.003
http://www.tesl-ej.org/ej23/a1.html
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2008.02.002


 Maatouk & Payant 28 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 19–31 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/341 

Neumann, H., & McDonough, K. (2015). Exploring student interaction during collaborative 

prewriting discussions and its relationship to L2 writing. Journal of Second Language 

Writing, 27, 84–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.009  

Nguyen, H., & Filipi, A. (2018). Multiple-draft/multiple-party feedback practices in an EFL 

tertiary writing course: Teachers’ and students’ perspectives. International Education 

Studies, 11(8), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v11n8p1  

Rahimi, M. (2013). Is training student reviewers worth its while? A study of how training 

influences the quality of students’ feedback and writing. Language Teaching Research. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812459151  

Ren, H., & Hu, G. (2012). Peer review and Chinese EFL/ESL student writers. English Australia 

Journal, 27(2), 3–16. Retrieved from 

https://www.englishaustralia.com.au/documents/item/174  

Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23–30. 

https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci003  

Séror, J. (2011). Alternative sources of feedback and second language writing development in 

university content courses. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(1), 118–143. 

Retrieved from https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/CJAL/article/view/19870  

Slavkov, N. (2015). Sociocultural theory, the L2 writing process, and Google Drive: Strange 

bedfellows? TESL Canada Journal, 32(2), 80–94. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v32i2.1209  

Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 51(1), 119–158. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00179  

Tian, L., & Li, L. (2018). Chinese EFL learners’ perception of peer oral and written feedback as 

providers, receivers and observers. Language Awareness, 27(4), 312–330. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2018.1535602  

Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal 

of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00022-

9  

Wette, R. (2014). Teachers’ practices in EAP writing instruction: Use of models and modeling. 

System, 42(1), 60–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.11.002  

Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and writing 

feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 364–374. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.005  

Yang, Y. F., & Meng, W. T. (2013). The effects of online feedback training on students’ text 

revision. Language Learning and Technology, 17(2), 220–238. https://doi.org/10125/44327  

Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2016). Exploring Chinese students’ strategy use in a cooperative peer feedback 

writing group. System, 58, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.02.005  

Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing 

class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-

3743(95)90010-1  

Zhao, H. (2018). New insights into the process of peer review for EFL writing: A process-

oriented socio-cultural perspective. Learning and Instruction, 58, 263–273. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.07.010  

  

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/341
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.009
https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v11n8p1
https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812459151
https://www.englishaustralia.com.au/documents/item/174
https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci003
https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/CJAL/article/view/19870
https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v32i2.1209
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9922.00179
https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2018.1535602
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00022-9
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00022-9
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.11.002
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.005
https://doi.org/10125/44327
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.02.005
https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(95)90010-1
https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(95)90010-1
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.07.010


 Maatouk & Payant 29 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 19–31 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/341 

Appendix 1 

 

Before C-WCF: Reflect and Request 

 

Provide a blank copy of Activity 1: Reflect* to each learner. Following this individual 

component, engage your learners in a group discussion activity wherein they share their 

responses. This stage will help increase their awareness of writing difficulties others face. 

 

Activity 1. Individual reflection form with student answers 

 

Guiding question Sample response 

1. What type of text (genre) did I produce?  A letter of intent to a university program. 

2. Who is the target audience for this text? The admissions office at the university 

3. Which section(s) of the text did I write 

successfully?  

The thesis statement in the introduction 

4. Which section of the text was difficult 

for me to write?  

Finding the connecting words. Deciding on 

right punctuation. 

5. How did I overcome those difficulties? I went back to my class notes and read the 

models provided by the teacher 

Think about the language, content, and 

organization and finish these statements: 

 

1. I did well on:  The introduction, the greetings. 

2. I did not do well on:  Connecting ideas; Using punctuation. 

3. I am not sure about: Past tense verbs, academic vocabulary. 

 

*This handout can easily be adapted. Sample responses can be shared with learners but their 

form should only include the guiding questions.  

 

Appendix 2 

 

Before C-WCF: Requesting Feedback 

 

After this individual reflection, students will select three or four elements that they would like to 

receive feedback on and note these in the Request form.  

 

Activity 2: Request form for peer feedback with sample answers 

 

Thank you for reading my text. 

Today, I would like you to give me feedback on the following: 

 

Sample major category Sample specific areas Reviewer comments 

 

Grammar 

 

Irregular verbs 

 

Organization One idea per paragraph  

Academic vocabulary Transition words  

  

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/341


 Maatouk & Payant 30 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 19–31 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/341 

Appendix 3 

 

During C-WCF Phase: Instructions for Step 3* 

 

For this C-WCF activity, you will complete four steps:  

 

1) individual reading,  

2) individual feedback,  

3) collaborative feedback, and  

4) conferencing with the author.  

 

Each group of three will have two reviewers and one author. Each reviewer will have one copy 

of the written production. As a reviewer, read the text once, without marking the copy. Next, 

read the feedback request form prepared by the author. Individually comment on the author’s 

text and provide feedback on the requested elements only, directly on the text. Before returning 

the feedback to the author, both reviewers will share their feedback. For this, compare your 

feedback, discuss similarities and differences and prepare a single, collaboratively produced 

feedback form. The procedure of reading individually, of providing feedback individually, of 

comparing feedback notes, and of returning feedback to authors will be repeated for each group 

member. 

 

*These instructions can easily be modified. 

 

Appendix 4 

 

After C-WCF: Reflect 

 

After the review process, learners will complete the reflective survey.  

 

Activity 3: Reflection checklist on peer feedback process 

 

When I was reading my peer’s text: 

 

1. I provided the feedback I was asked for at: 

 

Less than 60% 61% – 70% 71% – 80% 81% – 90% 91% – 100% 

 

Explain: 

 

    

2. Giving feedback was: 

 

Very Difficult  Difficult Neutral Easy Very Easy 

 

Explain: 

 

    

  

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/341


 Maatouk & Payant 31 

BC TEAL Journal Volume 5 Number 1 (2020): 19–31 

Retrieved from https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/341 

When I was reading my peer’s comments on my text: 

 

3. I got the feedback I asked for at: 

 

Less than 60% 61% – 70% 71% – 80% 81% – 90% 91% – 100% 

 

Explain:  

 

    

4.  The feedback I received was: 

 

Useless  Not very Useful Neutral Useful  Very Useful  

 

Explain:  

 

    

What will I do differently next time as a reviewer? 

 

 

 

 

 

 
The BC TEAL Journal is licensed under a 

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. 

Copyright rests with the authors. 

 

 

https://ojs-o.library.ubc.ca/index.php/BCTJ/article/view/341
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

