peer-led versus tutor-led collaborative revision: a

Running head: PEER-LED VERSUS TUTOR-LED COLLABORATIVE REVISION 1

Peer-led Versus Tutor-led Collaborative Revision:

A Prospectus

Arthur Huber, Lauren Kuehster, Nhat Nguyen, and Bridget Schuberg

Colorado State University

PEER-LED VERSUS TUTOR-LED COLLARBORATIVE REVISION 2

Abstract

This prospectus aims to study the efficacy of tutor-led versus peer-led collaborative revisions

over the length of a semester at a US university. Participants will include two groups of 18

international undergraduate students, whose revisions will be either peer-led or tutor-led,

enrolled in a freshman composition course known as CO150-I. All participants will be given

essay prompts for use as pre-tests and post-tests for both holistic and variable analysis. A

MANCOVA will determine the differences of mean gains between all tested variables.

Keywords: writing center, peer-led, tutor-led, collaborative learning, ESL, writing


Peer-led versus Tutor-led Collaborative Revision:

A Prospectus

This research focuses on the effects of out-of-class peer revision compared to tutor-led

revision (at a writing center) on the overall writing proficiency of first-year ESL students at an

American state university. For this reason, it is worth defining the concepts of revision, peer, and

writing center tutors as understood in this prospectus. Revision, in Murray’s (1982, as cited in

Olson, 2011) opinion, is the “least researched, least examined, least understood and – usually-

least taught” (p. 72) stage of the writing process. This is an ongoing process of discovering and

refining meaning in which one chooses to engage. It begins with “the writer’s evaluative review

of their written text, mental text, or a writing plan” (Flower, Hayes, Carey, Schriver, & Stratman,

1986, p. 22) and his or her decision to make the text communicate better. According to the

Oxford English Dictionary, the word “peer” is “an equal in standing or rank; one’s equal before

the law,” “an equal in any respect,” or “one matched with another; a companion, mate.” Being a

peer means being able to be flexible, to negotiate, to engage, to interplay, and to establish

genuine relationships with writers. Peer responses enable a writer to identify the gaps in his or

her thinking and writing, and truly revise meanings at the semantic and lexical levels. In defining

writing center tutors, Fels & Wells (2011) indicate that “by showing students how to negotiate

discourse from their home, communities, and classrooms, writing center tutors help students

adopt new perspectives and then apply their thought to writing” (p. 17).

The presence of writing centers has existed in the U.S. school system since the late 1970s

(Farrell, 1989, as cited in Fels & Wells, 2011) but is likely not to be popular in some foreign

countries where English is taught as second language. For example, in the case of Vietnamese

universities, forming a writing center seems to be a controversial issue. There is a possibility that


the long-term impact of a writing center is not fully recognized in the improvement of students’

writing skills. Longitudinal research focusing on the role of peer revision and tutor-led revision

in writing centers and their impacts on students’ writing improvement, therefore, should be

conducted in successful places to provide valuable experiences or lessons to other educators.

The literature also reveals that there have been arguments related to the role of peer

revision and tutor-led revision in writing centers on students’ learning process. Vender (1985, as

cited in Cho & MacArthur, 2010), Schriver (1990, as cited in Cho & MacArthur, 2010), and

Rollinson (2005) advocate and put a great emphasis on the positive effects of peer revision

among students, whereas Cho & MacArthur (2010) and Fels & Wells (2011) emphasize the

benefits of writing center tutors on improving students’ writing. Vygotsky’s (1981, as cited in

Fels & Wells, 2011) notion of language as a mind tool helps us see how one-to-one conversations

about writing can help students improve as writers. As such, both peer revision and tutoring in

the writing center help students internalize their learning as they improve as writers. Over time,

this process may empower students. Not only might they begin to improve as writers, but they

may begin to see themselves as writers.

Literature Review

The proposed study aims to compare the effects of peer-revision groups with tutor-led

revision on the writing of non-native speaking first year composition students at a state

university in the USA. Tutor-led revision is to take place in an on-campus writing center. Much

has been written about peer-revision, collaborative learning and negotiated meaning (Chang,

2012; Chen, 2010; Cho & MacArthur, 2010; Gillies & Boyle, 2010; Hu, 2005; Rollinson, 2005;

Thonus, 2004; Wigglesworth & Storch, 2009; Williams, 2004; Zeng & Takatsuka, 2009).

According to Zemliansky (2008), revision is part of a process-based approach to writing where


writers “compose multiple drafts; they seek feedback on those drafts from other readers; they

revise the meaning of their writing heavily based on that feedback and on their own evolving

thinking about the piece they are working on.” Both peer groups and tutor led conversations

about writing are part of the process-based approach that Zemliansky (2008) mentions. In order

to explore the comparison we propose, we will present literature on both peer revision and tutor

led revision as well as examining the meaning of a process-based approach to writing.

Peer Revision

Wigglesworth and Storch (2009) emphasize the positive impact of peer collaboration on

accuracy, but they also state that pair collaboration may have little to no effect on fluency and

complexity in writing. This is consistent with studies of self-reported perceptions toward peer

feedback which suggest that students are cautious to accept language-related comments from

those who are not considered to be experts (Chen, 2010; Cho & MacArthur, 2010).

Despite its proven “social, cognitive, affective, and methodological benefits” (Rollinson,

2005, p. 23), studies of perceptions of peer feedback show that teachers may be hesitant to

incorporate peer feedback in the classroom for a variety of reasons. The process of peer response

is time-consuming; students may not be of an age or of an interlanguage level that is conducive

to profitable peer revision; teachers may not want to trust students with such a significant degree

of responsibility (Rollinson, 2005, p. 23). However, when teachers are adequately trained in how

to work with the created peer groups, how to organize lessons and tasks, and how to teach

students the “social and academic skills they will need to negotiate their new learning

environments” (Gillies & Boyle, 2010), the process of peer revision becomes beneficial for both

students and teachers. Researchers have indicated the importance of training and instruction of

students prior to peer-review sessions (Hu, 2005; Gillies & Boyle, 2010; Rollinson, 2005). Hu


(2005) explains that in his classroom, he provides lots of training for peer-review and does

teacher follow up for peer reviews (essentially making sure comments are constructive).

In his 2005 paper, Hu describes his own use of peer-review in the ESL classroom. Hu

(2005) suggests that there are specific benefits to peer-review, such as its opportunity to

“encourage collaborative learning and provide valuable opportunities for learners to receive

social support and scaffolding from peers (Jacobs, Zinkgraf, Wormuth, Hartfiel, & Hughley.,

1981, as cited in Hu, 2005) as well as its ability to “contribute to learner autonomy by weaning

students from over-dependence on their teachers” (Tsui & Ng, 2000, as cited in Hu, 2005). It

seems that peer-review may allow students to build off their classmates strengths while

distancing themselves from an over-reliance on teacher feedback. In addition to these positive

outcomes, Liu and Sadler (2003, as cited in Hu, 2005) state that peer-revision can contribute to

“a fruitful environment for students to negotiate meaning and practice a wide range of language

skills (p. 194). So, peer revision sessions may have a variety of positive language effects in

addition to contributing to more accurate writing. Peer-revision may have some benefits, even

over teacher feedback, because “student writers are more likely to consider peer suggestions

carefully but may feel compelled to adopt all teacher comments out of deference to authority”

(Mendonça & Johnson, 1994; Mittan, 1989; Tsui & Ng, 2000 as cited in Hu, 2005). This may

mean that, because students do not view their peers as experts, they are more likely to engage in

processing comments critically from peers while they are likely to take comments from teachers

as directions which must be followed without question. Additionally, Vedder (1985, as cited in

Cho & MacArthur, 2010) found that peer comments are often more comprehensible than expert

comments because “peers share problems, language, and knowledge” (Cho & MacArthur, 2010,


p. 329), and can therefore detect, diagnose, and solve problems of their peers based on their

shared understanding of the context.

Furthermore, Schriver (1990) states that having multiple peers examine a work can

improve writers’ awareness of writing for specific audiences (as cited in Cho & MacArthur,

2010, p. 330) as they must become accustomed to formulating their writing according to the

“characteristics and demands of [their] readers (Rollinson, 2005, p. 25) with “diverse, rich

responses” (Cho & MacArthur, 2010, p. 330). These peer audiences also tend to be “more

sympathetic” (Rollinson, 2005, p. 25) than the distant teacher audience. Audience awareness is

likely to be an important element for writers to understand and peer-revision seems to be helpful

in allowing students to recognize and consider multiple audiences.

In addition to traditional face-to-face peer revision, collaborative learning through

technology should be considered. It is important to explore some of the research based on

Computer Mediated Communication (CMC) and peer-revision. Zeng and Takatsuka (2009)

performed a study with Chinese university students writing in English, which showed that paired

learners interacting over an online course management system improved their language skills as

a result of collaborative on-line interactions. Another study which considers CMC is from Chang

(2012), who explored the use of different types of peer-review at different stages in the writing

process, using face-to-face review along with synchronous CMC, or asynchronous CMC. Chang

(2012) found that “both interactive modes (face-to-face and synchronous) afforded reviewers to

negotiate with the writer and to comment on the problems based on the writer’s request” while

“revision-oriented alteration in local areas (LRA)” was “the most commonly used one in

asynchronous mode” (p. 73). It may be, that different modes of peer-review have different

purposes and foci.


Peer revision may be a ripe area of inquiry in second-language writing and information

from past studies has resulted in information that may help teachers design productive peer-

review sessions. Peer review seems to be more likely to result in sentence-level accuracy, may

have some language benefits, could result in a more nuanced understanding of audience, and

different modes of peer-revision may result in different types of feedback.

Tutor-Led Revision

Colorado State University’s Writing Center’s website states that,“by offering resources

and strategies, we strive to build writers' beliefs in their own writing processes and abilities”

(Lamanna). It seems that the goal of the writing center is to empower writers through

conversations with experts. “Experts” such as writing tutors, are useful, as they “possess plentiful

domain-specific knowledge that is highly organised” and “are faster in detecting problems” (Cho

& MacArthur, 2010, p. 329). Writers may seek these experts in order to improve their writing.

However, it has been shown, in some cases, that face-to-face tutoring tends to be more

tutor-directed, focusing more on grammatical and lexical structures within the writing than on a

summative analysis (Jones et al., 2006). According to Conrad and Goldstein (1999), this may be

because problems that are easier to repair are more likely to be revised successfully (as cited in

Chen, 2010, p. 152). Camerer, Loewenstein, and Weber (1989) note that the “curse of expertise”

often leads experts to use knowledge that is unavailable to novice students, and to overestimate

the ability of novices to complete a task while underestimating the difficulty of said task (as cited

in Cho & MacArthur, 2010, p. 329). In this way, interactions between ‘expert’ tutors and novice

‘tutees’ may be quite complicated.

Interaction may become even more complex when the writing center tutor is a native

English speaker and the tutee is a second-language writer. Thonus (2004) studied the difference


in interactions between native speaking tutors with native writing tutees and native speaking

tutors with non-native writing tutees. She found that writing center consultations with non-native

speaking students are problematic because “tutors are still searching for adequate frames for

tutorials with NNSs. With NNS tutees, tutors are less consistent in their interactional behavior”

(Thonus, 2004, p. 220). Williams (2004) also explores the interaction and results of tutoring

sessions when the tutor is a native English speaker and the tutee is not. In Williams (2004) study,

the changes made to drafts after a meeting with a Writing Center tutor were analyzed. It was

found that tutee attitude and goals were important factors. For example,

in sessions in which the writer was resistant to tutor suggestions, few changes were

detected in subsequent drafts that could be related to the content of the session. In

sessions in which readings were discussed/analyzed, the primary changes were text-

based; in contrast, for those in which the writer insisted on attention to form, revision

tended to be form-based. (Williams, 2004, p. 181)

Williams (2004) also finds that “surface-level features discussed during the session are

more likely to get revised than text-based problems” (p. 184). It may be that, regardless of

whether feedback is from peers or tutors, writers are most likely to address problems which are

at the sentence level when revising their own work after revision sessions.

Tutor-led revision, in the context of a university writing center, may be complex and

somewhat under explored. Writing center interaction between native speaking tutors and non-

native tutees may be problematic because of the notion of expertise. However, the attitude of the

tutee seems to have significant impact on the writing outcome of writing center consultations.

Process-Based Approach

An example of what is meant by a processed based approach to writing in the


composition classroom can be seen in Chang’s (2012) study (mentioned above). In the study, the

student’s process consisted of

(1) in-class brainstorming, (2) a first draft posted in Blackboard, (3) peer review via

Blackboard before the following class, (4) face-to-face peer review in an in-class

session, (5) a second draft posted on Blackboard after this class session, (6) peer review

via MSN before the next class session, (7) instructor’s writing comments on the revised

second drafts, and (8) a final product submitted in individual portfolios. (Chang, 2012, p.

66)

This type of writing process involves multiple steps as well as a number of revisions which

may benefit writers and influence the learning environment. According to Freer and Enoch

(1993), process based approaches “allow for integration of critical thinking, permit learners to

expand their repertoire of learning strategies, break down the isolation and provide peer support,

and create a cooperative participatory environment” (paraphrased in Stino & Palmer, 1999).

Revision may be an important part of the process-based approach, and is a goal of both peer and

tutor led revision sessions. On the subject of revision, Williams (2004) writes that

It is generally viewed as a process broader than, though including, editing for errors. It is

seen as a goal-oriented process that has both internal and external manifestations; that

is, it can be both the thinking process that the writer goes through in reconsidering what

is written and in imagining possible changes, and what actually happens to the product

(e.g., Beach & Eaton, 1984; Bridwell, 1980; Nold, 1981; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1986;

Sommers, 1980, 1992 as cited in Williams, 2004, p. 174).

Williams (2004) goes on to explain that revision can take place at any time in the writing

process and that it consists of three steps: “1. Detection/evaluation/comparison.. .


2.Diagnosis/identification” and “3.Operation/execution/correction” (p. 174). Basically, it may be

that writers must first recognize that a problem exists and understand its nature before they can

fix the problem.

Process-based writing seems to focus not only on the end product, but values the steps

writers must take to get to the product. In addition to peer-revision and tutor-led revision,

process-based writing seems to include brainstorming and self-revision as well. Understanding

the value of the process-based approach may enable teachers to construct learning environments

in which students begin to value process-based writing as well.

Method

Purpose

Our research is concerned with the effectiveness of tutor-led and peer-led collaborations

on overall writing ability. In order to assess various writing skills in a quantitative capacity,

researchers have examined specific variable in essays such as the total number of tokens,

discourse markers, paragraphs, mean length of clauses, and lexical complexity (Lu, 2011; Xing,

Wang, & Spencer, 2008). Another approach has measured holistic scores on aspects such as

cohesion, thesis placement, and organization (Jacobs et al., 1981; Williams, 2004). Given that

either means of assessing may yield substantial results, we plan to incorporate both variable and

holistic analyses into our study. Thus, our aim is to evaluate whether repetitive instances of tutor-

led or peer-led collaborative help during a 16-week period would yield higher quality essays in

terms of accuracy, cohesion, and organization, as measured by the same rubric used for assessing

freshman composition placement exams. We intend to evaluate by means of holistic value scores

as well as specific isolated textual phenomena.


Paradigm

We are critical realists exploring a post-positivism approach. Instead of using an

encapsulated study without any bearing beyond the research itself, we chose a study based on a

meaningful assessment – a writing placement exam for incoming freshman at the university

level. The chosen prompts are those that have been used in a real-world context for the targeted

participants. Additionally, the holistic rubric used by our raters is the same rubric used when

assessing placement exam scores. In turn, our study is meaningful and immediately applicable

for potential stakeholders.

Study Design

Students will produce one sample essay each at the beginning (the pre-test) and end (the

post-test) of the 16-week period. Specific aspects of both essays will be analyzed and compared.

By analyzing specific aspects of each essay (e.g., total number of tokens, discourse markers,

paragraphs, mean length of clauses), we can build a data set to be measured quantitatively, thus

helping to alleviate bias. The data set will be represented by two broader categories, writing

complexity (total number of tokens, discourse markers, number of paragraphs, percent of

academic word list (AWL) words, and mean length of clause) and accuracy (number of syntax

mistakes and number of punctuation mistakes).

Our second measurement, by contrast, will be holistic and serve as a complement to our

first. As a consequence, it would be more apt to bias as it would include the use of three raters. In

order to promote fairness, we aim for our raters to show an inter-rater reliability of at least 0.85

using sample student essays before undertaking the study.

By using these complementary measurements in the pre-test and post-test assessments,

we believe the effectiveness of each collaborative method will be more easily gauged. For this


study we are employing a null-hypothesis: there will be no difference in the writing gains

between the two groups.

Population and Sample

Our participants will include 36 international, undergraduate students at a state university

that have been placed into a freshman-level composition course, CO150-I. Our sample size is

based on two course sections of mixed gender students taught the same instructor. We feel this

population is relevant due to the continued language needs of non-native English speakers

throughout their academic career. These students, in particular, often seek additional help at

writing centers or in the form of tutors.

Investigative Techniques

Each group of 18 students will be taught by the same instructor over the course of a

semester, but will differ in their out-of-class collaborative learning. Group 1 (tutor-led) will be

required to meet with a tutor at the writing center on campus five times, with sessions lasting no

longer than 30 minutes. Group 2 (peer-led) will be arranged into smaller peer groups of three

students each. These smaller groups will also be required to meet five 30-minute sessions to

discuss drafts of papers that have written. Both Group 1 and Group 2 will be given guiding

questions for each session.

As mentioned earlier, analysis of pre and post-test writings will include the isolation of

certain phenomena as categorized by Xing, Wang, and Spencer (2008) in their study. As a second

means of analysis, we also plan to have holistic scores based on cohesion, thesis placement, and

organization by three trained teachers of composition from the university.

As a follow-up to the study, we will administer an exit questionnaire in order to

understand learner attitudes regarding the impact of tutor-led or peer-led collaborative revision


on their own learning. It will also be interesting to see if students’ own opinion of their writing

improvement matches what is shown in our analysis.

Instrumentation

Our isolated measurements for writing complexity are adapted from those pre-established

by Xing, Wang, & Spencer (2008), with noted variables including total number of tokens,

discourse markers, number of paragraphs, percentage of AWL words, and mean length of

clauses. For accuracy, we plan to measure the number of syntax mistakes and punctuation

mistakes per essay. Our holistic measurements, on the other hand, will be based on the current

grading rubric for CO150 placement exams (see appendix). Pre-test and post-test quantitative

variables for essays will be analyzed using an MANCOVA, with significance at the .05 level.

These results will then be correlated against holistic scores. Our inter-rater reliability is assumed

to be at the .85 level or higher.

Data Collections

Data will be collected in the form of timed essay prompts that have been used in previous

CO150 placement exams. Each group will write two separate, timed essays, one serving as pre-

test and the other serving as the post-test. After the post-test, a questionnaire will be given as a

means to measure participant attitudes toward their tutor-led or peer-led collaborative learning

efforts.

Data Analysis Plan

All isolated variables of the writing will be used in an MANCOVA with a significance

of .05, with means and standard deviations also being recorded in other categories. These will

also be correlated against holistic score means.


Ethical Consideration (Human Subject Protections)

While research has shown benefits to both tutor-led and peer-led collaborative learning,

the study does not guarantee any results. However, through our investigation we hope to make

future recommendations for international, undergraduate ELLs as a means to improve their

academic writing in a more efficient manner. We also plan to keep all writings anonymous by

having students omit their names. Records will be kept using a 3-digit code to identify each

participant.

Bias

Our attempt to eliminate bias is demonstrated in the isolation of phenomena and the

subsequent quantitative analysis. However, by including raters we also acknowledge the inherent

bias in their holistic scoring. Therefore, we plan to hedge this by applying a high inter-rater

reliability standard (.85) as well as correlating independent features of the writing with holistic

success.

Assumptions

In order to control for our hypothesis, we need to assume that each section of students

will be taught in a similar manner (same teacher) and that no other help is being provided to

assist in rhetorical understanding beyond writing center or peer-led collaborative help.

Limitations

As with any study, gathering a larger sample size would make it more generalizable. In

addition, though test prompts are aimed to be unbiased and fair, we realize that not all

participants will respond with the same interpretations. Additionally, given more resources, we

would employ a much higher number of raters (up to ten) to mitigate bias and produce more

accurate correlations.


Conclusion

Implications

The indicated meaning of process-based approach in teaching writing in America leads to

an implication for teachers of nonnative speakers of English in American contexts that teachers

need to be aware of cultural differences in their students’ attitude toward collaboration in writing

classes. In reality, students from different language and cultural backgrounds have different

expectations about group work.

Teachers are recommended to be careful in organizing collaborative peer response groups

because of the fact that international students have different attitudes towards peer feedback. For

collaborative peer response groups to be successful in the writing class, it is essential that

students understand why they are being asked to participate in these activities. Moreover, to

prepare students for peer response activities, teachers should create a nonthreatening interaction

such as brainstorming and discussing various scenarios such as refusing requests, pointing out

mistakes that a peer has made, or placing blame at the scene of an accident, with the purpose of

highlighting cross-cultural differences and their implications for cross-cultural interactions. The

second language teacher who is familiar with the teaching of writing as a process should not

teach her students to write through model compositions. Instead, she should focus on helping

students make revisions in students’ drafts from the beginning to the final editing.

Research Directions

Research on effective classroom interactions in ESL and EFL setting is necessary for the

effective implementation of social construction of meaning among teachers and students in ESL

and EFL writing classes. Interviews and “think - aloud” protocols with students as well as

ethnographic and case study descriptions need to be conducted. This kind of research is


important for the process of encouraging dialogue about differences between teachers and

students concerning different assumptions about texts, writers, and audiences. In addition,

research on the comparison between more than two successful writing centers is essential to

provide educators as well as education providers around the world a better understanding on the

writing center effectiveness.


References

Chang, C. (2012). Peer Review via Three Modes in an EFL Writing Course. Computers &

Composition, 29(1), 63-78. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2012.01.001

Chen, C. (2010). Graduate students’ self-reported perspectives regarding peer feedback and

feedback from writing consultants. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11, 151-158.

Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning

and Instruction, 20, 328-338.

CO150 College Composition: Course Description. Retrieved from

http://composition.colostate.edu/courses/co150/description.html

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.

Fels, D., & Wells, J. (2011). The successful high school writing center. New York and London:

Teachers College, Columbia University.

Flower, L., Hayes, J., Carey, L., Schriver, K., & Stratman, J. (1986). Detection, diagnosis, and

the strategies of revision. College Composition and Communication, 37, 16-55.

Gillies, R., & Boyle, M. (2010). Teachers’ reflections on cooperative learning: Issues of

implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 933-940.

Hansen, J. (2009). Mandated Writing Center Utilization among 1st Year English Students in

Japan. Osaka Jogakuin Daigaku Kiyo, 6, 65-84.

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

Research, 9(3), 321-342. doi:10.1191/1362168805lr169oa

Jacobs, H. L., Zinkgraf, S. A., Wormuth, D. R., Hartfiel, V. F., & Hughey, J. B. (1981). Testing

ESL Composition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.


Jones, R. H., Gerralda, A., Li, D. C. S., & Lock, G. (2006). Interactional dynamics in online and

face-to-face peer tutoring sessions for second language writers. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 15(1), 1–23.

Lamanna, C. (n.d.). About the writing center. Retrieved from

http://writingcenter.colostate.edu/about.html

Lu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of

college-level ESL writers' language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 6-62.

Olson, C. B. (2011). The reading/writing connection. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Peer (n.d.) In Oxford English dictionary. Retrieved April 28, 2012, from

http://dictionary.oed.com

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

Stino, Z.H. & Palmer, B.C. (1999). Motivating women offenders through process-based writing

in a literacy learning circle. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43, 282-291.

Thonus, T (2004). What are the differences? Tutor interactions with first- and

second-language writers. The Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 227-224.

Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2009). Pair versus individual writing: Effects on fluency,

complexity and accuracy. Language Testing. 26(3), 445–466.

Williams, J. (2004). Tutoring and revision: Second language writers in the writing center.

Journal Of Second Language Writing, 13(3), 173-201. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.009

Xing, M., Wang, J., & Spencer, K. (2008). Raising students’ awareness of cross-cultural

contrastive rhetoric in English writing via an e-learning course. Language Learning and

Technology, 12(2), 71-93.

Zeng, J., & Takatsuka, S. (2009). Text-based peer–peer collaborative dialogue in a


computer-mediated learning environment in the EFL context. System, 37, 434–446.

Zemliansky, P. (2008). Research writing as a process. In Methods of Discovery: A Guide

to Research Writing. Retrieved from http://methodsofdiscovery.net/?q=node/7


Appendix A

Student Exit Survey

1. During the semester, did you participate in:

A) out of class peer-revision

B) out of class tutoring for revision at the Writing Center

2. Rank from 1 to 7 the amount of time spent discussing each writing concern during the revision

sessions. (1 being the most amount of time, 7 being the least amount of time).

_____ Purpose: what is the goal or objective for this piece of writing?

_____Audience: to whom are you writing?

_____ Context: what are the current arguments and points-of-view on your topic? What format

or genre does your audience expect—academic essay, business report, memo…?

_____ Development: how much evidence do you need to support your argument or to clearly

communicate your message? What types of evidence are appropriate for your purpose, audience,

and context?

_____ Organization: how should you organize your ideas to best meet the expectations of your

audience?

_____ Style: genre conventions, vocabulary, sentence structure, paragraphing

_____ Conventions: grammar, spelling, punctuation

What is your opinion in response to the following statements:

3. At the beginning of the semester, I viewed revision sessions as helpful.

Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly disagree

4. Now, at the end of the semester, I feel that the revision sessions were helpful.



5. I would choose to participate in this type of revision in the future.


6. The feedback I received during revision sessions was helpful.


7. My writing has improved over the last four months.



Appendix B

Sample Rubric from CO150 Composition Placement/Challenge Exam

Fall 2011/Spring 2012 Grading Guide “Cyberbullying in America”

6 Responses earning this score satisfy the following criteria:

a. Summary—The summary should identify Devlin’s thesis that since cyberbullying constitutes

assault, it should be met not with education but with close monitoring, fines, and jail sentences.

b. Focus of agreement and/or disagreement—Agreement/disagreement may be complete or

partial, but the writer must establish and maintain the focus of agreement/disagreement with

Devlin’s argument.

c. Support for agreement and/or disagreement—Support should provide an analysis of Devlin’s

argument and/or concrete examples from the writer’s experience or general knowledge that bear

directly on Devlin’s argument.

d. Style and coherence—These papers demonstrate clear style, overall organization,

consecutiveness of thought, and often a strong, effective voice. They contain few errors in

usage, grammar, or mechanics.

5 This score should be used for papers that fulfill the basic requirements for the 6 grade but have

less development/support/analysis or have a less effective style.

4 Essays receiving this score omit or are deficient in one of the four criteria:

a. Summary—Summary absent, inaccurate, incomplete, or unattributed.

b. Focus of agreement/disagreement—What the writer is agreeing/disagreeing with is not clear,


is not well-maintained, or is not related to Devlin’s main argument.

c. Support—Writer only asserts or counter-asserts; writer’s examples are highly generalized or

not distinguishable from examples given in the article; the writer’s analysis of Devlin’s argument

may be specious, irrelevant, inaccurate, or thin.

d. Style and coherence—These papers are loosely organized or contain noticeable errors in

usage, grammar, or mechanics. They may have a strong but inappropriate voice.

3 This score should be used for papers which fulfill the basic requirements for the 4 grade but

have less support/analysis OR have occasional coherence problems that do not disrupt

communication. These papers may have sentence level errors, but these errors do not seriously

disrupt communication. Essays that do not respond to the prompt but are otherwise satisfactory

typically receive a 3.

2 These essays may have a deficient summary and are deficient in two other criteria. These

papers typically have significant misreadings and/or have repeated problems in coherence, focus,

and/or style.

1 These essays have problems that seriously disrupt communication through repeated errors in

grammar and usage and/or serious problems in coherence/focus. They typically are unfocused,

offer no support, and struggle at the sentence level.

Note: Please give 1s and 6s, LD, and ESL papers to the table leader.

peer-led versus tutor-led collaborative revision: a

Documents