Fenstermaker 1

Major Paper

Jenna Fenstermaker

English 324

Washington State University

April 18, 2019

Peer Review is Worth It, Especially with ELLs

It is fair to say that many students do not have a loving and understanding relationship

with peer review. In fact, most students at any grade level would most likely agree that peer

review activities are a waste of time. For English language learners (students that do not speak

English as their first language, also known as ELLs), peer review activities can be especially

challenging and less effective due to factors such as language barriers and differing cultural

backgrounds. Despite these limitations that ELLs face with peer review, it is truly a valuable tool

when it is learned the correct way. How can teachers turn peer review into the useful activity it is

supposed to be, specifically for ELLs? To answer this question, it is important to understand how

teachers feel towards ELLs, the challenges with writing and peer review faced by ELLs, and the

effectiveness of peer review in classrooms. Peer review is effective for developing English

writing and reading proficiency in ELLs, but only if teachers take the time to teach both

ELLs and native English-speaking students how to use peer review the right way.

English language learners have always existed in American classrooms, but educators

and policy makers have only begun catering to their academic and social needs in recent decades.

Data from the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition states that “nationally,

ELLs make up about 10% of the total student population” (Wright, 2015, p. 7). The percentage

of ELL students in each classroom varies from state to state, with some of the highest

proportions being in California, Texas, and Colorado (Wright, 2015, p. 7). Because of the

increasing number of ELLs in classrooms, it is crucial that “teachers in mainstream classrooms…

be prepared to teach students who come from different linguistic, cultural, and educational

backgrounds” (Harper & Jong, 2004, p. 152). Although teachers of all grade levels need to be

suited to teach ELLs, Rubenstein and Avila (2014) have found that “most school programs
 Fenstermaker 3

designed to scaffold the linguistic and academic needs [of ELLs] are found at the elementary

grade levels” (p. 187). Some might argue that training general education teachers how to teach

ELLs would be too time consuming, but every student should be worth it.

Even though there is a high chance that most teachers will have ELLs in their classrooms,

there are many misconceptions that teachers have about these students. This is perhaps due to

teachers not having the proper training to teach these students, because not all schools emphasize

how important proper training really is. A study conducted by Harper and de Jong (2004)

investigates what misconceptions teachers have about teaching English language learners, stating

that teachers believe “learning a second language simply requires exposure to and interaction

with the L2 and…that all ELLs will learn English in the same way” (p.153). Additional

misconceptions the source explores are that “good teaching for native speakers is good teaching

for ELLs,” and that “effective instruction means nonverbal support” (Harper & Jong, 2004,

p.156-157).

I. ELL students

a. How teachers feel towards ELLs

i. A study reviewed by Rubenstein-Avila and Lee (2014) found that some

teachers had positive attitudes towards their ELL students and believed

that they “created a positive educational atmosphere in their classrooms,”

while some teachers believe that it is not their job to teach English

proficiency skills to their ELL students because “they felt that it was the

English as a second language (ESL) teacher’s responsibility” (188).

b. Misconceptions about ELL students

i. “ELLs need explicit opportunities to practice using the new language to

negotiate meaning in interactive settings” (Harper & Jong, 2004, p.154).

II. Challenges students face with expository writing

i. “Only 1% of [ELLs] scored at or above the level of Proficient on the

National Assessment of Educational Progress, compared to 28% of non-

ELLs” (Beck & Fredrick, 2013, p. 359).

ii. “Hinkel (2002) found that ESL writers at the university level tend to

narrate personal stories in their academic essays rather than provide

evidence in support of an argument” (Beck & Fredrick, 2013, p. 361)

iii. Both ELLs and non-ELLs found translating to be the most difficult part of

the writing process (Beck & Fredrick, 2013, p. 365).

iv. It is important to acknowledge that both ELLs and native speakers face

challenges with writing.

III. Challenges faced specifically by ELLs

i. “ELL composition teaching activities should include not only

linguistic/cognitive aspects of writing but also psychological/emotional

and sociocultural aspects of writing” (Lin, 2015, p. 245).

ii. Aspects of writing that should be considered by teachers with ELLs in

their secondary level writing classrooms are “word choice”, “adjusting to

American thought pattern,” “writing fluency,” “cultural needs/rhetoric

conventions,” and “emotional needs” (Lin, 2015, p. 245-246).

IV. Effectiveness of peer review

a. What happens during peer review among ELLs?

i. This study’s purpose was to “describe the negotiations that occur during

ESL students’ peer reviews and the ways these negotiations shape

students’ revision activities” (Mendonça & Johnson, 1994, p. 745)

ii. In a peer review activity, the 12 ESL graduate student participants all

“reported that they found the peer review activity beneficial” (Mendonça

& Johnson, 1994, p. 764)

iii. Another study was conducted with ELLs to investigate how these students

used peer review and what socio-cognitive processes were involved.

Villamil and De Guerrero (1996) determined “seven types of social-

cognitive activities the students engaged in,…five different mediating

strategies,…and four significant aspects of social behavior” (p. 51)

b. Effectiveness of different methods of peer review

i. This study found that Turnitin was very effective for peer review because

it allows the classroom to be more manageable for teachers, increases the

quality of feedback that students give, and helps student “focus on both

global and local issues” (Li & Li, 2018, p. 35)

ii. This source is very useful in understanding ways in which to make peer

review more effective in the classroom.

V. How to make peer review more effective for ELLs

i. “The greatest advantage of receiving peer feedback is that student writers

can gain an understanding of how their written work is understood from a

reader’s point of view” (p. 600)

ii. Kim argues that teachers need to train students to peer review before the

workshop, teach about giving effective comments and how receive

criticism, and later use their peers’ feedback to improve their writing.

iii. To utilize scaffolding in the classroom and make peer review in the

classroom more effective, teachers should “allow ELL/bilingual students

to communicate about the content with bilingual peers in their native

language” (Rubenstein-Avila & Lee, 2014, p. 190).

Conclusion

References

Beck, S. W., Llosa, L., & Fredrick, T. (2013). The challenges of writing exposition: Lessons

from a study of ELL and non-ELL High School students. Reading and Writing

Quarterly, 29(4), 358-380. DOI: 10.1080/10573569.2013.75893

Harper, C., & de Jong, E. (2004). Misconceptions about teaching English language learners.

International Reading Association, 152-162.

Kim, S. H. (2015). Preparing English Learners for Effective Peer Review in the Writers’

Workshop. Reading Teacher, 68(8), 599–603.

https://ntserver1.wsulibs.wsu.edu:2123/10.1002/trtr.1358

Li, J., & Li, M. (2018). Turnitin and Peer Review in ESL Academic Writing Classrooms.

Language Learning & Technology, 22(1), 27-41.

Lin, Show Mei. (2015). A Study of ELL Students' Writing Difficulties: A Call for Culturally,

Linguistically, and Psychologically Responsive Teaching. College Student Journal,

49(2), 237-250.

Mendonça, C., & Johnson, K. (1994). Peer Review Negotiations: Revision Activities in ESL

Writing Instruction. TESOL Quarterly,28(4), 745-769. doi:10.2307/3587558

Rubinstein-Avila, E., & Lee, E. H. (2014). Secondary teachers and English language learners

(ELLs): Attitudes, preparation and implications. The Clearing House: A Journal of

Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 87(5), 187-191.

Villamil, O. S., & De Guerrero, M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-Cognitive

activities, mediation strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 5 (1), 51-75.

Wright