An Analysis of Oral Peer Feedback Comments on EFL Student Writing

The purpose of this research is to explore what behaviors Korean EFL students exhibit during peer feedback in a university writing class. Fifteen students voluntarily participated in the study and the peer feedback recordings of eighteen pairs were analyzed in terms of the focus of feedback and the types of negotiation generated during oral peer feedback. The students commented on content (159), language issues (154), and organization (103) as well as writing styles (13) and others (15). They focused not only on the global aspects of writing but also on local aspects. The number of comments regarding global aspects was similar across pairs whereas the number of comments on grammar varied. In addition, a total of 18 types of negotiation were found across four pairs of students and the top four frequent negotiation types consisted of phatic comments (50), opinions (49), explanations of problems (42), and suggestions (40). The reviewers generated about 70 percent of the total comments and the nature of oral peer feedback was mostly oneway communication. The age and gender of the pairs also seemed to affect their interaction patterns. Some implications were suggested based on the findings

ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING ISSN 1226-6566 https://pketa.jams.or.kr Volume 30, Number http://dx.doi.org/10.17936/pkelt.2018.30.4.7 December 31, 2018 An Analysis of Oral Peer Feedback Comments on EFL Student Writing Jiwon Paek (Daegu University) Paek, Jiwon (2018) An analysis of oral peer feedback comments on EFL student writing English Language Teaching, 30(4), 121-138 The purpose of this research is to explore what behaviors Korean EFL students exhibit during peer feedback in a university writing class Fifteen students voluntarily participated in the study and the peer feedback recordings of eighteen pairs were analyzed in terms of the focus of feedback and the types of negotiation generated during oral peer feedback The students commented on content (159), language issues (154), and organization (103) as well as writing styles (13) and others (15) They focused not only on the global aspects of writing but also on local aspects The number of comments regarding global aspects was similar across pairs whereas the number of comments on grammar varied In addition, a total of 18 types of negotiation were found across four pairs of students and the top four frequent negotiation types consisted of phatic comments (50), opinions (49), explanations of problems (42), and suggestions (40) The reviewers generated about 70 percent of the total comments and the nature of oral peer feedback was mostly one-way communication The age and gender of the pairs also seemed to affect their interaction patterns Some implications were suggested based on the findings (191 words) Key words: oral peer feedback, focus of peer feedback, negotiation types, EFL writing, academic English I INTRODUCTION Feedback in writing classrooms is crucial for learners to revise their drafts and ultimately improve their writing ability in both L1 and L2 contexts Teachers have traditionally been considered the prominent feedback providers, but peer feedback has increasingly been adopted in ESL and EFL writing classrooms A substantial amount of research on peer feedback has been done (Berg, 1999; Mendonỗa & Johnson, 1994; Tusi & Ng, 2000; Villamil & De Guerrero, 1996; Zhang, 1995) There are a number of reasons to use peer feedback in L2 writing classrooms Peer  This research was supported by Daegu University Research Grant, 2016 122 Jiwon Paek reviewers have been shown to provide useful feedback and research shows that student writers produced more revisions in response to their peer comments (Kim, 2009; Cho, 2005) than simply revising by themselves Peer feedback also fosters communicative behavior through peer collaboration and scaffolding (Villamil & De Guerrero, 1996) Student responses were more specific than teacher feedback (Caulk, 1994) and peer reviews also enhance students’ ability of “re-viewing their writing with the eyes of another” (Zamel, 1982, p 206) Studies on L2 writing have focused on the effects of peer feedback (Berg, 1999; Cho, 2005; Kim, 2009; Min, 2006) and perceptions about peer feedback (Hislop & Stracke, 2017; Yi, 2010) Peer reviewers were found to provide useful feedback for text revision to peer writers and L2 learners in general perceived peer feedback as a valid source though they had different degrees of preferences regarding peer feedback and teacher feedback A couple of studies have investigated student interaction during peer feedback (Choe & Yu, 2012; Mendonỗa & Johnson, 1994; Villamil & De Guerrero, 1996; Lockhart & Ng, 1995) However, the number of studies analyzing peer interaction and peer talk during peer feedback is not sufficient enough to understand what shapes peer feedback, what aspects peer reviewers focus on, and how learners interact with their peers Moreover, the actual peer interaction in EFL Korean classrooms has not been fully explored and as a result, there is a gap in peer interaction literature This study sought to explore the nature of Korean EFL learners’ interaction during peer feedback using a qualitative approach to analyze the discourse of peer feedback It will provide explanations about the focus of Korean learners’ peer feedback and characteristics of their interaction because Korean EFL learners could be different from learners in ESL context in terms of their culture and learning experience This study will offer guidelines for teachers to implement peer feedback in Korean writing classrooms and what precautions they need to take for peer feedback to be truly beneficial to Korean learners Under the purpose, the study will address the following research questions: 1) What aspects students focus on during oral peer feedback? 2) What characteristics does peer feedback interaction show? II PREVIOUS STUDIES Several studies reported the positive effects of peer feedback in EFL writing classrooms Tusi and Ng (2000) summarized the benefits First, peer feedback comments are more informative than teacher feedback Peer feedback raises awareness of strengths and weaknesses in writing and critical thinking when they read each other’s draft From affective An Analysis of Oral Peer Feedback Comments on EFL Student Writing 123 perspectives, the help of supportive peers can lower learners’ apprehension and enhance their attitudes toward writing Learners are encouraged to take more responsibility for their writing and revision The findings of Min (2006) also support peer feedback benefits overall improvements of revised drafts when peer review training takes place through in-class modeling and teacherreviewer conference After training, the number of comments produced by reviewers and the number of comments incorporated into revision were significantly higher and the quality of revised drafts was enhanced Cho (2005) examined types of feedback that students provided to their peers The participants were more concerned with local aspects than global aspects and they did pay attention to both general feedback and specific feedback unlike the worries of some writing teachers that general feedback is not helpful for learners to revise their drafts Regarding an improvement of revised drafts, a significant improvement was only found in language but not in content and organization There is a substantial body of research on college students However, little research has focused on high school students Kurihara (2016) explored how peer reviews affected writing abilities of Japanese high school students with achievement below the national average The findings indicated that peer feedback contributed to an improvement in organization and cohesion Peer feedback led students to question the validity of feedback before they decided whether to incorporate it or not into their revision The process might have had the students internalize writing knowledge in such areas Lee (2016) explored how college students perceived peer review experience and what factors affected the review process The students completed four peer review sessions in pairs for one semester and 26 participants submitted reflective journals on their experiences Most participants commented peer review activities as being beneficial, valuable, and meaningful and their anxiety levels had more decreased at the end of the semester The study suggests the number of exposures to peer review and the creation of trusting class atmosphere as well as clear guidance are crucial to success of peer review activities Cho (2011) also explored how learners perceived peer feedback, what kinds of feedback learners gave to their peers and how giving peer feedback influenced their revision She found giving peer feedback not only helped learners develop critical views in writing but also apply them to their own writing Learners’ perceptions on peer feedback affected not only the types of feedback but also the frequencies of feedback When the learner perceived peer feedback of no use, the types and the frequency of feedback were highly limited compared with the learners who perceived it beneficial The most frequent types of feedback were explanations about content and about opinions regardless of their perceptions Based on the previous studies, this study aimed to explore how Korean EFL learners interact and what they focus on during oral peer feedback The nature of their peer feedback 124 Jiwon Paek will offer how writing teachers should implement peer feedback in Korean writing classrooms and what they should consider in order for peer feedback to be beneficial to Korean EFL writers III RESEARCH METHOD Research Context This research was conducted in one of two writing classes opened for English education majors in a natural setting without manipulation The class consisted of twenty-five students, who were mostly freshmen and some sophomores None of them had taken an English writing class nor experienced peer feedback in a secondary or a tertiary school The instructor was a female American and had worked as an assistant professor in the department for three years, but she had been teaching English for six years Thus, the class was taught in English and the students had to use English in class, except during peer feedback sessions They were allowed to use Korean only during peer feedback sessions in order to eliminate any chances that their limited English proficiency might produce misunderstandings and deteriorate the quality of peer feedback The course adopted a process writing approach and the students completed three writing assignments with multiple paragraphs in the comparative, cause and effect, and argumentative genres They were required to submit three drafts in each genre and received peer feedback from two peers on their first drafts and teacher feedback in individual conferences on their second drafts The professor provided worksheets which contained slightly different guidelines for different writing genres She explained what to and what not to in general and then provided modeling of peer feedback by going through the guidelines with examples before the first peer feedback The professor dealt with both language issues and content and organization though most students reported that teacher feedback had focused mostly on language issues during interviews On the other hand, peer feedback guidelines were centered on the aspects of content and organization Nonetheless, the students were encouraged to provide as much corrective feedback to their peers as possible Each peer feedback session was mostly done in pairs but in some cases, in small groups The students were given 10 minutes for Writing 1, a comparative essay and 20 minutes for Writing and 3, a cause and effect and an argumentative essay, respectively For the most part, the students partnered with classmates sitting near them For the given time, they exchanged their drafts with their partners and read their partners’ drafts in class After finishing their reviews, they filled out the feedback worksheets for their partners and started An Analysis of Oral Peer Feedback Comments on EFL Student Writing 125 oral feedback Therefore, students could spend more time on oral feedback when both partners reviewed fast When the first session finished, they formed new pairs and went through the same procedures with new partners in the second session Because draft reviews and oral feedback should be done in class, less proficient students had more difficulties compared to their peers with higher proficiencies Participants and Data Fifteen students voluntarily participated in the study They recorded their feedback sessions and sent the files to me and completed three interviews The first interviews were intended to understand their general perceptions on writing feedback and their previous experience of feedback In contrast, the second and third interviews were focused on their choices of peers, experience, and the content of feedback on Writing and Writing When the participants worked with non-participants, the sessions were recorded only when their partners agreed to be recorded The non-participants were informed that their feedback comments would be used for the study if they agreed to be recorded The participants’ proficiency could be identified as low-intermediate, ranging from Level to Level on the English portion of the Korean university entrance exam The data collected for this study includes recordings of peer feedback sessions, worksheets , writing drafts, recordings of individual interviews and fieldnotes of class observations However, only the recordings were analyzed while the other data was used to understand the characteristics of peer feedback and participants’ behaviors and intentions All feedback sessions were recorded, but the recordings from Writing were used for this study because some participants were not sure about what they were supposed to in the feedback activity on Writing and some of them were very conscious of being recorded The oral feedback comments on Writing were analyzed and the worksheets and interviews were used for the purpose of cross-checking the analysis Data Analysis2 The data analysis was conducted using a data-driven approach in order to explore what Korean EFL students focus on and what types of negotiation they engage in during oral peer feedback Therefore, two separate analyses were conducted The recordings of eighteen pairs were transcribed verbatim and analyzed The purpose of the first analysis was to identify which topic areas the participants focused The worksheet the students used for peer feedback on a cause and effect essay is attached in Appendix Because there was no second analyst in this study, the research personally communicated with an anonymous reviewer in English education field to minimize possible problems of one analyst 126 Jiwon Paek on during peer feedback I started by analyzing the comments in terms of which categories they appeared in on the analytical scoring rubrics (e.g content, organization, and language issues) and grouped the other comments that did not fit into three categories First of all, I read all the comments and segmented them whenever the students shifted topics Some comments were excluded because they were neither related to the texts nor to text revision For example, the excluded comments include comments about feedback procedures, phatic comments for saving face, or comments for emotional support such as encouragement and empathy Then, the similar segments were grouped together The regrouping process continued until I reached the final categories Five areas were discussed by the students: content, organization, language issues, academic writing styles, and overall comments Table illustrates the topic areas and their explanations TABLE Topic Areas of Peer Feedback Comments and Explanations Topic Explanations Content All comments related to writing topics, meanings of sentences/w ords, text coherence and cohesion, and content of supporting det ails and causes and effects Organization Comments on - the existence of a hook, a thesis statement, topic and concluding sentences, a take-away statement, and a restatement of the thesis statement; - a logical sequence of ideas; - body paragraph organization such as existence of a main idea and supporting details - the length balance among paragraphs; - transitions to indicate a cause and effect genre Grammar Language issues Lexis Mechanics Comments on sentence structures, tense, agreements, coordinating conjunctions, and word forms Comments on word choice which are not related to word forms Comments on spelling, capitalization, and punctuation Writing styles Comments on stylistic conventions of academic writings Others Comments on impressions and overall quality of writing The second analysis was done to explore what characteristics the peer feedback interaction showed For this purpose, the transcripts of four randomly chosen pairs were analyzed for the types of negotiation that occurred during oral feedback The, the transcript of every fifth pair was analyzed: transcripts of Pair 1, Pair 5, Pair 10, and Pair 15 Though the analysis was data-driven without tightly prefigured categories, it was based on categories of negotiation (Mendonỗa & Johnson, 1994) and strategies of providing scaffolding to peers during peer reviews (Villamil & An Analysis of Oral Peer Feedback Comments on EFL Student Writing 127 De Guerrero, 1996) None of the coding categories perfectly matched the Korean EFL students’ comments that were generated during peer feedback Therefore, I attempted to generate new descriptive categories that encompassed all types of the negotiations found in these peer reviews After the initial analysis, I analyzed the data according to who initiated each type of negotiation; negotiations were considered to be either writer-generated or reviewer-generated The negotiation types and their definitions are shown in Table TABLE Negotiation Types and Definitions Types of negotiation Questioning Explanations Definitions Request for clarification Asking the interlocutor to clarify intended meaning Request for opinions Asking the interlocutor to provide opinions about suggested alternatives Request for suggestions Asking the interlocutor to suggest alternatives Comprehension checks Checking whether the interlocutor understands the initiator’s intention or meaning of sentences or words Confirmation checks Asking whether the initiator correctly understands the interlocutor’s intention or the text Clarification Offering clarification of meaning or intention Justification Defending choices or decisions made about the text Opinions Offering general opinions about the text, either positive or negative Suggestions Offering alternatives Explanation of problems Explaining problems in certain parts of the text Explanation of content Explaining the content of certain parts of the text or the whole text Restatements Restating the previous comments of the initiator or the interlocutor Translation Translating sentences word by word into Korean Instruction Explaining grammar or conventions Corrections Correcting language errors Acceptance Accepting the interlocutor’s explanations or opinions Phatic comments Comments for task management Commenting for social or emotive purposes and for saving face of the initiator or the interlocutor Commenting on starting, ending, or turn-taking 128 Jiwon Paek IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION In three individual interviews per participant, the participants in general evaluated peer feedback as a valuable tool through which they learned how they should review their own drafts and realized what strengths and weaknesses their own drafts had The students’ perceptions of peer feedback changed by the end of the semester and they reported that peer feedback activities were fun and interesting, and they felt that the feedback was more effective in helping to improve their writing than they had initially expected, regardless of the actual effectiveness However, their degree of preferences of peer feedback over teacher feedback and perceived benefits varied Aspects that the Students Focused on The number of feedback comments was counted to evaluate which aspects the students focused on during oral peer feedback Each pair generated 16 to 42 comments, with an average of 23.83, and with an average time of 13 minutes and 67 seconds per pair Table illustrates how the peer feedback comments were distributed across the comment categories TABLE Discussed Aspects of Peer Feedback Language issues Style Grammar Lexis Mech 1 Pair Cont Org Overall Total 8 3 22 27 22 3 26 1 20 16 12 31 0 23 12 0 23 15 0 28 10 2 22 11 3 1 20 12 5 0 0 16 13 18 14 0 16 15 0 1 16 16 17 1 36 129 An Analysis of Oral Peer Feedback Comments on EFL Student Writing 17 10 13 0 42 18 15 0 36 159 103 88 52 14 13 15 444 * Cont = content, Org = organization, Mech = mechanics The most frequently addressed aspect during peer feedback was content (159 occurrences), and the second and the third aspects were language issues and organization, with totals of 154 occurrences and 103 occurrences, respectively Though the sum of the comments related to language issues outnumbered the comments on organization, the number of individual areas of language issues was less than that of the comments on organization About 69 percent of the total comments centered on content and organization issues which highly influence the overall quality of writing According to Elbow (1981, cited in Cho, 2005), global feedback indicates “the developments of ideas, audience, purpose, and organization writing” whereas local feedback concerns “word usage, grammar, and punctuation” (p 40) Thus, it is certain that the students were more concerned about the global aspects than local aspects in their writing This tendency is interpreted as heavily influenced by the guidelines of the peer feedback worksheet the students referred to The participants confirmed in interviews that they had reviewed their partner’s draft while they checked items (1) to (12) on the worksheet The transcripts also supported that the guidelines absolutely affected the behaviors of the students because the order of feedback comments reflected the order of the guidelines on the worksheet in most cases Excerpt from Pair 14 - Reviewer: The hook, the example, this is really good, very fresh (content), and these connecting sentences are good, connecting the hook and the thesis statement (organization), but I think you should mention three [causes] here [in the thesis statement] (organization) Then, the result of this research in this body paragraph, right? - Writer: The research about smart phones? - Reviewer: I like this The use of research result, a reliable source is good, and [but] this explanation about smart phones is [overlap] (content) - Writer: [overlap] Long As the above excerpt indicates, the review started from the engaging hook, connecting sentences, and the main topic and controlling idea in the thesis statement and moved to the body paragraphs, which mirror items (1) to (5) on the peer feedback worksheet Excerpt from Pair 14 130 Jiwon Paek - Reviewer: First of all, I personally like the topic, it was good to understand and emphasize (content) In the first paragraph [the introduction paragraph], the engaging hook, connecting sentences, and thesis statement, all look good (organization) The second excerpt is from the same pair but the reviewer is the writer in the first excerpt The second excerpt occurred before the first excerpt in time line In the second case, the reviewer started from the topic of the writing but commented on numbers (1) to (3) at once without specific information When I asked about the reason for this in the third interview, the student mentioned that she thought that she was supposed to check ‘yes’ or ‘no’ about the existence of the engaging hook, connecting sentences, and thesis statement The second case more commonly occurred than the first case during peer feedback As a result, the behaviors of the participants were affected how they interpreted what they were supposed to during peer feedback The guidelines alone did not guarantee a high quality of feedback though the professor spent time explaining what the students were expected to and provided modeling in class These students may have needed more training sessions or some experience of receiving feedback from the professor before they engaged in peer feedback activities Other than global aspects, the students also generated 154 comments on language issues, 35 percent of the total comments Though there was no specific guideline about language issues on the worksheet, the professor encouraged her students to correct errors by themselves or with partners Therefore, some students paid attention to language errors and addressed them in peer feedback Most comments on grammar were on tense, agreement, and word forms while the comments on lexis were on collocations and word choices Pair 16 and Pair 17 generated 20 and 22 comments on language issues, respectively Pair 16 predominately dealt with grammar (17 comments), while Pair 17 commented on both grammar and lexis (13 comments and comments, respectively) Bomi3, the reviewer of both Pair 16 and Pair 17, explicitly mentioned that she focused on language issues when she started her reviews The comments about global aspects from these pairs are similar in number to those of other pairs Pair 16 and Pair 17 spent 18 minutes and 36 seconds and 22 minutes and 22 seconds, respectively, on peer feedback, which was more than the average time of 13 minutes and 67 seconds Bomi was a student with a higher proficiency compared to other students and had confidence in her English abilities In contrast, Pair 13, Pair 14, and Pair 15 generated 3, 1, and comments on language, and the reasons for their lack of comments were because they did not notice language problems in their partner’s drafts according to the interviews The most prominent factor influencing the error correction was the students’ language proficiencies All the names appearing here are pseudonyms 131 An Analysis of Oral Peer Feedback Comments on EFL Student Writing Characteristics of Interaction in Oral Peer Feedback A total of 18 types of negotiation were generated during peer feedback The distribution of the negotiation types varied depending on the relationship between the writers and the reviewers Pair and Pair 15 were male and female partners while Pair and Pair 10 were female and female partners The students of Pair and Pair were of the same age whereas the students in Pair 10 and Pair 15 had a noticeable age gap The duration of peer feedback was 13 30 sec (Pair 1), 10 11 sec (Pair 5), 12 07 sec (Pair 10), and 43 sec (Pair 15) The frequencies of each feedback type are shown in Table TABLE Frequency of Negotiation Found during Oral Peer Feedback Type of negotiation Request for clarification Request for opinions Request for suggestions Comprehension checks Confirmation checks Clarification Justification Opinions Suggestions Explanation of problems Explanation of content Restatements Translation Instruction Corrections Acceptance Phatic comments Comments for task management Total Frequency of occurrence n % 21 14 25 22 13 49 40 42 21 18 10 14 17 50 23 386 5.4 3.6 0.3 0.5 6.0 5.7 3.1 12.7 10.4 10.9 5.4 4.7 2.6 1.0 3.6 4.4 13.0 6.0 100 The top four frequent negotiation types were phatic comments (50), opinions (49), explanation of problems (42), and suggestions (40) It should be noted that the students were highly concerned about giving negative feedback on their partners’ drafts for fear of hurting their feelings They wanted to avoid negative comments as much as possible because they did not want their peers to feel embarrassed due to their comments In addition, they were also not sure that they were qualified feedback providers As a result, they made phatic 132 Jiwon Paek comments from time to time for the purpose of saving face Here are the common cases of phatic comments Excerpt from Pair 10 - Min-Yung: You mentioned sea level here and you also wrote about it [sea level] here and in another paragraph you explain sea level rise again, uh [pause], they’re repeated over and over (explanation of problems), frankly speaking, I the same things when I write (Phatic comments) Excerpt from Pair 15 - Nam-Jin: I might misunderstand this (phatic comments) Look here, 사람들은 자주 이해합니다, 사 회에서의 학교의 폭력과 (translation) Phatic comments occurred most in Pair (19 occurrences) because Young-Soo did not complete his draft and the length of writing was less than a page with a lot of incomplete sentences When Soo-Jin started their session, she took great care to not look or sound skeptical of his ability in English Young-Soo mentioned he did not prepare well for this writing because he had to spend much time on preparing for English Education Night, an event for the English Education department Soo-Jin mentioned that she tried not to hurt his feelings even though she thought his writing was terrible This phenomenon is unique in that these types of comments were not found in other studies conducted in other ESL or EFL contexts (Lockhart & Ng, 1995; Mendonỗa & Johnson, 1994) Though some phatic comments were reported in Villamil and De Guerrero (1996), the nature and content of phatic comments in this study were different In Villamil and De Guerrero (1996), for example, “Ah!” or “Oh my God!” were noted phatic comments, they are quite different from what has been found in this study Moreover, Villamil and De Guerrero did not report the frequency of phatic comments, so a direct comparison between the two studies is not possible The reason for frequent phatic comments in the current study may be attributed to the culture of Korea, where pointing out someone else’s weakness in a formal context is not encouraged Other types of negotiation that frequently occurred were opinions (49), explanation of problems (42), and suggestions (40) The reviewers explained their opinions about some parts of the text or the whole texts either negatively or positively The difference between the opinions and explanation of problems lies in how specific the comments are Unlike when they gave opinions, when the students explained problems, they provided specific information on what problems were, suggesting an alternative in some cases Excerpt from Pair - Soo-Jin: This writing is a cause and effect essay This essay too much highlights causes, oh no, An Analysis of Oral Peer Feedback Comments on EFL Student Writing 133 focuses only effects (explanation of problems) I mean if the body is about effects, I think it is all right to write effects in body paragraphs because your writing is mainly about effects (opinions) but still I think you should include causes in introduction and conclusion (suggestions) Excerpt from Pair - Jiwon: While I read your writing, I found this and this are about different things (explanation of problems) So I think it’s better to connect these using a transition word (suggestions) However, the reviewers did not always suggest alternatives following the explanation of a problem The reviewers, in many cases, addressed only specific problems for a prolonged time without suggestions and then moved on to the next problem or opinion Conversely, when suggestions were provided, they mostly followed an explanation of a problem or clarification from the writer Another noticeable characteristic of the peer interaction is that the students only used requests for clarification 5.4 percent of the time, and they used confirmation checks (6.5 percent) more than expected One reason could be due to their lack of confidence as a qualified reviewer as mentioned previously Excerpt from Pair 15 - Nam-Jin: In this part, you want to say here that it’s because of the negative attitudes of teachers toward victims of school violence, right? (confirmation checks) The participants reported that they wanted to make sure that they correctly understood what was written in text because they might give inappropriate feedback when they misunderstood the content When they engaged in peer feedback, they had to read the text in class and give feedback immediately Therefore, they seemed to be very conscious of their comprehension of the text Table shows the frequency of negotiation types generated by different sources Reviewers generated double the comments that writers generated in numbers, 117 and 269 each Information was delivered from reviewers to writers, which created a situation of one-way communication rather than that of two-way communication In most cases, the reviewers talked while the writers listened The comparison of the numbers of request for clarification and opinions, suggestions, and explanation of problems helps understand the whole picture of peer feedback The writers responded to the reviewers when it was required; for example, requests for clarification from the reviewer directly required a response from the writer, while an explanation of a problem or confirmation check from the reviewer allowed fo but did not directly require a response from the writer The reviewers usually took the lead during peer feedback 134 Jiwon Paek TABLE Frequency of Negotiation Types by Source Type of negotiation Writer generated Reviewer generated n % n % Request for clarification 4.8 20 95.2 Request for opinions 13 92.9 7.1 Request for suggestions 100 0 Comprehension checks 50 50 Confirmation checks 28 18 72 Clarification 22 100 0 Justification 13 100 0 Opinions 0 49 100 Suggestions 0 40 100 Explanation of problems 0 42 100 Explanation of content 38.1 13 61.9 Restatements 16.7 15 83.3 Translation 10 90 Instruction 50 50 Corrections 7.1 13 92.9 Acceptance 11 64.7 35.3 Phatic comments 23 46 27 54 Comments for task management 10 43.5 13 56.5 Total 117 100.0 269 100 The reviewers generated 69 percent of the total comments on average Writers rarely justified their decisions or accepted comments from their partners However, the interaction patterns of Pair were different from those of other pairs Out of 13 cases of justifications, 10 cases were generated by one writer, Young-Soo of Pair 1, who brought an incomplete draft to the peer review On the other hand, he easily accepted his partner’s clarification and explanation of problems The pair generated cases of acceptance, by the writer and by the reviewer and Young-Soo was responsible for all of the occurrences of acceptance The students in Pair were of the same age and male-female partners The power relationship between partners might have generated different interaction patterns from those of other pairs A different group dynamic was observed in Pair 15, in which the students were a younger female and an older male Nam-Jin had returned from completing his military service and was a sophomore while Min-Ji was a freshman She requested the opinions of Nam-Jin three times and accepted his comments seven times as a writer Min-Jin stated in her interview that she felt the pressure to say “You’re right” when Nam-Jin explained the problems of her An Analysis of Oral Peer Feedback Comments on EFL Student Writing 135 writing and suggested alternatives In addition, out of cases of clarification, only one was made by Min-Ji Hence, the cases of Pair and Pair 15 require further research using an indepth qualitative approach in order to better understand the dynamics of peer feedback V CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS Most participants considered peer feedback to be a useful tool that helped them revise their drafts The students discussed both the global and local aspects in pairs following the guidelines stated on their peer feedback worksheet The occurrences of their comments reflected the content and the order of the guidelines in most cases The most frequently addressed comments were on content (159), such as writing topics, meanings of sentences/words, and supporting details of causes and effects The total comments on language issues of grammar, lexis, and mechanics (154) outnumbered the comments on organization (103) However, the sum of the comments on content and organization made up 69 percent of the total comments Thus, it was certain that the students focused more on the global aspects than local aspects The number of comments regarding global aspects was noticeably similar across the pairs whereas the number of comments on language issues, grammar in particular, varied to a large degree from pair to pair For example, two pairs extensively commented on grammar and lexis whereas three pairs generated only from one to three comments on them The interpreted reason for this was due to the differences in the language proficiencies of the reviewers because the participants of three pairs reported they did not notice language errors when reviewing their partners’ drafts The types of negotiation used was also analyzed in order to explore which characteristics of peer interaction commonly occurred during peer feedback The most frequent negotiation type was phatic comments for social or emotive purposes and saving face Four pairs generated 50 out of a total 386 comments for these purposes, which could be an influence of Korean culture Additionally, the reviewers took the lead during peer feedback as indicated by the fact that they generated 70 percent of the total comments which occurred during peer feedback Furthermore, the next frequent negotiation types (opinions, explanation of problems, and suggestions) were only generated by reviewers Finally, the interaction patterns showed that the writers did not have many opportunities to clarify meanings and intentions or justify their decisions Age and gender dynamics may have affected the negotiation types which occurred during peer feedback Based on the findings of this study, some classroom implications can be identified First, peer feedback guidelines can change behaviors and the focus of reviewers during peer feedback Therefore, teachers and instructors need to design genre-dependent worksheets according to their specific purposes, if they have ones The findings of this study suggest 136 Jiwon Paek providing question types would be more desirable than checklist types In addition, the worksheet guidelines alone not guarantee a high quality of feedback Sufficient training through modeling along with well-designed worksheets is crucial Teachers and instructors should explicitly encourage students to argue, question, defend, and express criticisms so that they can learn not only when they receive feedback but also when they give feedback to their peers It is also suggested that students have enough time to review drafts before they engage in peer feedback activities Students, especially inexperienced or less proficient reviewers, need to be allowed to review drafts and write comments or suggest alternatives on drafts before they come to class REFERENCES Berg, E C (1999) The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 215-241 Caulk, N (1994) Comparing teacher and student responses to written work TESOL Quarterly, 28, 181-188, Cho, S (2011) The effects of giving peer feedback: Case studies of Korean learners of English English Language and Linguistics, 17(2), 101-125 Cho, Y (2005) The effectiveness of peer feedback in Korean EFL writing classrooms English Language Teaching, 17(4), 33-59 Choe, H., & Yu, H (2012) Interactional details in group peer feedback in an L2 writing class Modern English Education, 13(1), 133-147 Hislop, J., & Stracke, E (2017) ESL students in peer review: An action research study in a university English for academic purposes course University of Sydney Papers in TESOL, 12, 9-44 Kurihara, N (2016) Do peer reviews help improve student writing abilities in an EFL high school classroom? TESOL Journal, 8, 450-470 Lee, G (2016) Korean college students’ reflections on peer reviews and variables involved in the review process English Teaching, 71(1), 97-117 Lockhart, C., & Ng, P (1995) Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances, Functions, and content Language Learning 45, 605-655 Mendonỗa C O., & Johnson, K E (1994) Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745-769 Min, H (2006) The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118-141 Tusi, N., & Ng, M (2000) Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comment? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 147-170 137 An Analysis of Oral Peer Feedback Comments on EFL Student Writing Villamil, O S., & De Guerrero, M C M (1996) Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Socialcognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior Journal of second language writing, 5, 51-75 APPENDIX Peer feedback worksheet Essay Title: Writer: _ Yes Engaging hook Connecting sentences make a clear connection between No Comment the hook and thesis Thesis statement includes main topic & controlling idea All body paragraphs have a topic sentence which includes All supporting details in the body relate to the topic the topic of the paragraph sentence in each paragraph and include strong examples/evidence to support the topic No extra, unrelated, or unneeded information was included All body paragraphs talk about only causes OR only effects Thesis statement in the conclusion is rewritten & includes Take-away statement offers a suggestion, opinion, or the main & the controlling idea prediction Transitions are used to connect sentences and their ideas They not begin with ‘but’, ‘and’, or ‘so’ 10 Were they any parts of the essay that you couldn’t understand? If so, name them Be specific 11 Suggest 2-3 things that the writer could to improve this essay 138 Jiwon Paek 12 Other comments: Cause & Effect Essay—Peer Feedback Applicable levels: tertiary education Jiwon Paek Daegu University 201 Daegudae-ro, Jilyang-up, Kyungsan-si Kyungsangbookdo, Korea 38453 Received on October 8, 2018 Reviewed on December 11, 2018 Accepted on December 16, 2018 Peer Editor: _ ... explained the problems of her An Analysis of Oral Peer Feedback Comments on EFL Student Writing 135 writing and suggested alternatives In addition, out of cases of clarification, only one was made by... based on categories of negotiation (Mendonỗa & Johnson, 1994) and strategies of providing scaffolding to peers during peer reviews (Villamil & An Analysis of Oral Peer Feedback Comments on EFL Student. .. correction was the students’ language proficiencies All the names appearing here are pseudonyms 131 An Analysis of Oral Peer Feedback Comments on EFL Student Writing Characteristics of Interaction