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

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 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 COLLARBORATIVE REVISION 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 Murrays (1982, as cited in Olson, 2011) opinion, is the least researched, least examined, least understood and usuallyleast 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 writers 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; ones 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

PEER-LED VERSUS TUTOR-LED COLLARBORATIVE REVISION 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. Vygotskys (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

PEER-LED VERSUS TUTOR-LED COLLARBORATIVE REVISION 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

PEER-LED VERSUS TUTOR-LED COLLARBORATIVE REVISION (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 (Mendona & 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,

PEER-LED VERSUS TUTOR-LED COLLARBORATIVE REVISION 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 writers 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-LED VERSUS TUTOR-LED COLLARBORATIVE REVISION 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 peerreview 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 Universitys Writing Centers 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

PEER-LED VERSUS TUTOR-LED COLLARBORATIVE REVISION 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 textbased; 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 nonnative 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

PEER-LED VERSUS TUTOR-LED COLLARBORATIVE REVISION

10

composition classroom can be seen in Changs (2012) study (mentioned above). In the study, the students 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) instructors 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.. .

PEER-LED VERSUS TUTOR-LED COLLARBORATIVE REVISION

11

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 tutorled 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.

PEER-LED VERSUS TUTOR-LED COLLARBORATIVE REVISION Paradigm We are critical realists exploring a post-positivism approach. Instead of using an

12

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

PEER-LED VERSUS TUTOR-LED COLLARBORATIVE REVISION study we are employing a null-hypothesis: there will be no difference in the writing gains between the two groups. Population and Sample

13

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

PEER-LED VERSUS TUTOR-LED COLLARBORATIVE 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

14

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 pretest 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.

PEER-LED VERSUS TUTOR-LED COLLARBORATIVE REVISION Ethical Consideration (Human Subject Protections)

15

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.

PEER-LED VERSUS TUTOR-LED COLLARBORATIVE REVISION Conclusion Implications

16

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

PEER-LED VERSUS TUTOR-LED COLLARBORATIVE REVISION 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

17

provide educators as well as education providers around the world a better understanding on the writing center effectiveness.

PEER-LED VERSUS TUTOR-LED COLLARBORATIVE REVISION 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

18

Dobao, A. (2012). Collaborative writing tasks in the L2 classroom: Comparing group, pair, and individual work. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(1), 4058. 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.

PEER-LED VERSUS TUTOR-LED COLLARBORATIVE REVISION

19

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), 123. 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), 445466. 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 peerpeer collaborative dialogue in a

PEER-LED VERSUS TUTOR-LED COLLARBORATIVE REVISION computer-mediated learning environment in the EFL context. System, 37, 434446. 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

20

PEER-LED VERSUS TUTOR-LED COLLARBORATIVE REVISION 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

21

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 expectacademic 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. Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly disagree

PEER-LED VERSUS TUTOR-LED COLLARBORATIVE REVISION 5. I would choose to participate in this type of revision in the future. Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly disagree

22

6. The feedback I received during revision sessions was helpful. Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly disagree

7. My writing has improved over the last four months. Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly disagree

PEER-LED VERSUS TUTOR-LED COLLARBORATIVE REVISION Appendix B Sample Rubric from CO150 Composition Placement/Challenge Exam Fall 2011/Spring 2012 Grading Guide Cyberbullying in America

23

6 Responses earning this score satisfy the following criteria: a. SummaryThe summary should identify Devlins 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 disagreementAgreement/disagreement may be complete or partial, but the writer must establish and maintain the focus of agreement/disagreement with Devlins argument. c. Support for agreement and/or disagreementSupport should provide an analysis of Devlins argument and/or concrete examples from the writers experience or general knowledge that bear directly on Devlins argument. d. Style and coherenceThese 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. SummarySummary absent, inaccurate, incomplete, or unattributed. b. Focus of agreement/disagreementWhat the writer is agreeing/disagreeing with is not clear,

PEER-LED VERSUS TUTOR-LED COLLARBORATIVE REVISION is not well-maintained, or is not related to Devlins main argument. c. SupportWriter only asserts or counter-asserts; writers examples are highly generalized or

24

not distinguishable from examples given in the article; the writers analysis of Devlins argument may be specious, irrelevant, inaccurate, or thin. d. Style and coherenceThese 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.