PEER REVIEW IN EFL WRITING CLASSROOMS AT RUSSIAN UNIVERSITIES: CULTURAL FACTORS


Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The article addresses the issue of using peer review in writing within the field of Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) at the university level in Russia. Although peer review has been recognized by teachers around the world as an effective technique for improving students’ writing skills, there are very few publications on this topic in Russia.
The research aims to determine how often peer review is used in EFL writing classes at Russian universities, what attitudes teachers and students have toward peer review and whether these attitudes are influencedby inherent cultural characteristics.The data for analysis was obtained through online and offline anonymous surveys conducted in a number of Russian universities among random samples of teachers and students.
Based on the findings of these surveys, the authors conclude that peer review is not a very common practice in EFL writing classes in Russia although it is viewed mostly in a positive way by both faculty and students. The study also shows that limitations on using peer review are caused by such inherent cultural characteristics as a high degree of collectivism and high power distance. These cultural values, believed to be typical of Russians, are manifested in educational settings; yet, there is no unanimity among faculty and among students about the extent of this manifestation. Moreover, there is a considerable discrepancy between teachers’ and students’ views on whether learning should be student- or teacher-centered.

About the authors

S. A. Domysheva

Irkutsk State University

Author for correspondence.
Email: morenov@ssau.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7045-4310

Candidate of Philological Sciences, associate professor, Department of Humanities and Foreign Languages, Baikal International Business School

N. V. Kopylova

Irkutsk State University

Email: morenov@ssau.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1381-6992

Candidate of Philological Sciences, associate professor, Department of Humanities and Foreign Languages, Baikal International Business School

References

  1. Bauler 2012/2013 – Bauler C.V. Online Forum Discussions and the Development of Opinions in College-Level ESL Writing. The CATESOL Journal, 2012/2013, no. 24.1, pp. 112–121. Available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1111889.pdf [in English].
  2. Bowman, Robertson 2013 – Bowman I.K., Robertson J. Sequenced Peer Revision: Creating Competence and Community. The CATESOL Journal, 2012/2013, no. 24.1, pp. 98–111. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1111900.pdf [in English].
  3. Brammer, Rees 2007 – Brammer C., Rees M. Peer Review From the Students’ Perspective: Invaluable or Invalid? Composition Studies, 2007, Vol. 35 (2), pp. 71–85. Available at: https://www.uc.edu/content/dam/uc/journals/composition-studies/docs/backissues/35-2/Brammer%20and%20Rees%2035.2.pdf [in English].
  4. Carson, Nelson 1996 – Carson J., Nelson G. Chinese Students’ perception of ESL Peer Response Group Interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, Vol. 5, Issue 1, January 1996, pp. 1–19. doi: 10.1016/S1060-3743(96)90012-0 [in English].
  5. Connor, Asenavage 1994 – Connor U., Asenavage K. Peer Response Groups in ESL Writing Classes: How Much Impact on Revision? Journal of Second Language Writing, 1994, no. 3, pp. 257–276 [in English].
  6. Hofstede 2001 – Hofstede G. (2001) Culture’s Consequences. Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations, 2nd ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Available at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/unf_research/53 [in English].
  7. Hyland 2006 – Hyland K., Hyland F. Feedback on Second Language Students’ Writing.Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006, Vol. 39 (2), pp. 83–101. doi: 10.1017/S0261444806003399 [in English].
  8. Isurin 2011 – Isurin L. Russian Diaspora: Culture, Identity, and Language Change. NY: Walter de Gruyter, 2011, 234 p. [in English].
  9. Kants, Realo 1999 – Kants L., Realo A. Meta-Level Collectivism in Estonia and Finland. A Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 1999, no 1/2, Vol. 3 (53/48), pp. 3–18 [in English].
  10. Malko 2006 – Malko V.A. A Comparative Analysis of American and Russian ESL/EFL Classroom Cultures. The CATESOL Journal, 2006, no. 18.1, pp. 122–137. Available at: http://www.catesoljournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/CJ18_malko.pdf [in English].
  11. Nelson, Murphy 1993 – Nelson G., Murphy J. Peer Response Groups: Do L2 Writers Use Peer Comments in Revising Their Drafts?. TESOL Quarterly, 1993, no. 27, pp. 135–142. doi: 10.2307/3586965 [in English].
  12. Nelson 2000 – Nelson G. Individualism-Collectivism and Power Distance: Applications for the English as a Second Language Classroom. The CATESOL Journal, 2000, no. 12.1, pp. 73–91. Available at: http://www.catesoljournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/CJ12_nelson.pdf [in English].
  13. Realo, Allik 1999 – Realo A., Allik J. Across-Cultural Study of Collectivism: A Comparison of American, Estonian and Russian Students. Journal of Social Psychology, 1999, no. 139, pp. 133–142. doi: 10.1080/00224549909598367 [in English].
  14. Ren, Hu 2012 – Ren H., Hu G. Peer Review and Chinese EFL/ESL Student Writers. English Australia Journal, 2012, Vol. 27(2), pp. 3–16. Available at: https://eajournal.partica.online/digital/english-australia-journal-272/flipbook/1 [in English].
  15. Smith 2000 – Smith I. Culture Clash in the English as a Second Language Classroom: Russian Students in America. The CATESOL Journal, 2000, no. 12.1, pp. 93–116. Available at: http://www.catesoljournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/CJ12_smith.pdf [in English].
  16. Tower, Kelly, Richards 1997 – Tower R.K., Kelly C., Richards A. Individualism, collectivism and Reward Allocation: A Cross-Cultural Study in Russia and Britain. Journal of Social Psychology, 1997, no. 36, pp. 331–345. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1997.tb01135.x [in English].
  17. Tsui, Ng 2000 – Tsui A.B.M., Ng M. Do Secondary L2 Writers Benefit From Peer Comments?. Journal of Second Language Writing, 2000, no. 9, pp. 147–170. doi: 10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00022-9 [in English].
  18. Tu, Lin, Chang 2011 –Tu Y.T.,
  19. Lin S.Y., Chang Y.Y.
  20. A Cross-Cultural Comparison by Individualism/Collectivism among Brazil, Russia, India and China. International Business Research, 2011, no. 4 (2), pp. 175–182. doi: 10.5539/ibr.v4n2p175 [in English].
  21. Wang 2009 – Wang H.C. Taiwanese Students’ Perceptions of Writing Commentaries: Revisiting Culture. The International Journal of Language, Society, and Culture, 2009, no. 28, pp. 82–91 [in English].
  22. Melekhina 2014 – Melekhina E.A. Tekhnologii otsenivaniya esse pri obuchenii aspirantov i magistrantov pis’mu dlya akademicheskikh tselei [Essay Assessment Technology in Teaching Writing for Academic Purposes to Master and Graduate Students]. Vestnik TGPU [Tomsk State Pedagagocial University Bulletin], 2014, no. 10 (151), pp. 202–206. Available at: https://vestnik.tspu.edu.ru/en/archive.html?year=2014&issue=10&article_id=4881 [in Russian].
  23. Ostrovskaya, Vyshegorodtseva 2013 – Ostrovskaya E.S., Vyshegorodtseva O.V. Academic Writing: kontseptsiya i praktika akademicheskogo pis’ma na angliiskom yazyke [Academic Writing: Concept and Practice of Academic Writing in English]. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii [Higher Education in Russia], 2013, no. 7, pp. 104–113. Available at: https://publications.hse.ru/mirror/pubs/share/folder/34sg6c13sx/direct/111589237 [in Russian].
  24. Halmurzaeva, Masimova 2006 – Halmurzaeva A.F., Masimova A.D. Preimushchestva vzaimoproverki kak osnovnogo zvena protsessa napisaniya esse [Benefits of Peer Review as the Main Element of Essay Writing]. AUCA Academic Review, 2006, pp. 183–188. Available at http://elibrary.auca.kg/bitstream/ 123456789/308/1/Halmurzaeva_Masimova_2006_4.pdf [in Russian].

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Copyright (c) 2019 Domysheva S.A., Kopylova N.V.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies