Towards Understanding Teacher Mentoring, Learner WCF Beliefs, and Learner Revision Practices Through Peer Review Feedback: A Sociocultural Perspective
Background. The existing literature has focused on learner perceptions or beliefs about peer review tasks over the recent decade. However, little has been known about the relationships among learner beliefs about written corrective feedback (WCF), related teacher mentoring process, and learner revision practices.
Purpose. We thus aimed at addressing the gap by exploring how teacher mentoring and learner WCF beliefs may inform learner revision practices in the peer-reviewed process.
Methods. In this mixed-method study, we included four Chinese EFL students majoring in English as the participants and collected their WCF belief survey data. We also collected their actual practice data through PeerCeptiv, an online writing and rewriting platform. In addition, we traced the teacher mentoring practices and interviewed the participants about their beliefs and practices in the peer review and back-evaluation process.
Results. Through the mixed-methods design, we reported our major findings: the student participants believed empathy and resonance was the primary advantage of peer feedback, and teacher mentoring facilitated them in understanding and performing the peer review and revision tasks; we also found the student review process consisted of evaluating, resonating, learning, and reflecting practices and the student revision process included crediting, arguing, correcting, and polishing practices.
Implications. From a sociocultural perspective, we centered our discussion on these research findings by claiming that scaffolding in different forms work together enhance learner performance and student beliefs appear in a complex manner with student actual revision practices. We also offered insights for future studies and practical implications for language teachers.
Copyright (c) 2022 National Research University Higher School of Economics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the Copyright Notice.