{"id":{"repo_id":"uiuc","oai_identifier":"oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/105186"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uiuc/oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/105186","repository":{"repo_id":"uiuc","name":"University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign","base_url":"https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh"},"display":{"title":"Peer feedback in an integrated, process-oriented ESL writing placement test","abstract":"A prevailing question across studies has been whether and to what extent ESL writers can help each other when working in dyads or groups. While most research focused on the effectiveness of peer feedback, relatively few studies took interest in what L2 students actually do during a peer review. Moreover, there has been a growing awareness of and interest in paired and group oral assessment, especially in examining interactional competence during paired speaking tests; however, to date not much has been explored with regards to the nature of peer interaction during a writing test. This study proposes to fill this gap in SLA and L2 testing research by examining the peer-review section of the English Placement Test (EPT), a process-oriented, integrated writing placement test offered to newly-admitted international students at the University of Illinois. The current study examined (a) test-takers’ perceptions and attitudes towards the peer-review section in a testing context, (b) the nature of peer interaction during the peer feedback process, and (c) its potential link to test-takers’ writing performance. Test-takers generally showed positive attitudes and perceptions towards the peer review. They appreciated the opportunity to receive feedback from their peers and perceived the activity as helpful in writing their final essay. Test-takers also indicated that they focused more on rhetorical features than lexico-grammar features during the peer review. Four patterns of interaction were identified during the peer review: collaborative, dominant/dominant, dominant/dominant monologue, and passive/passive. The collaborative pattern was the most common among the EPT examinees (n=19, 60%) in line with the findings of the previous research on patterns of interaction in classroom settings (e.g., Storch 2002; Zheng, 2012). A new pattern not observed in prior classroom studies, which I named dominant/dominant monologue, was observed among 29% of the pairs (n=9), whose interaction was monologic in nature with little or no engagement. Written texts produced by the test-takers were then triangulated with the post-test questionnaire responses and peer interaction data to observe what changes were made as a result of peer interaction. Collaborative pairs made more detailed, specific comments that were revision-oriented, and many of these suggestions were reflected in the final drafts. In contrast, comments exchanged between non-collaborative pairs were more global in nature, and therefore, it was difficult to identify specific edits reflected in the final drafts. Regardless, most non-collaborative pairs appreciated the opportunity to receive feedback from their peers, and many reported making changes based on their peers’ feedback on their post-test questionnaire. This study’s results stand to have valuable implications for both second language writing and language testing at large, and they provide insight to the nature and effect of peer interaction in an authentic, academic writing placement test setting. This study also emphasizes the role of peer review training and how this can be used to facilitate peer interaction and help test-takers achieve their best possible writing performance.","abstract_html":"A prevailing question across studies has been whether and to what extent ESL writers can help each other when working in dyads or groups. While most research focused on the effectiveness of peer feedback, relatively few studies took interest in what L2 students actually do during a peer review. Moreover, there has been a growing awareness of and interest in paired and group oral assessment, especially in examining interactional competence during paired speaking tests; however, to date not much has been explored with regards to the nature of peer interaction during a writing test. This study proposes to fill this gap in SLA and L2 testing research by examining the peer-review section of the English Placement Test (EPT), a process-oriented, integrated writing placement test offered to newly-admitted international students at the University of Illinois. The current study examined (a) test-takers’ perceptions and attitudes towards the peer-review section in a testing context, (b) the nature of peer interaction during the peer feedback process, and (c) its potential link to test-takers’ writing performance. Test-takers generally showed positive attitudes and perceptions towards the peer review. They appreciated the opportunity to receive feedback from their peers and perceived the activity as helpful in writing their final essay. Test-takers also indicated that they focused more on rhetorical features than lexico-grammar features during the peer review. Four patterns of interaction were identified during the peer review: collaborative, dominant/dominant, dominant/dominant monologue, and passive/passive. The collaborative pattern was the most common among the EPT examinees (n=19, 60%) in line with the findings of the previous research on patterns of interaction in classroom settings (e.g., Storch 2002; Zheng, 2012). A new pattern not observed in prior classroom studies, which I named dominant/dominant monologue, was observed among 29% of the pairs (n=9), whose interaction was monologic in nature with little or no engagement. Written texts produced by the test-takers were then triangulated with the post-test questionnaire responses and peer interaction data to observe what changes were made as a result of peer interaction. Collaborative pairs made more detailed, specific comments that were revision-oriented, and many of these suggestions were reflected in the final drafts. In contrast, comments exchanged between non-collaborative pairs were more global in nature, and therefore, it was difficult to identify specific edits reflected in the final drafts. Regardless, most non-collaborative pairs appreciated the opportunity to receive feedback from their peers, and many reported making changes based on their peers’ feedback on their post-test questionnaire. This study’s results stand to have valuable implications for both second language writing and language testing at large, and they provide insight to the nature and effect of peer interaction in an authentic, academic writing placement test setting. This study also emphasizes the role of peer review training and how this can be used to facilitate peer interaction and help test-takers achieve their best possible writing performance.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Kim, Ha Ram"],"institution":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign","degree_name":"Ph.D.","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Linguistics","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Bowles, Melissa","Yan, Xun","Sadler, Randall","Plakans, Lia"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2019,"date_issued":"2019-08-23T20:44:44Z","date_published":"2019-08-23T20:44:44Z","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:44Z","subjects":["peer feedback, peer review, process-oriented, integrated writing, esl writing, english placement test"],"languages":["en"],"rights":["Copyright 2019 Ha Ram Kim"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2142/105186","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Bowles, Melissa","Yan, Xun","Sadler, Randall","Plakans, Lia"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Kim, Ha Ram"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2019-08-23T20:44:44Z","2021-08-24T09:15:20Z","2019-04-12","2019-05"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Linguistics"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["peer feedback, peer review, process-oriented, integrated writing, esl writing, english placement test"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Copyright 2019 Ha Ram Kim"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/105186"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["A prevailing question across studies has been whether and to what extent ESL writers can help each other when working in dyads or groups. While most research focused on the effectiveness of peer feedback, relatively few studies took interest in what L2 students actually do during a peer review. Moreover, there has been a growing awareness of and interest in paired and group oral assessment, especially in examining interactional competence during paired speaking tests; however, to date not much has been explored with regards to the nature of peer interaction during a writing test. This study proposes to fill this gap in SLA and L2 testing research by examining the peer-review section of the English Placement Test (EPT), a process-oriented, integrated writing placement test offered to newly-admitted international students at the University of Illinois. The current study examined (a) test-takers’ perceptions and attitudes towards the peer-review section in a testing context, (b) the nature of peer interaction during the peer feedback process, and (c) its potential link to test-takers’ writing performance. Test-takers generally showed positive attitudes and perceptions towards the peer review. They appreciated the opportunity to receive feedback from their peers and perceived the activity as helpful in writing their final essay. Test-takers also indicated that they focused more on rhetorical features than lexico-grammar features during the peer review. Four patterns of interaction were identified during the peer review: collaborative, dominant/dominant, dominant/dominant monologue, and passive/passive. The collaborative pattern was the most common among the EPT examinees (n=19, 60%) in line with the findings of the previous research on patterns of interaction in classroom settings (e.g., Storch 2002; Zheng, 2012). A new pattern not observed in prior classroom studies, which I named dominant/dominant monologue, was observed among 29% of the pairs (n=9), whose interaction was monologic in nature with little or no engagement. Written texts produced by the test-takers were then triangulated with the post-test questionnaire responses and peer interaction data to observe what changes were made as a result of peer interaction. Collaborative pairs made more detailed, specific comments that were revision-oriented, and many of these suggestions were reflected in the final drafts. In contrast, comments exchanged between non-collaborative pairs were more global in nature, and therefore, it was difficult to identify specific edits reflected in the final drafts. Regardless, most non-collaborative pairs appreciated the opportunity to receive feedback from their peers, and many reported making changes based on their peers’ feedback on their post-test questionnaire. This study’s results stand to have valuable implications for both second language writing and language testing at large, and they provide insight to the nature and effect of peer interaction in an authentic, academic writing placement test setting. This study also emphasizes the role of peer review training and how this can be used to facilitate peer interaction and help test-takers achieve their best possible writing performance.","Submission published under a 24 month embargo labeled 'Closed Access', the embargo will last until 2021-05-01","The student, Ha Ram Kim, accepted the attached license on 2019-04-12 at 14:10.","The student, Ha Ram Kim, submitted this Dissertation for approval on 2019-04-12 at 14:10.","This Dissertation was approved for publication on 2019-04-12 at 16:34.","DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #13590 on 2019-08-22 at 16:21:10","Made available in DSpace on 2019-08-23T20:44:44Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 KIM-DISSERTATION-2019.pdf: 1432787 bytes, checksum: 797c5c126f2ac1a6837b984be64990e3 (MD5) LICENSE.txt: 4207 bytes, checksum: b17e678bba35f69d77daf864d12dbedc (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019-04-12","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 112305 Lift date: 2021-08-23T20:44:50Z Reason: Author requested closed access (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 112305 Lift date: 2021-08-23T20:46:41Z Reason: Author requested closed access (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 112305 Lift date: 2021-08-23T20:47:38Z Reason: Author requested closed access (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 112305 Lift date: 2021-08-23T20:48:32Z Reason: Author requested closed access (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","Limited Restriction Lifted for Item 112305 on 2021-08-24T09:15:20Z."]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Peer feedback in an integrated, process-oriented ESL writing placement test"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Bowles, Melissa","Yan, Xun","Sadler, Randall","Plakans, Lia"],"dc:creator":["Kim, Ha Ram"],"dc:date":["2019-08-23T20:44:44Z","2021-08-24T09:15:20Z","2019-04-12","2019-05"],"dc:description":["A prevailing question across studies has been whether and to what extent ESL writers can help each other when working in dyads or groups. While most research focused on the effectiveness of peer feedback, relatively few studies took interest in what L2 students actually do during a peer review. Moreover, there has been a growing awareness of and interest in paired and group oral assessment, especially in examining interactional competence during paired speaking tests; however, to date not much has been explored with regards to the nature of peer interaction during a writing test. This study proposes to fill this gap in SLA and L2 testing research by examining the peer-review section of the English Placement Test (EPT), a process-oriented, integrated writing placement test offered to newly-admitted international students at the University of Illinois. The current study examined (a) test-takers’ perceptions and attitudes towards the peer-review section in a testing context, (b) the nature of peer interaction during the peer feedback process, and (c) its potential link to test-takers’ writing performance. Test-takers generally showed positive attitudes and perceptions towards the peer review. They appreciated the opportunity to receive feedback from their peers and perceived the activity as helpful in writing their final essay. Test-takers also indicated that they focused more on rhetorical features than lexico-grammar features during the peer review. Four patterns of interaction were identified during the peer review: collaborative, dominant/dominant, dominant/dominant monologue, and passive/passive. The collaborative pattern was the most common among the EPT examinees (n=19, 60%) in line with the findings of the previous research on patterns of interaction in classroom settings (e.g., Storch 2002; Zheng, 2012). A new pattern not observed in prior classroom studies, which I named dominant/dominant monologue, was observed among 29% of the pairs (n=9), whose interaction was monologic in nature with little or no engagement. Written texts produced by the test-takers were then triangulated with the post-test questionnaire responses and peer interaction data to observe what changes were made as a result of peer interaction. Collaborative pairs made more detailed, specific comments that were revision-oriented, and many of these suggestions were reflected in the final drafts. In contrast, comments exchanged between non-collaborative pairs were more global in nature, and therefore, it was difficult to identify specific edits reflected in the final drafts. Regardless, most non-collaborative pairs appreciated the opportunity to receive feedback from their peers, and many reported making changes based on their peers’ feedback on their post-test questionnaire. This study’s results stand to have valuable implications for both second language writing and language testing at large, and they provide insight to the nature and effect of peer interaction in an authentic, academic writing placement test setting. This study also emphasizes the role of peer review training and how this can be used to facilitate peer interaction and help test-takers achieve their best possible writing performance.","Submission published under a 24 month embargo labeled 'Closed Access', the embargo will last until 2021-05-01","The student, Ha Ram Kim, accepted the attached license on 2019-04-12 at 14:10.","The student, Ha Ram Kim, submitted this Dissertation for approval on 2019-04-12 at 14:10.","This Dissertation was approved for publication on 2019-04-12 at 16:34.","DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #13590 on 2019-08-22 at 16:21:10","Made available in DSpace on 2019-08-23T20:44:44Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 KIM-DISSERTATION-2019.pdf: 1432787 bytes, checksum: 797c5c126f2ac1a6837b984be64990e3 (MD5) LICENSE.txt: 4207 bytes, checksum: b17e678bba35f69d77daf864d12dbedc (MD5) Previous issue date: 2019-04-12","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 112305 Lift date: 2021-08-23T20:44:50Z Reason: Author requested closed access (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 112305 Lift date: 2021-08-23T20:46:41Z Reason: Author requested closed access (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 112305 Lift date: 2021-08-23T20:47:38Z Reason: Author requested closed access (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 112305 Lift date: 2021-08-23T20:48:32Z Reason: Author requested closed access (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","Limited Restriction Lifted for Item 112305 on 2021-08-24T09:15:20Z."],"dc:format":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/105186"],"dc:language":["en"],"dc:rights":["Copyright 2019 Ha Ram Kim"],"dc:subject":["peer feedback, peer review, process-oriented, integrated writing, esl writing, english placement test"],"dc:title":["Peer feedback in an integrated, process-oriented ESL writing placement test"],"dc:type":["text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Linguistics"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D."],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:44Z"}