A Collaborative Work in Writing Classes Taught Abroad : Speculation on the Effectiveness of Peer-Response Group Work in Japan

A Collaborative Work in Writing Classes Taught Abroad : Speculation on the Effectiveness of Peer‑Response Group Work in Japan

著者 Sato Yasuko

journal or

publication title

東京家政大学研究紀要 1 人文社会科学

volume 36

page range 181‑189

year 1996

出版者 東京家政大学

URL http://id.nii.ac.jp/1653/00008952/

ACollaborative Work in Writing Classes T加ght Abroad：

Speculation on the Effectiveness of Peer・Response Group Work in Japan

by

Yasuko SATO

（Received September 30，1995）

Introduction

 It is obvious that most Japanese students spend six years in junior and senior high school English class−

es with Very little emphasis on communlcatlon ln English． It also cannot be denied that most of these students hardly write English either． In Japan writ−

ing is taught as a part of reading instruction in both junior and senior English classes・

 Although many reasons may account for this cur−

ricular design， the major reason is that textbooks are cohtrolled by the Ministry of Educa口on；these text。

books are used in all the public and private schools・

Their design emphasizes reading over writing due to the inclusion of a large number of reading compre−

hension questions and a small number of writing exercises． In addition， the writing exercises call for proficiency in grammar and vocabulary rather than extended pieces of prose． These exercises， there−

fore， consist of substitutions， transformations，

expansions， and completions that merely ask stu−

dents to imitate and manipulate a learned discrete unit of the target language・

  These texts feature collections of sentence patterns and vocabulary items because the approach to wr11−

ing  instruction  is based  upon controlled

tences in English， using the following phrases：（1）

keep on〜ing，（2）as if S＋were，（3）make an eff（）rt〜；

国際コミュニケーション科編集室

（4）lead a life．2 Another writing prompt is sentence comprehension；they explain their feelings， using the following expressions：（1）Iwish to〜，（2）Ilong to〜・

（3）Ilong for（look forward to〜），（4）Ifeel like〜

ing，（5）1 d like〔to have〕〜；（6）Iwas eager to〜．3 Although these example questions are for eleventh grade students（Japanese students start learning English in seventh grade）， these types of writing queStiOnS OCCur at all levelS・

 Most Japanese English teachers focus all their attention spending the year on grammar−based drills，

by having the students write the controlled composi−

tion on topics which are very ambiguous， or prosalc・

by becoming teacher−centered rather than s田dent−

oriented and original， and by emphasizing the composed product rather than the composing prod−

uct． The inappropriateness of these approaches to writing instruction should be clear．

  In this paper， writing pedagogy will be explored in

terms of language environment emphasizing the

peer−response group work of English 101＆102

（freshman level English composition classes）， and Block 3 ESL（integrated classes of basic reading and writing for intermediate level students），（2）other psycholinguistic evidence for peer−response group work in second language learning：comprehensible input and output in second language acqulsltlon

（SLA），（3）pedagogical arguments for the introduc−

tion of peer−response group work：advantages and disadvantages；（4）speculation on the effectiveness of peer−response group work in writing classes in Japan．

Yasuko SATO

11 an American Uni▼ersity， t le role of Peer・ReSponse

Group Work in Eng㎞101＆102（Freshman Level

伽tegrated Classes of Basic Rea伽g and W而ng

 The role of communicative group work on writing process has become increasingly more influential in the teaching methodology of American Universities．

Three out of five writing instructors who taught

English lO1＆102（freshman level composition

smdents who were permanently assigned to help

more， gave their members highly individualized attention both in and out of class．

 Their peer−response groups seemed to yield excep−

tional benefits for their members． Gradually most of their students benefited because they got fbedback and assistance from their peers prior Io writing the final draft of their compositions． The quality of compositions convinced their writing instructors that each student learned both to contribute to the group and to rece童ve help from the group， and the group had become a busy， productive and successful team by the end of the quarter． Similarly， the group work convinced them of writing in relation to the perspec−

tive of a reader， emphasizing that their students write for a variety of audiences（e．g，， self， class−

mates， the community， the teacher）to learn that apProaches vary as audiences vary．

 Sh孟and Cummings interviewed five experjenced

versity． One of th（｝five skillful instructors，

Elizabeth， described most of her classes as work−

shops in which students worked constantly in pairs or groups， observing thatる students cannot sit and

write for two hours without communicating with somebody else． She stressed the need for students to convey their ideas effectively to others： she read her students work looking primarily for problems in communicating ideas， and chose her selection of textbooks on the basis of whether they facilitated classroom discussion．5

 Esther also saw her classroom activities of group editing and peer modeling accommodating the peda−

gogical innovation： her students got a chance to read other people s work and give each other feed−

back． It is valuable for them Io learn to give feedback to others and to tackle their own work． So they got a sense of audience other廿1an the teacher；

they were able to make revisions without the teacher

looking al it firsし6

 However， it seemed that peer−response groups did not always work well for all of the writing instruc−

tors． When one of the writing instructors taught English lOl＆102 first used the peer work， he

encountered some problems， because he merely

selves are not a panacea．

 Prior to working in response groups， students nlust understand the purpose． Their experience with response groups convinced their writing instructors that usually when students are not performing effec一 廿vely in their groups， it is because they do not know what to do or they do nomnderstand why the task is important， or a combination of these two reasons．

Therefore， sIudents need to study what peer−

response groups do and then practice using

 In writing classes of Block 3 ESL at an American university（integrated classes of basic reading and writing for intermediate ievel students）， it seemed obvious how effectively peer−response group work led the students to achieve a great development not only in their compositions but in the other language skills（i，e。， reading， listening， speaking）as welL In this writing class， the ESL instructor divided eight

studentS into three groups to discuss peer s papers．

In the groups， students discussed whether the con−

tent of their drafts was correct semantically and syntactically． Other topics included determining the thesis of the drafts and sharing their opinions about the topics；as in English 101＆102， peer−responses and attention to multiple drafts seemed to improve students writing proficiency． The ESL instructor scheduled peer groups to meet twice fbr each com−

position『assignment The first time the groups met they focused on the global components of the com−

positions such as Ihe organizational pattern，

additional support ideas that may be needed， main ideas where the paper could use emphasis or clarifi−

cation， and unrelated or unnecessary idea that may

sidetrack the reader． These global components

 The finished composition showed the benefits of peer feedback and the importance of increased mo垣一

vation derived from peer feedback． Urzua has

Other PsycholinguiS血c・EVidence・for・Peer・Response Group Work in Second Language Learning：

Compre lensib且e I血put and Output in Second La取guage Acquisition（SLA）

 The purpose here is to examine both psycholin−

guistic rationales and pedagogical arguments for the use of collaborative work in terms of how it influ−

ences writing skills of L21earners．

 First， this study pinpointed theoretical evidence for group work in SL teaching combining both the results of research by Long and Porter， and the ESL writing classes of Block 3．8

There is a substantial amount of evidence consistent

with the idea that the more language that learners hear and understand or the more comprehensible input they perceive， the faster and better they leamg  Krashen has proposed a hypothetical explanation for this， which he calls theし lnput Hypothesis． 10 He has claimed that learners improve in a SL by under−

standing language which conta量ns some target

cal， or syntactic）which they cannot understand in isolation．111gnorance of the new forms is compen−

sated for by hearing them used in a situation and embedded in other language that they do understand．

Whether or not simply hearing and understanding the new items are both necessary and sufficient fbr a learner to use them successfully later is still unclear．

 Krashen， furthermore， pinpoints that speaking is unnecessary：−that it is useful only as a means of obtaining comprehensible inpuし  As he stresses，

in order to acquire L21anguage learners need input that contains exemplars of the language forms which according to the natural order are due to be acquired next．12 That is， learners must keep on getting input for the purpose of acquiring some target language forms（phonological， lexica1， morphological， or syn−

tactic）by teacher−1ed communication and peer

ous that comprehensible input is one of the crucial factors in terms of SLA．

 However， at least one researcher has argued that leamers must also be given an opPortunity to pro−

duce the new torms：Swain ca皿s this comprehensible output hypothesis． 13 Researchers following Swain have stressed that leamers must be put in a posltlon of being able to negotiate the new input thereby ensuring that the language which is heard is modi−

fied to exactly the level of comprehensibility they can manage． Swain suggests the crucial points as follows：（a）」 the璽earner may be push−ed to use

alternative means where there is communication

coheren口y， and apPropriately；（b）using（as oPPosed to simply comprehending）the language may force the learner to move from semantic processing which is characteristic of the early stages of SLA to syntac−

tic processing（i．e．， whereas comprehension can take place by simply attending to the meaning of content

Yasuko SATO

words， production may trigger the focus on formal features）；（c）the learner has a chance to test out hypotheses about the L2． 14

 The ESL writing class of Block 3 supports the sug−

gestion of Swain． This is a good example that underscores the importance of comprehensible ouこ一 puし There was a student who came from Columbia in the Block 3 ESL class． Both the instructor and students found it difficult to comprehend his assess−

ment of strengths and weaknesses of his peer s first

drafts because of his heavy Spanish accenし However， his pronunciation improved』

nication． Although it might be argued that others just became accustomed to his accent， the ESL instructor witnessed his ease of interaction outside his class as wel1． This brief example thus demon−

strates that active peer group work can give students many opportunities to speak and， in turn， producing language gives the students remarkable motivation and feedback． If it is血e case that active speech pro−

duction in p㏄r−response group work can effectively affect SLA， this type of collaborative work should be used to teach a second language．

PedagQgic蓬』ArgumentS for t血e Intrωuction of Peer−

Response Group Work Group：Advantages and

面sadvantages

 Iparticipated in a workshop named Revision Empowering the Beginning Writer at the TESOL

In this workshop， participants formed several groups and examined the challenges and benefits of a stu−

dent−centered approach to writing． In particular，

they discussed how peer−response groups m wrl ng classrooms effectively worked with gro叩members．

They went on to outline its advantages and disadvan−

tages． The outcomes of this activity are summarized in Figure l below：

FIGURE l Advantages and disad▼antages of peer・

      response group work

Advantages

  （1）Ss encourage communicatjon．

  （2）Ss focus on content   （3）Ss become aware of readers．

  （4）Ss can leam from each other．

  （5）Ss can leam in a non−threatening environment．

    （They can communicate better if their affective

    filter is lowered．）

Disadvantages

 （1）Ss don t need to criticize：（They may hesitate to

    criticize．）

 （2）It is hard fbr Ss to focus on grammar．

 （3）Ss comments tend to be vague．（The other Ss     commentS are not as good as T s，）

  （4）Ss want to speak in L1。（lf there are homo−

    geneous settings in the group・）

  （5）Readers can tread students handwriting．

This list will be expounded upon in the following paragraphs．

F 75ち卿r8roμρ∫6ηcoz ア・ge commun C・tion・In other words， group discussion mo口vates students to contribute． This motivation is due in part to the rela−

tive ease with which members are a small group， as apProved to a large group， can communlcate・

The circumstances are not as prohibitive． Empirical evidence supPorting this idea has been provided in several recent studies by Littlejohn． For example， it has been found that small−group study can lead to increased motivation for studying Spanish among beginning students； learners responding to a ques−

tionnaire reported that they felt less inhibited and freer to speak and make mistakes in the small group than in the teacher＿led class． 15 As one of the advantages， therefore， it seems obvious that collabo−

rative work motivates study．

Second， group work encour・ges studen S to focus on content． By focusing on content， an audie．nce of peers makes sure that a composition includes clarity of thought． Thus， it makes sense to have readers pay attention to the context rather than Io only the orga−

nizat孟on， grammar， and mechanics． In English 101

＆102and Block 3 ESL classes， I have encountered and have seeh others encounter much difficulty in judging the explicitness of thought and the back一

ground shema of the audience． In peer−response gro叩work， students become aware of which idea is unclear and how it should be composed through peer sessions．

Po η で3♪ su8gests that Ss becom・e・aware（）f read−

ers． Again， The writing classes of English lOl＆

102and Block 3 ESL reflected that this was an ouレ come of peer−response groups． Students seemed to be learning how to take an audience into account when they were writing and developing a sense of voice and how to manipulate language for the best effect， reading and responding by peers who valued the author s perspective． Each student， thus， realize the importance of the perception of various audi−

ences from peer−response group．

77ie next point a∬erts that Ss can tearn from each other． One aspect of Iheir learning concerns social and communicative skills。 Sharan＆Sharan suggest that small−group experiences produce attentive lis−

tening， effective implementation of peer s ideas，

cooperation and sharing of information， mutual help，

talking in turn， serving as a group leader， and so on． 16 Especially， peers in small groups are more likely to talk with each other than to talk with the teacher and， when need arises， to ask others to clari−

fy meaning．

Receiving i〃IM．ediate／lledback is another impor−

・nt・dvan age ・f peer−resp・η5噌r・ ・p w・・k． ln order to improve L2 writing， the revision process can be helped through peer sessions． Each student−

writer reads a piece of writing to the others in the group， and Ihe group gives immediate feedback to the writers． The kind of feedback varies with differ−

ent goals and writing pieces， but Graves suggests thaピ revisions that children make as a result of the conference can be at a much higher level than those

made when the child is working and reading

dents comments create the motive for doing

therefbre， will have a powerful effect on improving L2 writing．

n．e last advantage is ha Ss can learn in a non一

〆

threatening environ nent． This means that they experience less anxiety and consequently find it easier to communicate． Many students， especially the shy or linguistically insecure， experience considerable stress when called upon in the public area of the teacher−led classroom． This stress is increased by the knowledge that they must respond accurately and quickly． In comparison， Long and Porter under−

score that a peer group Prov童des a relatively intimate setting， and usually a more supPortive envi−

ronment in which to try out embryonic SL skills． 19 Under such intimate and supportive circumstances，

it is believed that leaming is enhanced．

 A！though there are many advantages for using small group work， there are also some disadvan−

tages． One（）f them is that Ss don t need・to・cr ticize or that they ηαy h．esi．tate to criticize． However，

there seem to be some solutions to mitigate． this ten−

dency． A teacher can， fbr example， train them to mention not only positive aspects but negative aspects as well in their drafts． Thus， with the instruction of a teacher， the students will become better at pointing out negative feedback

Another・d sadvantage（）f s〃rall group work is that ma［y be hardプ〜）r SS toノ〜）CUS on 8rammar． It is believed that L2 students tend to focus on content rather than grammar because it is hard for them to point out and correct grammar mistakes in their drafts especially when all members of the group are at the same level of proficiency． As a means of solving this problem， however， a teacher may guide the students to focus on grammar mistakes as well as content as much as helshe can， showing a couple of typical examples．

A齢44 sadvan age is that Ss co㎜餌5卿4∫o

Since students．do not know how to comment on their drafts， generally their comments tend to be too general， or not specific enough， Again， this problem can be solved through teacher s adequate g由dance・

In advance， a teacher advises students on how to puI comments on their drafts． A teacher， fbr example，

explains the important criteria to be noted such as whether there is a question at issue in an argument

pape「・

Yasuko SATO

んzother disadvantage is that Ss want to speak in L1，β∫P6dO1走y w伽此8）， are in ho〃zogeneOUS set−

tin8s， This might be one of the more serious problems． A possible solution might be to have Ihe students choose a leader for their group． The leader s duty would entail ensuring that everyone speak in L2． In where gro叩cannot decide upon a leader， the teacher would have to choose one，

The tast disadvantage is that readers can t read students handwritin8． Word processors are avai1−

able for student users for many purposes now so that for the convenience of reading， a重eacher can recom−

mend that students with handwriting problems use a typewriter or word processor・

 The advantages and disadvantages of using peer−

response group work for writing classes have been examined in the paragraphs above． Since many of the disadvantages can be countered with extra teach−

ing supervision， it seems that the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages． Hence， peer−response group work does seem appropriate for teaching writ−

ing skills．

SpecUlation upon the effectiveness of peer・response group work in writing Classes in Japan

 As mentioned in the introduction， most Japanese teachers are restricted both pedagogically and prac−

tically in the way they teach English． Writing instruction especially seems in need of reform；origi．

nal， creative， and individual approaches must be produced by writing instructors in order to improve conventional writing instruction． Presently there appear to be various kinds of problems or weak points in the controlled compositions which we have used in Japan． One of them is that as the approach is cun ently used in junior and senior high school， stu−

dents writing skiHs have not improved much． That is， although they are able to maniputale previously learned language structures， they are not able to express their ideas f董uently in a developed essay・ In order to counter this problem I would suggest using process writing together with peer−response group work in writing classes in Japan． Process wntmg ls an approach which has a number of specific stages：

generaIing and exploring ideas， discovering through

writing what one wants to say， revlslng， gettlng feedback from readers， repeating these steps as many times as necessary， editing， and at last arriving at a finished composi直on． Because peer group work provides a positive and encouraging environment， I believe it would improve students wri直ng skills．

 In general there are thirty five to forty students in aclassroom at junior or senior high school in Japan・

As a practical matter， therefore， it is not easy for a Japanese Eng豆ish instructor to make small groups consisIing of five to six members and to control all groups simultaneously． Especially， if the instructor gets some questions from each group， it will be dif−

ficult for himlher to cope with them within fifty minutes． As there are bound to be some trouble−

makers， for example， those who talk about irrelevant topics， or are not cooperative with other peer group members， it will be also hard for the instructor to control these kinds of students． Taking the risks into consideration， however， the instructor should gradu−

ally train the students to become familiar with peer group work． Each group， for example， decides on an assignment to affirm some responsibility in the learning Process and to help the instructor in order to

carry out assigned work；helshe introduces the

ers can concentrate on ideas and mean㎞9， locating any problems in content or organization， mechanics which hinder clear expressions． In addition to the aid of a feedback form， one altemative method is to

duplicate particularly good examples of peer−

response work done by students during the previous years． These examples not only provide good mod−

els for current students to study， but they also help create credibility for the task：if students from previ−

ous classes have been able to handle the task efficiently， current students will fee．1 the method pro一

duces real， attainable results， Thus， an instructor n㏄ds these strategies to encourage students become familiar with peer−response group work in process wntlng．

  In conclusion， through this study I have pointed at the exceptional benefits and effective use of peer−

response groups in writing courses for not only junior and senior high school students， but begin−

ning level college studentS in∫apan． Although the application of peer−response group work and process writing seems to have been generally weU and wide−

ly put in ESL composition in the U．S．， it is not without its faultfindings． Therefore， an instructor should modifソthe instructional technique to accom−

modate a diversity of Japanese student needs and the individual personalities of teacher and students， el−

ements which are necessary for success with

oIher effective technique． An instructor who

devotes time and effort to instruction in ．the use of response groups will be rewarded when students write better papers， feel more confident about their writing skills， and view writing as a positive experi−

ence rather血an a negative one， even though helshe may need to tolerate some partial failure；there is no royal road to teach a fbreign language−writing．

2．Is all the information in the composition perti−

  nent to the thesis statement？ to the topic   sentenCes？

3．Is there a strong topic sentence？What is it？

4，Does the conclusion reemphasize the intro。

  duction？

5．Does the title express the student s point of   view？

C．Answer the following questions using the

   1．What is Ihe overall tone of the composition？

     a．What is the range of the vocabulary？

     b．Is it apPropriate to the topic？

     c．Is it apPropriate to the audiences？

2，What sophisticated word choices are included   in you or peer s composition？

3．What methods of transition are used in the   composition？

  a．within paragraphs   b．between paragraphs

D．Comment on the composition with this form．

FIGURE 2 A Peer−Response Sheet

A．Answer the following questions related to the    ORGANIZATION component？

   1．List the topic sentences that support it，

     a．

NOTE：If you can answer yeミ to all of the yes／no        questions above， you have probably written        very good papers．

b

C︑0

2．Is the composition interesting？What makes it

  SO？

3．Does the introduction succeed？

4．Does the conclusion reemphasize and！or

B．Answer the following questions using the CON−

   TENT componenI？

   1．Does血e student appear to know much about

     his！her subject？

1

234

Notes

Yoshida， Masatoshi， et a1． Youth never in Despair 乙1η corηEnglish Co灘r∫ρIL Tokyo：

Bun−Eido P，1988．96−105．

1わ ゴ．，p．105．

Ibid．， P．104．

The researcher was a graduate student of Master of Alts（TESL！TEFL）hl the English Departrnent at Central Washington University． She was a teaching assistant of ENG 101＆102 classes for two years；cooperated with three experi一

Yasuko SATO

5

∠U7

8

9

10．

enced instructors， aiming to document the quali−

ties of the peer−response group work as well as the ways in which they accommodated commu。

nicative instructional innovation，

Shi， Ling and Cumming， Alis1er． Teachers

Conceptions of Second Language Writing Instruction：Five Case Studies。  Journal 6ゾ Second Langua8e Wri加84May l 995：98−99．

1匠ガd．，PP．100−101．

Un乙ua， Carole． You Stopped Too Soon：Second Language Children Composition and Revising．

7E∫OL euarterly 21．2（1987）：279−304．

Long， Michael H． and Porter， Patricia A．

Group Work， Interlanguage Talk， and Second Language Acquisition． @TESO」L（2uarterly l9．2

（1985）：207−227．

Krashen， Stephen D−Principles and、Practice

〃Second Lan8uage Acquisition． Oxford：

Pergaman P，1982．65−69．

一一一DThe、lnput Hypothesis． Ed． Alatis James E

Washington， DC：Georgetown UP，1980．168−

173．

1

2

3

4

5

Selected Bibliography

Atkdnson， Dwight and Ramanthan， Vai．も℃ulture of Writing：An Ethnographic Comparison of Ll and L2 University Writing／Language Programs．

TESO」L（〜uarterly 29．3（1995）：539−568、

B（）jarano， YaeL  A Cooper飢ive Small−Group

Methodology jn the Language Classroom．

TESOL Cuarterl．y 21．3（1987）：483−501．

Kobayashi， Toshihiko．し Native and Non Native

Reactions to ESL Composition．  TESOL

euarterly 26．1（1992）：81−112．

Littlejohn， Andrew P． Teacherle∬Langi 08θ 乙6αr廊8Groμρ∫ノAn Experiment． Manuscript．

Lancaster：Uof Lancaster P，1982，

Wachs， Stewart． Breaking the Writing Barrier：

Approaches to the Composition class， A

Oxford：Oxford UP，1992．

ll． Ibid．，pp。175」176 12．Ibid．， P，179

13．Swain， Merrill． Communicative Competence：

   Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and

   Eds． Gass， Susan， and Madden， Carolyn．

   Rowley， MA：Newbury House P，198L23−27，

14．Ibid．， p．28

15。Littlejohn， Andrew P． Increasing Learner    Involvement in Course Management． 7E∫OL

   （2配or∫ε痩yl7．4（1983）：595．

16．Sharan， S． and Sharan， Y．∫〃za〃Gro配ρ    Teachin8． Tel−Aviv：Shocken，1975．56．

17．Graves， D． W励 η8 Teachers and Chik！renα∫

   Work． Portsmouth， NH：Heinemann Educational    Books，1983．23−24．

18．Sommers， N． Responding to Students Wn廿ng。

   Co〃e8e Co〃lposition and Co〃lmunication 33    （1982）：148，

19．Long， Michael H． and Porter， Patricia A．

    Group Work， Interlanguage Talk， and Second    Language Acquisition．  TESOL⊆〜uarterl．y 19．2    （1985）：221．

      Peer−Response Group Work in Japan

    ライティングにおけるグループワーク

ーPeer−Response Group Workの効果の考察一

佐 藤 泰子

（平成7年9月30日受理）

 本稿では，ESL／EFLライティング指導法におけるグループワークとその効果にっいて考察した．

特に，プロセス・アプローチに焦点を当て，グループワークの中での学習者の主体性，自主性を尊重

G．101＆102（ライティング入門101＆102）と大学附属英語学校のBlock 3 ESL（中級総合クラス）

におけるグループワークの役割，第二に，第二言語習得論（SLA）の中に見られるグループワーク の心理言語学的論証，第三に，グループワーク導入に伴う教育学的論議 一長所と短所，そして最 後に，日本のESL／EFLライティングの授業に於けるグループワークの効果に対する考察である．