skip to main content
research-article

Leveraging Peer Support for Mature Immigrants Learning to Write in Informal Contexts

Published:15 October 2020Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

For adult newcomers to countries such as Canada, learning language is more than an academic task. Language proficiency is their gateway to long-term economic and social stability, but limited access to resources contributes to systemic inequities which disproportionately place immigrants at socioeconomic disadvantages. Many new immigrants rely heavily on informal peer-networks to pursue avenues of success within an unfamiliar and inadequate system. To explore how we could leverage such a peer-based approach to meet their needs for feedback and support when learning to write in English, we deployed a peer-based writing app with 16 participants. Post-deployment focus groups and analysis of writing artifacts reveal that the design of writing support tools should present transparent feedback from both peers and automated sources, foster community through semi-structured discussions, incorporate guided review, and scaffold affective development. We discuss how incorporating these elements into the design of community learning platforms can address the language literacy needs of diverse immigrant learners and foster more positive experiences for newcomers as they negotiate their evolving identities.

References

  1. Baker, K.M. 2016. Peer review as a strategy for improving students? writing process. Active Learning in Higher Education. 17, 3 (2016), 179--192. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787416654794.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Braun, V. and Clarke, V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 3, 2 (Jan. 2006), 77--101. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Bull, S., Greer, J., McCalla, G. and Kettel, L. 2001. Help-seeking in an asynchronous help forum. Proceedings of Workshop on Help Provision and Help Seeking in Interactive Learning Environments, International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (San Antonio, TX, USA, 2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Butterfield, E.C., Hacker, D.J. and Albertson, L.R. 1996. Environmental, cognitive, and metacognitive influences on text revision: Assessing the evidence. Educational Psychology Review. 8, 3 (Sep. 1996), 239--297. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01464075.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Cambre, J., Klemmer, S. and Kulkarni, C. 2018. Juxtapeer: Comparative Peer Review Yields Higher Quality Feedback and Promotes Deeper Reflection. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '18 (Montreal QC, Canada, 2018), 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Camhi, P.J. |Ebsworth 2008. Merging a Metalinguistic Grammar Approach with L2 Academic Process Writing: ELLs in Community College. TESL-EJ. 12, 2 (Sep. 2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Canada to admit nearly 1 million immigrants over next 3 years | CBC News: 2017. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/immigration-canada-2018--1.4371146. Accessed: 2018-08-08.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Chi, M.T.H. and Wylie, R. 2014. The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes. Educational Psychologist. 49, 4 (Oct. 2014), 219--243. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Cho, Y.H. and Cho, K. 2011. Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science. 39, 5 (Sep. 2011), 629--643. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010--9146--1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Connor, U. 1996. Contrastive Rhetoric: Cross-Cultural Aspects of Second-Language Writing. Cambridge University Press,.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Crossley, S.A. and McNamara, D.S. 2009. Computational Assessment of Lexical Differences in L1 and L2 Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing. 18, 2 (Jun. 2009), 119--135. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2009.02.002.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Cumming, A. 1991. Identification of current needs and issues related to the delivery of adult ESL instruction in British Columbia. Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism and Immigration.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Dean, J.A. and Wilson, K. 2009. 'Education' It is irrelevant to my job now. It makes me very depressed '': exploring the health impacts of under/unemployment among highly skilled recent immigrants in Canada. Ethnicity & Health. (Mar. 2009). DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/13557850802227049.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Deci, E.L. 1975. Conceptualizations of Intrinsic Motivation. Intrinsic Motivation. E.L. Deci, ed. Springer US. 23--63.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Demmans Epp, C. 2018. Developing an Adaptive Mobile Tool to Scaffold the Communication and Vocabulary Acquisition of Language Learners. Handbook of Mobile Teaching and Learning. (2018), 1--26. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/978--3--642--41981--2_92--1.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Demmans Epp, C. 2017. Migrants and Mobile Technology Use: Gaps in the Support Provided by Current Tools. Journal of Interactive Media in Education. 2017, 1 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Derwing, T.M., Waugh, E. and Institute for Research on Public Policy 2012. Language skills and the social integration of Canada's adult immigrants. Institute for Research on Public Policy.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Early, J.S. and Saidy, C. 2014. A study of a multiple component feedback approach to substantive revision for secondary ELL and multilingual writers. Reading and Writing. 27, 6 (Jul. 2014), 995--1014. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013--9483-y.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. Edwards, A. 2018. Wars, violence and persecution uprooted record numbers of men, women and children worldwide last year. UNHCR Refugee Agency Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Elouazizi, N., Oberg, G. and Birol, G. 2018. Learning Technology-enabled (Meta)-Cognitive Scaffolding for Enabling Students to Learn Aspects of Written Argumentation. 8th edition of the International Workshop on Personalization Approaches in Learning Environments (PALE) (Singapore, 2018), 7--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Evaluation of the Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC) Program: 2011. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/reports-statistics/evaluations/language-instruction-newcomers-canada-2010/intro.html#a2. Accessed: 2018-09--18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Ferrer, A., Green, D.A. and Riddell, W.C. 2006. The Effect of Literacy on Immigrant Earnings. Journal of Human Resources. XLI, 2 (Mar. 2006), 380--410. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.XLI.2.380.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Fithriani, R. 2018. Cultural Influences on Students? Perceptions of Written Feedback in L2 Writing. Journal of Foreign Languange Teaching and Learning. 3, 1 (2018). DOI:https://doi.org/10.18196/ftl.3124.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Foong, E., Dow, S.P., Bailey, B.P. and Gerber, E.M. 2017. Online Feedback Exchange: A Framework for Understanding the Socio-Psychological Factors. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '17 (Denver, Colorado, USA, 2017), 4454--4467.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Ge, Z. 2011. Exploring e-learners? perceptions of net-based peer-reviewed English writing. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning. 6, 1 (Mar. 2011), 75--91. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-010--9103--7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Gibson, A., Aitken, A., Sándor, Á., Buckingham Shum, S., Tsingos-Lucas, C. and Knight, S. 2017. Reflective Writing Analytics for Actionable Feedback. Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference (New York, NY, USA, 2017), 153--162.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Goldin, I.M. and Ashley, K.D. 2012. Eliciting formative assessment in peer review. Journal of Writing Research. 4, 2 (Nov. 2012), 203--237. DOI:https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2012.04.02.5.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. Government of Canada, S.C. 2007. Immigrants? perspectives on their first four years in Canada: Highlights from three waves of the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada - ARCHIVED.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Hajer, A. and Kaskens, A.-M. 2012. Canadian Language Benchmarks: English as a Second Language for Adults. Citizenship and Immigration Canada.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Irani, L., Vertesi, J., Dourish, P., Philip, K. and Grinter, R.E. 2010. Postcolonial computing: a lens on design and development. Proceedings of the 28th international conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '10 (Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 2010), 1311.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Janda, K. 2007. The Needs of Adult ESL Learners. Athabasca University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Klassen, C. and Burnaby, B. 1993. ?Those Who Know?: Views on Literacy among Adult Immigrants in Canada. TESOL Quarterly. 27, 3 (1993), 377. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/3587472.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Larrotta, C. and Chung, H. 2020. Foreign-born TESOL Instructors Assisting Adult Immigrant Learners to Develop Civic Literacy Skills: A Pen Pal Project. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies. 8, 2 (May 2020), 1. DOI:https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.8n.2p.1.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Liaqat, A., Akcayir, G., Epp, C.D. and Munteanu, C. 2019. Mature ELLs? Perceptions Towards Automated and Peer Writing Feedback. Transforming Learning with Meaningful Technologies (Sep. 2019), 266--279.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Liaqat, A. and Munteanu, C. 2018. Towards a Writing Analytics Framework for Adult English Language Learners. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Learning Analytics & Knowledge Conference (LAK '17) (Sydney, Australia, 2018).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Lin, W.-C. and Yang, S.C. 2011. Exploring Students? Perceptions of Integrating Wiki Technology and Peer Feedback into English Writing Courses. English Teaching: Practice and Critique. 10, 2 (Jul. 2011), 88--103.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Liou, H.-C. and Peng, Z.-Y. 2009. Training effects on computer-mediated peer review. System. 37, 3 (Sep. 2009), 514--525. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.01.005.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Littleton, W. 1984. Foreign and Second Language Learning: Language Acquisition Research and its Implications for the Classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review. 45, 1 (1984), 191--192. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.45.1.191.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Lockhart, C. and Ng, P. 1995. Analyzing Talk in ESL Peer Response Groups: Stances, Functions, and Content. Language Learning. 45, 4 (1995), 605--55.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Mathews-Aydinli, J. 2008. Overlooked and Understudied? A Survey of Current Trends in Research on Adult English Language Learners. Adult Education Quarterly. 58, 3 (May 2008), 198--213. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713608314089.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Mendonça, C.O. and Johnson, K.E. 1994. Peer Review Negotiations: Revision Activities in ESL Writing Instruction. TESOL Quarterly. 28, 4 (1994), 745--769. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/3587558.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Min, H.-T. 2016. Effect of teacher modeling and feedback on EFL students? peer review skills in peer review training. Journal of Second Language Writing. 31, (Mar. 2016), 43--57. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.01.004.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Min, H.-T. 2006. The effects of trained peer review on EFL students? revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing. 15, 2 (Jun. 2006), 118--141. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Munteanu, C., Lumsden, J., Fournier, H., Leung, R., D'Amours, D., McDonald, D. and Maitland, J. 2010. ALEX: Mobile Language Assistant for Low-literacy Adults. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (New York, NY, USA, 2010), 427--430.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Munteanu, C., Molyneaux, H., Maitland, J., McDonald, D., Leung, R., Lumsden, J. and Fournier, H. 2012. Tale of Two Studies: Challenges in Field Research with Low-literacy Adult Learners in a Developed Country. CHI '12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, 2012), 489--504.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Naiman, N. ed. 1996. The good language learner. Multilingual Matters.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Nguyen, T.T.D.T., Garncarz, T., Ng, F., Dabbish, L.A. and Dow, S.P. 2017. Fruitful Feedback: Positive Affective Language and Source Anonymity Improve Critique Reception and Work Outcomes. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing - CSCW '17 (Portland, Oregon, USA, 2017), 1024--1034.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Nicol, D., Thomson, A. and Breslin, C. 2014. Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 39, 1 (Jan. 2014), 102--122. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.795518.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. Pawlikowska-Smith, G. 2002. Canadian Language Benchmarks 2000: Theoretical Framework.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Peerceptiv - Data Driven Peer Assessment: http://www.peerceptiv.com/wordpress/. Accessed: 2018-01--21.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Perin, D. and Lauterbach, M. 2018. Assessing Text-Based Writing of Low-Skilled College Students. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education. 28, 1 (Mar. 2018), 56--78. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593-016-0122-z.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. Plante, J. 2010. Characteristics and labour market outcomes of internationally-educated immigrants. Technical Report #Report 81--595-M No. 084. Statistics Canada.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Robinson, J. and Selman, M. 1996. Partnerships in learning: teaching ESL to adults. Pippin Pub.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Roscoe, R.D. and McNamara, D.S. 2013. Writing pal: Feasibility of an intelligent writing strategy tutor in the high school classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology. 105, 4 (2013), 1010--1025. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032340.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Saeed, M.A., Ghazali, K. and Aljaberi, M.A. 2018. A review of previous studies on ESL/EFL learners? interactional feedback exchanges in face-to-face and computer-assisted peer review of writing. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 15, 1 (Dec. 2018), 6. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0084--8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Schriver, K.A. 1989. Evaluating text quality: the continuum from text-focused to reader-focused methods. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication. 32, 4 (Dec. 1989), 238--255. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/47.44536.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. Shih, R.-C. 2011. Can Web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning English writing? Integrating Facebook and peer assessment with blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology. 27, 5 (Aug. 2011). DOI:https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.934.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Shute, V.J. 2008. Focus on Formative Feedback. Review of Educational Research. 78, 1 (Mar. 2008), 153--189. DOI:https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. Silva, T. 1993. Toward an Understanding of the Distinct Nature of L2 Writing: The ESL Research and Its Implications. TESOL Quarterly. 27, 4 (Dec. 1993), 657--677. DOI:https://doi.org/10.2307/3587400.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Smith, J.A., Harre, R. and Langenhove, L.V. 1995. Rethinking Methods in Psychology. SAGE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Sun, N., Rosson, M.B. and Carroll, J.M. 2018. Where is Community Among Online Learners?: Identity, Efficacy and Personal Ties. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '18 (Montreal QC, Canada, 2018), 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Tewari, A., Goyal, N., Chan, M.K., Yau, T., Canny, J. and Schroeder, U. 2010. SPRING: speech and pronunciation improvement through games, for Hispanic children. Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development - ICTD '10 (London, United Kingdom, 2010), 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Tian, L. and Li, L. 2018. Chinese EFL learners? perception of peer oral and written feedback as providers, receivers and observers. Language Awareness. 27, 4 (Oct. 2018), 312--330. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2018.1535602.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. Veronis, L., Tabler, Z. and Ahmed, R. 2018. Syrian Refugee Youth Use Social Media: Building Transcultural Spaces and Connections for Resettlement in Ottawa, Canada. Canadian Ethnic Studies. 50, 2 (2018), 79--99. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1353/ces.2018.0016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. Vista, A., Care, E. and Griffin, P. 2015. A new approach towards marking large-scale complex assessments: Developing a distributed marking system that uses an automatically scaffolding and rubric-targeted interface for guided peer-review. Assessing Writing. 24, Complete (2015), 1--15. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2014.11.001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Vorobel, O. and Kim, D. 2017. Adolescent ELLs? collaborative writing practices in face-to-face and online contexts: From perceptions to action. System. 65, (Apr. 2017), 78--89. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2017.01.008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Wang, W. 1999. Age and Second Language Acquisition in Adulthood: The Learning Experiences and Perceptions of Women Immigrants. TESL Canada Journal. 16, 2 (Jun. 1999), 01. DOI:https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v16i2.715.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  68. Waring, H.Z. and Yu, D. 2018. Life outside the classroom as a resource for language learning. The Language Learning Journal. 46, 5 (Oct. 2018), 660--671. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2016.1172332.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. Wauck, H., Yen, Y.-C. (Grace), Fu, W.-T., Gerber, E., Dow, S.P. and Bailey, B.P. 2017. From in the Class or in the Wild?: Peers Provide Better Design Feedback Than External Crowds. (Feb. 2017), 5580--5591.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  70. Yoon, K. 2017. Korean Migrants? Use of the Internet in Canada. Journal of International Migration and Integration. 18, 2 (May 2017), 547--562. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-016-0487--8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  71. Zhang, C. and Zheng, G. 2013. Supporting adult learning: enablers, barriers, and services. Proceedings of the 13th annual ACM SIGITE conference on Information technology education - SIGITE '13 (Orlando, Florida, USA, 2013), 151.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  72. Zhao, H., Sullivan, K.P.H. and Mellenius, I. 2014. Participation, interaction and social presence: An exploratory study of collaboration in online peer review groups. British Journal of Educational Technology. 45, 5 (Sep. 2014), 807--819. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12094.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  73. Zhu, Q. and Carless, D. 2018. Dialogue within peer feedback processes: clarification and negotiation of meaning. Higher Education Research & Development. 37, 4 (Jun. 2018), 883--897. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1446417.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  74. Ziegler, M.F., Paulus, T. and Woodside, M. 2014. Understanding Informal Group Learning in Online Communities Through Discourse Analysis. Adult Education Quarterly. 64, 1 (Feb. 2014), 60--78. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713613509682.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  75. 2017. Immigration in Ontario: Achieving best outcomes for newcomers and the economy. Institute for Competitiveness and Prosperity.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  76. 2010. LINC 5--7 Classroom Activities.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Leveraging Peer Support for Mature Immigrants Learning to Write in Informal Contexts

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in

        Full Access

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader
        About Cookies On This Site

        We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

        Learn more

        Got it!