Second language (L2) peer response literature is defined in part by discourse research, yet there is scant research on text-specific comments, or comments that make explicit text references, thus resisting generic qualities. The purpose of this case study was to examine such peer response activities in an English writing course at a South Korean university. The data comprises two essay assignments with peer response conducted between two drafts – as accomplished during class time on the class learning management system (LMS) – as well as the subsequent revisions in second drafts. This paper expands on previous coding schemes accounting for area, nature and type commentary to account for a specificity dimension, and also links these categories to revision practices. While students entertained diverse commenting and revising options, popular practices included generic evaluating or revising local or surface-level concerns. This paper offers implications for modelling response activities as well as for how to better define specific and complex idea construction exhibited during response.

The skill of argumentation is problematic for EFL students who are linguistically and rhetorically deficient in expressing academically appropriate forms in English. In fact, many EFL students struggle to write highly elaborate arguments. In this study, we investigated whether EFL students’ skills for argumentation improved after receiving peer feedback. We also investigated which elements of argumentation were related to the quality of argumentative writing. To this end, we used the Toulmin model of argumentation. We collected 34 EFL students’ first drafts and revisions as well as reviewers’ written feedback, and analyzed their drafts and revisions with a range of quantitative and qualitative approaches. We found that peer feedback had a positive effect upon overall writing quality. Peer feedback made meaningful contributions to the development of students’ argumentative strategies they employ. It seems apparent that peer response prompted the students to reflect on whether the logic of their argumentation made sense to the readers.