Shifting the Paradigm through Peer Review: From Kiasu to Creativity

by Wong Jock Onn

 

Most ELT practitioners are familiar with the benefits of peer review, which have been extensively documented in academic literature. Peer review benefits both the reviewee and the reviewer. For example, it is said that sharing one’s work with other students can facilitate peer learning and knowledge building (Escartin, et al., 2015). By engaging in a review, the reviewer can learn to critically review their own work (Lundstrom & Baker, 2009).

In Singapore, peer review may serve another purpose. Let me begin with some context. As a semanticist by training, I take an interest in word meaning because of what it can tell us about the way speakers see the world (Wierzbicka, 1997). For a long time, I had noticed that our students (or the generation) frequently used the word ‘bojio’ – borrowed from Hokkien, roughly meaning ‘you didn’t ask me to join you (in an activity)’. I studied its meaning and concluded that it is a manifestation of the value of kiasu (Wong, (in press) 2020). In fact, Singaporeans may even be more kiasu than they were 20 years ago. This does not come as a major surprise, as a number of studies have noted that Singaporeans are in general kiasu – e.g. Cheng et al. (2017), Wierzbicka (2003). However, as educators, especially those at the tertiary level, we should also ask how the kiasu mindset affects learning.

Singapore is of course a multicultural society and one would expect its multiculturality to be a source of creativity (Cheng & Hong, 2017). However, a number of authors note that our students are not maximally benefiting from it because of their kiasu attitude and behavior, which undermines creativity, an important part of any academic pursuit.[1] There is evidence to suggest that kiasu may reduce the positive impact of Singapore’s multiculturality on creativity (Cheng & Hong, 2017). It is said that it affects the attitude of young Singaporeans towards various areas of their lives, including education (Heng & Pereira, 2020; Ho, Ang, Loh, & Ng, 1998; Soong, 2020), and may lead to dissatisfaction with their performance and social relationships (Cheng & Hong, 2017). I would add that the kiasu mentality may explain why NUS students exploit the S/U system to maximize their CAP, rather than to explore different areas of academic studies (the original intention).

Peer review may help minimize the kiasu effect, because it promotes collaborative, cooperative learning. It encourages students to be partly responsible for each other’s learning. It is one of the ways a university lecturer can use to help students bond with one another. When students bond, they become friends, not competitors. One of the areas in which my students can give feedback to each other is the oral presentations. My tier 2 academic writing module requires each student to give a (graded) presentation, in which they tell the class what their research project is about. They present the context, problem, objective statement, and methodology. During the presentations, I urge each student to give feedback to each other student on a Google Spreadsheet. In this way, every student receives feedback not just from me but from other members of the class. Further, each student can see what other students write, and learn from them. When students bond, they can generously give feedback to fellow students. I instruct my students to give two kinds of feedback: what the reviewee has done right and areas for improvement. Below are examples taken from a class in 2019/2020 (i), with punctuation standardized.

When students bond, they can generously give feedback to fellow students.

 

Examples of feedback on what the reviewee has done well from the class:

• Interesting word choice, backed by a thorough understanding about the cultural value of ‘making the most of what you have’. Problematization was clearly delivered.
• Good introduction. Well prepared and persuasive presentation. Detailed methodology with tentative findings.
• Good flow of presentation, facilitated flow of thought process. Clear focus on three semantic meanings. Unique in that he came up with his own methodology in explicating the word ‘sick’. Good references, clear methodology in how he is going to approach the word.

 

Examples of constructive feedback on areas for improvement from that class:

• Maybe provide examples/sentences on how the word is used? As a non-Singaporean I found it slightly hard to understand the word without examples.
• Interesting introduction. However, there is a big jump from the context to the objective.
• Might want to include why the study of honorifics is important; why should we have NSM explications of these? What benefits do these bring?

 

As can be seen, many helpful ideas are generated in the peer review feedback. For me, this is a sign that the students are genuinely, perhaps selflessly supporting others. It is a sign that creativity is in place and that the kiasu attitude is at least maximally suppressed. Thus, peer review may be seen as more than just critique; it can inform the teacher something about the degree of creativity in a class.

* * *

[1] https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/license-to-wonder/

 

References

Cheng, C. -Y., & Hong, Y. -Y. (2017). Kiasu and creativity in Singapore: An empirical test of the situated dynamics framework. Management and Organization Review, 13(4), 871-894. Retrieved from https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/soss_research/2420

Escartin, J., Saldana, O., Martin-Pena, Varela-Rey, A., Jimenez, Y., Vidal, T., & Rodriguez-Carballeira, A. (2015). The impact of writing case studies: Benefits for students’ success and well-being. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 196, 47-51.

Heng, M. A., & Pereira, A. (2020). Understanding adolescent purpose in the context of high-performance schooling in Singapore. Cambridge Journal of Education.

Ho, J. T., Ang, C. E., Loh, J., & Ng, I. (1998). A preliminary study of kiasu behaviour – is it unique to Singapore? Journal of Managerial Psychology, 13(5/6), 359-370.

Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30-43.

Soong, H. (2020). Singapore international education hub and its dilemmas: The challenges and makings for cosmopolitan learning. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 40(1), 112-125.

Wierzbicka, A. (1997). Understanding Cultures through Their Key Words: English, Russian, Polish, German, and Japanese. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Singapore English: A semantic and cultural perspective. Multilingua, 22, 327-366.

Wong, J. O. ((in press) 2020). The Singlish interjection bojio. In H. Bromhead, & Z. Ye (Eds.), Meaning, Life and Culture: In Conversation with Anna Wierzbicka. Canberra: ANU Press.