The effect of face-to-face versus web-based structured peer review on writing improvement: Evidence from ESP students
Downloads
Engaging students in peer review to improve their writing has become a pedagogical approach. However, little evidence has supported the effects of web-based (WB) peer evaluation on students' writing enhancement. In terms of linguistic features, the present study, employing a quasi-experimental design, investigated the effect of WB versus face-to-face (FTF) peer review on ESP students' writing. Three intact classes (N = 48, 53) were split into two experimental groups and one control group at random to achieve this aim. The results of the pretests revealed that all the participants were homogenous concerning language proficiency and writing ability based on the Oxford Quick Placement Test (OQPT) and a writing test. While there was no peer review for the control group, the two experimental groups practiced peer review, one through FTF interaction and one via Peermark, a WB program provided through Turnitin. The findings indicated that the experimental group outperformed the control group. The findings also showed that the FTF group outperformed the WB group in writing. However, the analysis of linguistic features in the two modes of peer review demonstrated that WB interaction can be more effective in improving writing fluency than FTF peer review. Implementation of the findings for teachers and teacher trainers has been discussed.
Abri, A. A. (2021). Exploring EFL learners' comments on web-based peer feedback: Local and global revision. English Language Teaching, 14(6), 114-124. doi:10.5539/elt.v14n6p114
AbuSeileek, A., & Abualsha, A. (2014). Using peer computer-mediated corrective feedback to support EFL learners' writing. Language Learning & Technology, 18(1), 76-95. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-11177-005
Awada, G. M., & Diab, N. M. (2023). Effect of online peer review versus face-to-face peer review on argumentative writing achievement of EFL learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(1-2), 238-256. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1912104
Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students' revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80115-5
Biria, R., & Jafari, S. (2013). The impact of collaborative writing on the writing fluency of Iranian EFL learners. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(1), 164-175. doi:10.4304/jltr.4.1.164-175
Blute, B., & Housen, A. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring short-term changes in L2 wrting complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 26, 42-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2014.09.005
Braine, G. (2001). A study of English as a foreign language (EFL) writer on a local-area network (LAN) and in traditional classes. Computers and Composition, 18(3), 275-292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S8755-4615(01)00056-1
Breuch, L. K. (2004). Virtual peer review: Teaching and learning about writing in online environments. Albay, NY: State University of New York Press.
Carson, J. C., & Nelson, G. L. (1996). Chinese students; perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 1-19. doi: 101016/s1060-3743(96)90012-0
Chang, C. F. (2012). Peer review via three modes in an EFL writing course. Computers and Composition, 29(1), 63-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2012.01.001
Chen, K. T. (2012). Blog-based peer reviewing in EFL writing classrooms for Chinese speakers. Computers and Composition, 29(4), 280-291. doi: 10.1016/j.compcom.2012.09.004
Cheng, M. C. (2007). Improving interaction and feedback with computer-mediated communication in Asian EFL composition classes: A case study. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 4(1), 65-97.
Cho, K. (2004). When multi-peers give better advice than an expert: The type and impact of feedback given by students and an expert on student writing. University of Pittsburgh.
Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328–338. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.006
Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2004). The SWoRD is mightier than the pen: Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline. In IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, 2004. Proceedings. (pp. 545–549). doi:10.1109/ICALT.2004.1357474
Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Charney, D. (2006). Commenting on writing typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. Written Communication, 23(3), 260–294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741088306289261
Cho, K., Shunn, C. D., & Wilson, R. W. (2006). Validity and reliability of scaffolded peer assessment of writing from instructor and student perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 891-901. Doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.891
De Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00052
Digiovanni, E., & Nagaswami, G. (2001). Online peer review: An alternative face-to-face. ELT Journal, 55(3), 263-272. doi:10.1093/elt/55.3.263
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97-107. http:// doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023
Fitze, M. (2006). Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Language Learning and Technology, 10(1), 67-86. Retrieved November 6, 2023, from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/74430/.
Garcia, E., Brown, M., & Elbeltagi, I. (2013). Learning within a connectionist educational collective blog model: A case study of UK higher education. Electronic Journal of E-learning, 11(3), 253-262. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1016291.pdf
Grabe, W., & Kaplan , R. B. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. Longman.
Guardado, M., & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students' experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 24(4), 443–461. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2007.03.002
Hansen, J., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59(1), 31-38. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci004
Hewett, B. (2000). Characteristics of interactive oral and computer-mediated peer group talk and its influence on revision. Computers and Composition, 17(3), 265-288. https://doi.org/10.1016/S8755-4615(00)00035-9
Hine, L. A. (2017). The impact of face-to-face versus online peer review on students' writing achievement. Doctorial dissertation, Oakland University. Retrieved from: https://www.proquest.com/openview/f6b4590e024ef84d23791b781b0afcc0/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750.
Ho, M., & Savignon, S. (2007). Face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review in EFL writing. CALICO Journal, 24(2), 269–290. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24147912
Honeycutt, L. (2001). Comparing email and synchronous conference in online peer response. Written Communication, 18(1), 26-60. doi:10.1177/0741088301018001002
Housen, A., & Kuiken, F. (2009). Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 461-473. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp048
Hsieh, Y. (2020). Learner interactions in face-to-face collaborative writing with the support of online resources. ReCALL, 32(1), 85–105. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344019000120
Johnson, D., Mercado, L., & Acevedo, A. (2012). The effect of planning sub-processes on L2 writing fluency, grammatical complexity, and lexical complexity. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(3), 264-282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.05.011
Kumar, V., & Aitchinson, C. (2018). Peer facilitated writing groups: A programmatic approach to doctorial student writing. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(3), 360-373. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2017.1391200
Kuteeva, M. (2013). Graduate learners' approaches to genre-analysis tasks: variations across and within for disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 32(2), 84-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2012.11.004
Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Making communicative language teaching happen. McGraw-Hill.
Li, M., & Li, J. (2017). Online peer review using Turnitin in first-year writing classes. Computers & Composition, 46, 21-38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2017.09.001
Liang, M. Y. (2010). Using synchronous online peer response groups in EFL writing: Revision-related discourse. Language Learning & Technology, 14(1), 45-64. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?rep=rep1&type=pdf&doi=10.1.1.215.3991
Lin, W. C., & 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), 88-103. Retrieved November 6, 2023, from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/51550/
Link, S., Mehrzad, M., & Rahimi, M. (2020). Impact of automated writing evaluation on teacher feedback, student revision, and writing improvement. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(4), 605-634. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1743323
Liou, H. C., & Peng, Z. Y. (2009). Training effects on computer-mediated peer review. System, 37(3), 514-525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.01.005
Liu, F., Du, J., Zhou, D. Q., & Huang, B. (2021). Exploring the potential of peer feedback: The combined use of face-to-face feedback and e-feedback in doctorial writing groups. Assessing Writing, 47, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2020.100482
Liu, J., & Hansen, J. G. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. University of Michigan Press.
Liu, J., & Sadler, R. W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 193-227. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00025-0
Lu, X. (2011). A corpus-based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college-level ESL writers' language development. TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 36-62. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.240859
Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. S. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002
Miao, Y., Badger, R., & Zhen, Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 179-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004
Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2), 293-308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003
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), 118–141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003
Min, H. T. (2008). Reviewer stances and writing perceptions in EFL peer review. English for Specific Purposes, 27(3), 285-305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2008.02.002
Moloudi, M. (2011). Online and face-to-face peer review: Measures of implementation in ESL writing classes. Asian EFL Journal, 52, 4-22. http://asian-efl-journal.com/PTA/May-2011-Moloudi.pdf
Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.795518
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30(4), 555-578. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044
Pham, V. P. H., & Usaha, S. (2016). Blog-based peer response for L2 writing revision. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 724-748. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1026355
Plakans, L., Gebril, A., & Bilki, Z. (2019). Shaping a score: Complexity, accuracy, and fluency in integrated writing performances. Language testing, 36(2), 161-179. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532216669537
Pritchard, R. J., & Morrow, D. (2017). Comparison of online and face-to-face peer review of writing. Computers and Composition, 46, 87-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2017.09.006
Purchase, H., & Hamer, J. (2018). Perspectives on peer-review: Eight years of Aropa. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(3), 473–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1359819
Roll, N. (2017). New salvo against Turnitin. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/06/19/anti-turnitin-manifesto-calls-resistance-some-technology-digital-age.
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 5(1), 23-30. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci003
Ruegg, R. (2015). The relative effects of peer and teacher feedback on improvement in EFL students' writing ability. Linguistics and Education, 29, 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.12.001
Sengupta, S. (2001). Exchanging ideas with peers in network-based classrooms: An aid or a pain? Language Learning and Technology, 5(1), 103-134.
Shang, H. F. (2022). Exploring online peer feedback and automated corrective feedback on EFL writing performance. Interactive Learning Environment, 30(1), 4-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1629601
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners' processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303-334. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532
Straumsheim, C. (2016). Detecting more than plagiarism. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from: http://www. Insidehighered.com/news/2016/01/21turnitin-expanding-beyond-plagiarism-detection-launches-revision-assistant.
Taylor, S., Ryan, M., & Pearce, J. (2015). Enhanced student learning in accounting utilizing web-based technology, peer-review feedback, and reflective practices: A learning community approach to assessment. Higher Education Research, 34(6), 1251–1269. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1024625
Ting, M., & Qian, Y. (2010). A case study of peer feedback in a Chinese EFL writing classroom. Chinese Journal of Applied, 33(4), 87-98. doi: http://www.celea.org.cn/teic/92/10120606.pdf
Topping, K. (2003). Self and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity and utility. In Optimizing new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 55-87). Springer, Dordrecht.
Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21(2), 217–235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2004.02.003
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, N. F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.), Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 79-91). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. https://www.scirp.org/(S(351jmbntvnsjt1aadkposzje))/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=1929734
Wadhwa, G., Schulz, H., & Mann, B. L. (2006). Effects of anonymity and accountability during online peer assessment. In Selected Styles in Web-Based Educational Research (pp. 302-333). IGI Global.
Wang, M. J. (2004). A study on online peer feedback. English Teaching and Learning, 29(2), 63-77.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer-assisted language learning: An introduction. In Fotos S. (Ed.), Multimedia language teaching (pp. 3–20). Logos International.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy, and complexity (Tech. Rep. No. 17). Honolulu: National Foreign Language Resource Center.
Jurnal Cakrawala Pendidikan, Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan, with ISSN: 0216-1370, is published by the Institute of Education Development and Quality Assurance (LPPMP UNY). Cakrawala Pendidikan has been recently has been re-accredited by Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture decision Number 51/E/KPT/2017 which is valid for five years since enacted on 4 December 2017.
