Online and face-to-face peer review in academic writing: Frequency and preferences

Year 2021, Volume: 7 Issue: 1, 169 - 201, 08.04.2021

Rashad Ahmed Abdu Al-kadi

https://doi.org/10.32601/ejal.911245

Cited By: 17

Abstract

With the current advancement of technology and its potential for better teaching and learning outcomes, this paper compares the use of peer review in face-to-face settings and online platforms. The study recruited 142 students and 20 instructors from an American public mid-southern university. Data were collected over two academic semesters and included three instruments: questionnaires, observations, and interviews. Findings indicated that the participants generally hold a positive stance towards peer evaluation. They found face-to-face peer assessment during writing class time to be the most common and effective mode for they preferred immediate feedback in person. Contrary to laudable prior research findings, the majority of participants considered online review ineffective. They found various forms of technology quite distracting. Analyzing the extent to which native English speakers, non-native speakers, and instructors find virtual and face-to-face types of review worthwhile makes the study a valuable factor for instructors who wish to incorporate peer editing into their teaching.

Keywords

Academic writing, feedback, peer review, writing instruction

References

• Ahmed, R. (2020) Peer review in academic writing: Different perspectives from instructors and students. TESOL J., 00:e537. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.537
• 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.
• Bradley, L. (2014). Peer reviewing in an intercultural wiki environment: Student interaction and reflections. Computers and Composition, 14, 80–95.
• Brammer, C., & Rees, M. (2007). Peer review from the students’ perspective: Invaluable or valid? Composition Studies, 35(2), 71.
• Breuch, L.K. (2004). Virtual peer review: Teaching and learning about writing in online environments. New York: State University of New York Press.
• Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student responses to written work. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 181-188.
• Chen, K. (2012). Blog-based peer reviewing in EFL writing classrooms for Chinese speakers. Computers and Composition, 29, 280–291.
• Daweli, T. W. (2018). Engaging Saudi EFL students in online peer review in a Saudi university context. Arab World English Journal, 9(4), 270-280. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol9no4.20
• Desirable, M. (2015). Social media and peer feedback: What do students really think about using Wiki and Facebook as platforms for peer feedback? Active Learning in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787415589530.
• DiCamilla, F., J. & Anton, M. (1997). Repetition in the collaborative discourse of L2 learners: A Vygotsky perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(4), 609-633.
• Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd edition). Sage Publications Ltd.
• Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT journal, 59(1), 31-38.
• Ho, M. C. (2015). The effects of face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review on EFL writers’ comments and revisions. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1).
• Hojeij, Z. & Baroudi, S. (2018). Student perceptions on peer feedback training using a blended method: A UAE case. Issues in Educational Research, 28(3), 655- 678. http://www.iier.org.au/iier28/hojeij.pdf
• Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 321-342.
• Huang, J. (2016). Contribution of online peer review to effectiveness of EFL writing. American Journal of Educational Research, 4(11), 811-816. Doi: 10.12691/education-4- 11-6
• Kaufman, J. H., & Schunn, C. D. (2011). Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: Their origin and impact on revision work. Instructional Science, 39(3), 387-406.
• Kessler, G. (2018). Technology and the future of language teaching. Foreign language annals, 51(1), 205-218.
• Kessler, G., & Bukowski, D. (2010). Developing collaborative autonomous learning abilities in computer mediated language learning: Attention to meaning among students in wiki space. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 41-58.
• Lei, X. (2008). Exploring a sociocultural approach to writing strategy research: Mediated actions in writing activities. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 217-236.
• Li, J. & Li, M. (2018). Turnitin and peer review in ESL academic writing classrooms. Language Learning & Technology, 22(1), 27-41. https://dx.doi.org/10125/44576
• Lin, W. C., & Yang, S. C. (2011). Exploring students’ perceptions of integrating wiki technology and peer feedback into English writing courses. English Teaching, 10(2), 88.
• 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.
• López-Pellisa, T., Rotger, N. & Rodríguez-Gallego, F. (2020). Collaborative writing at work:
• Peer feedback in a blended learning environment. Education and Information Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10312-2
• Mick, C. & Middlebrook, G. (2015). Asynchronous and synchronous modalities. In Beth L. Hewett & Kevin Eric DePew, (Eds.), Foundational practices of online writing instruction (pp.129-148).
• Hoomanfard, M. & Rahimi, M. (2018). A comparative study of the efficacy of teacher and peer online written corrective feedback on second language learners’ writing improvement. Scientific Journal of Language Research, 11(33), http://jlr.alzahra.ac.ir
• Moloudi, M. (2011). Online and face-to-face peer review: Measures of implementation in ESL writing Classes. Asian EFL Journal, 4-23.
• Razı, S. (2016). Open and anonymous peer review in a digital online environment compared in academic writing context. In C. Goria, O. Speicher, & S. Stollhans (Eds), Innovative language teaching and learning at university: Enhancing participation and collaboration (pp. 49-56). Dublin: Researchpublishing.net. http://dx.doi.org/10.14705/rpnet.2016.000404
• Roskams, T. (1999). Chinese EFL students’ attitudes to peer feedback and peer assessment in anextended pairwork setting. RELC Journal, 30(1), 79-123. doi: 10.1177/003368829903000105
• Saeed, M., Ghazali, K. & Aljaberi, M. (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, 6. DOI 10.1186/s41239-017-0084-8
• Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students’ reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153-173.
• Vorobel, O., & Kim, D. (2017). Adolescent ELLs’ collaborative writing practices in face-to-face and online contexts: From perceptions to action. System, 65, 78-89.
• Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.