The effect of web-based peer feedback on students’ writing achievement

Abstract

Peer feedback via CMC modalities has become an alternative to conventional in-class peer feedback due to the rapid rise of educational technology and the widespread use of computer-mediated communication in L2 education. Despite the fact that much research has been published on the benefits of CMC tools for enhancing L2 proficiency, the number of studies on peer feedback provided on online platforms and its effect on L2 writing achievement is limited. Therefore, the current research, with the participation of 42 university preparatory class engineering students, aimed to investigate the effectiveness of web-based peer feedback on L2 writing achievement and their views towards web-based peer feedback. For this study, the purposive sampling method was employed. To collect the data, pre-and post-tests were used and semi-structured interviews were conducted with the experimental group members. The findings have indicated that compared to traditional teacher feedback, web-based peer feedback is found to be more effective in improving students’ L2 writing achievement. Regarding the views of participants, web-based platforms to give feedback has several advantages, including practicality, ease of access, motivation, and continuous learning. The quality of the input, a lack of technological resources, or connectivity problems were regarded as the disadvantages.

Keywords

• web-based feedback
• peer feedback
• web-based peer feedback

References

1. Adams, W. C. (2015). Conducting semi-structured interviews. In K.E. Newcomer, H.P. Hatry, J.S. Wholey (Eds.), Handbook of practical program evaluation, (4th ed., pp. 492-505). Wiley.
2. Al-Darei, I. S. & Ahmed, A. M. (2022). The effect of feedback type in the e-learning environment on students’ achievement and motivation. Journal of Educational Technology & Online Learning, 5(3), 694-705.
3. Awada, G. M., & Diab, N. M. (2021). Effect of online peer review versus face-to-Face peer review on argumentative writing achievement of EFL learners. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-19.
4. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The value of a focused approach to written corrective feedback. ELT Journal, 63(3), 204-211.
5. Blake, R. J. (2011). Current trends in online language learning. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 31, 19-35.
6. Braine, G. (1997). Beyond word processing: Networked computers in ESL writing classes. Computers and Composition, 14(1), 45-58.
7. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245-281.
8. Cao, S., Zhou, S., Luo, Y., Wang, T., Zhou, T., & Xu, Y. (2022). A review of the ESL/EFL learners’ gains from online peer feedback on English writing. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1035803.

9. Chang, C. F. (2009). Peer review through synchronous and asynchronous CMC modes: A case study in a Taiwanese college English writing course. The JALTCALL Journal, 5(1), 45-64.
10. Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education, 48(3), 409-426.
11. Corder, S. P. (1982). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford University Press.
12. Creswell, J. W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative (Vol. 7). Prentice-Hall.
13. Davies, N. F., & Omberg, M. (1987). Peer group teaching and the composition class. System, 15(3), 313-323.
14. Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1974). Errors and strategies in child second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 129-136.
15. Ellis, R. (2006). Researching the effects of form-focussed instruction on L2 acquisition. AILA Review, 19(1), 18-41.
16. Felix, U. (2003). Language learning online: Towards best practice (Vol. 3). CRC Press.
17. Guardado, M., & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 24(4), 443-461.
18. Hayes, J. R. (2012). Modeling and remodeling writing. Written Communication, 29(3), 369-388.
19. Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. S. (1980). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 3-30). Erlbaum.
20. Hendrickson, J. M. (1978). Error correction in foreign language teaching: Recent theory, research, and practice. The Modern Language Journal, 62(8), 387-398.
21. Jones, R. H., Garralda, A., Li, D. C., & Lock, G. (2006). Interactional dynamics in online and face-to-face peer-tutoring sessions for second language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(1), 1-23.
22. Lafford, P. A., & Lafford, B. A. (2005). CMC technologies for teaching foreign languages: What's on the horizon?. Calico Journal, 679-709.
23. Lai, C., & Li, G. (2011). Technology and task-based language teaching: A critical review. CALICO Journal, 28(2), 498-521.
24. Lam, S. T. E. (2021). A web-based feedback platform for peer and teacher feedback on writing: An Activity Theory perspective. Computers and Composition, 62, 102666.
25. Latifi, S., Noroozi, O., Hatami, J., & Biemans, H. J. (2021). How does online peer feedback improve argumentative essay writing and learning?. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 58(2), 195-206.
26. Latifi, S., Noroozi, O., & Talaee, E. (2021a). Peer feedback or peer feedforward? Enhancing students’ argumentative peer learning processes and outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(2), 768-784.
27. Lee, I. (2012). Feedback revolution: What gets in the way? ELT Journal, 66(3), 353-360.
28. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1990). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching: Effects on second language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(4), 429-448.
29. Liu, J., & Edwards, J. G. H. (2018). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. University of Michigan Press.
30. 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.
31. Longhurst, R. (2003). Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. In S. Holloway, S. P. Rice, G. Valentine (Eds.), Key methods in geography (pp. 143-156). Wiley.
32. Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19(1), 37-66.
33. Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Language Teaching, 46(1), 1-40.
34. Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think?. ELT Journal, 46(3), 274-284.
35. Meskill, C., & Anthony, N. (2007). Form-focused communicative practice via CMC: What language learners say. Calico Journal, 25(1), 69-90.
36. Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1993). Peer response groups: Do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts?. TESOL Quarterly, 27(1), 135-141.
37. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.
38. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 42, 533-544.
39. Pham, H. T. P. (2022). Computer-mediated and face-to-face peer feedback: Student feedback and revision in EFL writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(9), 2112-2147.
40. Ma, Q. (2020). Examining the role of inter-group peer online feedback on wiki writing in an EAP context. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(3), 197-216.
41. Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23-30.
42. Rothschild, D., & Klingenberg, F. (1990). Self and peer evaluation of writing in the interactive ESL classroom: An exploratory study. TESL Canada Journal, 52-65.
43. Sheen, Y. & R. Ellis (2011). Corrective feedback in language teaching. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, (Vol. 2. pp. 593–610), Routledge.
44. Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 24(4), 491-501.
45. Tian, L., & Zhou, Y. (2020). Learner engagement with automated feedback, peer feedback and teacher feedback in an online EFL writing context. System, 91, 102247.
46. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
47. Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2016). Peer feedback in second language writing (2005–2014). Language Teaching, 49(4), 461-493.
48. Zhang, M., He, Q., Du, J., Liu, F., & Huang, B. (2022). Learners’ perceived advantages and social-affective dispositions toward online peer feedback in academic writing. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 973478.
49. Zheng, B., & Warschauer, M. (2017). Epilogue: Second language writing in the age of computer-mediated communication. Journal of Second Language Writing, 36, 61-67.
50. Zhu, W. (2001). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 251-276.
51. Zong, Z., Schunn, C. D., & Wang, Y. (2021). What aspects of online peer feedback robustly predict growth in students’ task performance?. Computers in Human Behavior, 124, 106924.