HOW EFL UNIVERSITY STUDENTS USE ELECTRONIC PEER RESPONSE INTO REVISIONS

Wang  Song; Siriluck  Usaha

Authors

Wang Song School of English, College of International Studies, Guizhou University, Guiyang, Guizhou, People’s Republic of China
Siriluck Usaha School of English, Institute of Social Technology, Suranaree University of Technology, 111 University Avenue, Muang District, Nakhon Ratchasima, 30000, Thailand

Keywords:

Electronic peer response, face-to-face peer response, revision, EFL writing

Abstract

Although a considerable number of studies on L2 students’ compositions have shown that peerresponse has a profound and positive effect on the students’ revision, few investigations have examinedthe results of electronic peer response in comparison with face-to-face peer response. The present studyaimed to examine types of comments Chinese EFL university students made, how they used thecomments in revising their writing, and the writing quality after revision. Comments made andactually used by the two groups were categorized and counted, and the students’ essays were rated byfive trained raters. The findings revealed that the students’ focus on providing comments was differentin both groups. The face-to-face peer response group produced more comments, thus resulting in alarger number of comments incorporated into revisions. However, the electronic peer response groupproduced more revision-oriented comments. In terms of writing quality, they significantly outperformedthe face-to-face group.

References

Beauvois, M.H. (1997). High-tech, high-touch:From discussion to composition in the networkedclassroom. Computer AssistedLanguage Learning, 10(1):57-69.

Berg, E.C. (1999). The effects of trained peerresponse on ESL students’ revision typesand writing quality. Journal of SecondLanguage Writing, 8(3):215-241.

Braine, G. (1997). Beyond word processing:Networked computers in ESL writingclasses. Computers and Composition, 14(1):45-58.

Braine, G. (2001). A study of English as a foreignlanguage (EFL) writer on a local-areanetwork (LAN) and in traditional classes.Computers and Composition, 18(3):275-292.

Carson, J.G. and Nelson, G.L. (1996). Chinesestudents’ perceptions of ESL peer responsegroup interaction. Journal of SecondLanguage Writing, 5(1):1-l9.

Chun, D.M. (1994). Using computer networkingto facilitate the acquisition of interactivecompetence. System, 22(1):17-31.

Colomb, G. and Simutis, J.A. (1996). Visibleconversation and academic inquiry: CMCin a culturally diverse classroom. In:Computer-mediated communication:Linguistic, social, and cross-culturalperspectives. Herring, S.C. (ed). JohnBenjamins, Amsterdam, p. 203-224.

DiGiovanni, E. and Nagaswami, G. (2001).Online peer review: an alternative toface-to-face. ELT Journal, 55(3):263-272.

Ghaleb, M. (1993). Computer networking in auniversity first year ESL writing class: adescriptive study of the quantity andquality of writing in networking andtraditional writing classes, [dissertation,Ph.D. thesis]. The University of Texasat Austin, 268p.

Huang, S. (1999). EFL students’ use of ideasprovided by peers during prewritingdiscussions conducted on networkedcomputers. ERIC document ED 428563.

Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. 1sted. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 299p.

Hyland, K. and Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback insecond language writing: Contexts andissues. 1st ed. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 291p.

Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroominteraction with networked computers:Effects on quantity and characteristics oflanguage production. The ModernLanguage J., 79(4):457-476.

Leki, I. (1990). Potential problems with peerresponding in ESL writing classes.CATESOL J., 3(1):5-l9.

Liu, J. and Sadler, R.W. (2003). The effect andaffect of peer review in electronic versustraditional modes on L2 writing. J. ofEnglish for Academic Purposes, 2(3):193-227.

Liu, J. and Hansen, J.G. (2005). Peer responsein second language writing classroom. 4thed. The University of Michigan Press,179p.

Mendonca, C. and Johnson, K. (1994). Peerreview negotiations: revision activities inESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly,28(4):745-769.

Nelson, G. L. and Carson, J.G. (1998). ESLstudents’ perceptions of effectiveness inpeer response groups. J. Second LanguageWriting, 7(2):113-131.

Ortega, L. (1997). Processes and outcomes innetworked classroom interaction: Definingthe research agenda for L2 computerassistedclassroom discussion. LanguageLearning & Technology, 1(1):82-93.Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback inthe ESL writing class. ELT J., 59(1):23-29.

Schultz, J.M. (2000). Computers and collaborativewriting in the foreign languagecurriculum. In: Network-based languagelearning: Concepts and practice.Warschauer, M., and Kern, R., (eds).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,p. 121-150

Sullivan N. and Pratt, E. (1996). A comparativestudy of two ESL writing environments:A computer-assisted classroom anda traditional oral classroom. System,29(4):491-501.

Tang, G.M. and Tithecott, J. (1999). Peerresponse in ESL writing. TESL CanadaJ., 6(2):20-38.

Tusi, A.B.M. and Ng, M. (2000). Do secondaryL2 writers benefit from peer comments?J. of Second Language Writing, 9(2):147-170.

Ware, P.D. and Warschauer, M. (2006).Electronic peer feedback and secondlanguage writing. In: Feedback in secondlanguage writing: Contexts and issues.Hyland, K., and Hyland, F., (eds).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,p. 105-122.

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-faceand electronic discussion in the secondlanguage classroom. CALICO J.,13(2):7-26.

Warschauer, M. and Kern, R. (2000). Networkbasedlanguage teaching: Concepts andpractice. 1st ed. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 240p.

Weigle, S.C. (2002). Assessing Writing. 1st ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,268p.

Wu, W.S. (2006). The effect of blog peerreview and teacher feedback on therevisions of EFL writers. J. Educationand Foreign Languages and Literature,3(2):125-138

Yuan, Y. (2003). The use of chat rooms in anESL setting. Computers and Composition,20(2):194-206.