Email this article EFL LEARNERS' ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS OF ONLINE AND CONVENTIONAL PEER WRITTEN FEEDBACK: A TERTIARY LEVEL EXPERIENCE
Abstract
The present study attempted to uncover EFL learners’ perceptions of and attitudes towards peer feedback in writing classes under conventional and computer-mediated conditions. In so doing, the participants who were university upper-intermediate literature sophomores studying in two intact classes were assigned randomly to two control (conventional) and experimental (online) peer feedback treatments. The participants of the two groups took two questionnaires at the beginning and at the end of the treatment. Some of the participants took part in follow-up interviews to disclose their perceptions, attitudes, and experiences of conventional and online peer feedback activity. The results indicated that the participants of both groups were content with their experience of peer feedback activity. They found peer feedback an acceptable activity which provided them with a non-threatening condition to exchange ideas. However, at the end of the treatment, the online group students had more positive perceptions of and attitudes towards peer feedback activity.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
AbuSeileek, A., & Abualsha’r, A. (2014) Using peer computer-mediated corrective feedback to support EFL learners’ writing. Language Learning & Technology, 18(1), 76–95.
Ary, D., Jacobs, C. L., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to Research in Education. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Belcher, D. (1999). Authentic interaction in a virtual classroom: Leveling the playing field in a graduate seminar. Computer and Composition, 16, 253-267.
Belz, J., & Kinginger, C. (2003). Discourse options and the development of pragmatic competence by classroom learners of German: The case of address forms. Language Learning, 53(4), 591-647.
Breuch, L. (2004). Virtual peer review. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Bruffee, K. (1984). Peer tutoring and the ‘conversation of mankind.’ In G. Olson (Ed.), Writing Centers: Theory and administration (pp. 3-15). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Bruner, J. S. (1978). The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In A. Sinclair, R. Jarvella & W. J. M. Levelt (Eds.), The Child’s Conception of Language. (pp. 241-256). New York: Springer-Verlag.
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.
Chapelle, C. A. (2003). English Language Learning and Technology. Dordrecht: John Benjamins.
Chuang, H. C. (2004). Taiwanese students’ perceptions on peer review activity. Unpublished MA thesis. Ming Cuang University.
Colomb, G. C., & Simutis, J. A. (1996). Visible conversation and academic inquiry: CMC in a culturally diverse classroom. In S. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 203-222). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Cooper, M. M., & Selfe, C. L. (1990). Computer conferences and learning: Authority, resistance, and internally persuasive discourse. College English, 52, 847-869.
Corneli, J., & Danoff, C. J. (2011). Paragogy: Synergizing individual and organizational learning. In the 1st International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge.
DiGiovanni, E. & Nagaswami, G. (2001). Online peer review: an alternative to face-to-face? ELT Journal, 55: 263-72.
Dippold, D. (2009). Peer feedback through blogs: Student and teacher perceptions in an advanced German class. Recall, 21(1): 21-36.
Englert, C. S., Wu, X., & Zhao, Y. (2005). Cognitive tools for writing: Scaffolding the performance of students through technology. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20 (3), 184-198.
Fujieda, Y. (2007). Perceptional change toward peer response: How writers incorporated feedback into revisions. KyoaiGakuen Journal, 7, 139-153.
Ganqa, N. H. (2012). Research supervision experiences of masters in education students at a South African University. Unpublished Phd dissertation. University of Fort Hare.
Guardado, M. & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 24, 443–461.
Hiltz, S. R. & Turoff, M. (1978). The network nation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ho, M.C., & Savignon, S. J. (2007). Face-to-face and Computer-mediated Peer Review in EFL Writing. CALICO Journal, 24(2), 269-290.
Huynh, M. H. (2008). The impact of online peer feedback on EFL learners’ motivation in writing and writing performance: a case study at Can Tho University. Unpublished MA thesis at Can Tho University, Vietnam.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. New York: Cambridge University.
Jacobs, G. M. & McCafferty, S. G. (2006). Connections between cooperative learning and second language learning and teaching. In: S. G. McCafferty, G. M. Jacobs & A. C. DaSilvaIddings (Eds.), Cooperative Learning and Second Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kamhi-Stein, L. D. (2000). Looking to the future of TESOL teacher education: Web-based bulletin board discussions in a methods course. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 423-455.
Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with network computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 457-476.
Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to andragogy. Chicago: Follett.
Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Poehner, M. E. (Eds.). (2008). Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages. London: Equinox.
Liu, J., & Hansen, J.G. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Marefat, F. (2004). Using Email to increase student feedback in an EFL writing class. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities of Shiraz University, 21 (1), 126- 133.
Pallant, J. (2007). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Palmquist, M. E. (1993). Network-supported interaction in two writing classrooms. Computers and Composition, 9(4), 25-57.
Pellettieri, J. (2000). Negotiation in cyberspace: The role of chatting in the development of grammatical competence. In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 59–86). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rahimi, M. (2013). Is training peer reviewers worth its while? The effect of training peer reviewers on the quality of their feedback and writing. Language Teaching Research, 17 (1), 67-89.
Rahimi, M., & Mehrpour, S. (2009). A complete guide to academic writing for EFL learners: Writing paragraphs and essays. Shiraz, Iran: Shiraz University Press.
Rollinson, P. (2004). Experiences and perceptions in an ESL academic writing peer response group. Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 12, 79-108.
Roskams, T. (1999). Chinese EFL students' attitudes to peer feedback and peer assessment in an extended pairwork setting. RELC Journal, 30 (1), 79-123.
Roux-Rodriguez, R. (2003). Computer-mediated peer response and its impact on revision in the college Spanish classroom: A case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, USA.
Shang, H. F. (2007). An exploratory study of e-mail application on FL writing performance. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(1), 79-96.
Soleimani, H., & Hanafi, S. (2013). Iranian Medical Students’ Attitudes towards English Language Learning. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, 4 (12), 3816-3823.
Spitzer, M. (1990). Local and global networking: Implications for the future. In D. Holdstein & C. Selfe (Eds.), Computers and writing: Theory, research, practice (186- 207). New York, NY: MLA.
Tang, G. M., & Tithecott, J. (1999). Peer response in ESL writing. TESL Canada Journal, 6(2), 20-38.
Tsui, A.B.M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9 (2), 147-170.
Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21, 217–235.
Villamil, O. S., & Guerrero, M. C. M. de. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 51-75.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ware, D. & Warschauer, M. (2006) Electronic feedback and second language writing. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.) Feedback in second language writing: Context and issues (pp. 105-122). London: Cambridge University Press.
Ware, P. D. (2004). Confidence and competition online: ESL student perspectives on web-based discussions in the classroom. Computers and Composition, 21 (4), 451 468.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic communication in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13, 7-25.
White, C. (2003). Language learning in distance education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wu, W. (2006). The effect of blog peer review and teacher feedback on the revisions of ESL writers. Journal of Education and Foreign Languages and Literature 3, 125-139.
Xu, Y., (2007). Re-examining the effects and affects of electronic peer reviews in a first-year composition class. The Reading Matrix, 7(2), 1-21.
Yang, Y. F. (2010). Students’ reflection on online self-correction and peer review to improve writing. Computers & Education, 55. 1202–1210.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24200/mjll.vol6iss1pp49-62
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This journal and its content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.