Integrating Computer-Mediated Peer Review in ESL/EFL Higher Education: A Systematic Review

Nur Arifah Drajati; Dewi Rochsantiningsih; Dewi Cahyaningrum; Ellisa Indriyani Putri Handayani; Endah Kurtianti

doi:10.35445/alishlah.v15i1.2872

Integrating Computer-Mediated Peer Review in ESL/EFL Higher Education: A Systematic Review

Nur Arifah Drajati, Dewi Rochsantiningsih, Dewi Cahyaningrum, Ellisa Indriyani Putri Handayani, Endah Kurtianti

Abstract

This review of the literature gives an overview of how technology has been incorporated into ESL/EFL peer review over the last two decades. Eight peer-reviewed articles contextualized in L2 writing classes were reviewed, capitalizing on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2010 procedures. This study applied Lai's (2010) three dimensions (perception, process, and product) to classify constructs in research papers. Students favoured integrating technology into peer review as they recognized the significance of giving and receiving peer reviews. Since their teachers did not actively intervene during their interactions, it was convenient for them to exchange and negotiate the reviews. Peer review could therefore encourage their autonomous learning. Concerning the results of the review, they made more comments that were revision-oriented and addressed global issues. The implications for future research are twofold. Pedagogically, teachers should thoroughly prepare their students for integrating new technology into peer-review writing instruction. Effective computerized peer interaction can only occur with teachers' guidance and supervision and the technology's user-friendliness. Practically, teachers can show students proper response rhetoric examples and instruct them on how to create the most valuable, pertinent, and use peer reviews to inform the next revision and useful online comments. Further, the ability to generate qualified feedback is a crucial graduate skill, and as such, higher education curricula should devote far more attention.

Keywords

comments, computer-mediated, peer review, research, writing

Full Text:

PDF

References

*Anderson, P., Bergman, B., Bradley, L., Gustafsson, M., & Matzke, A. (2010). Peer reviewing across the Atlantic: Patterns and trends in L1 and L2 comments made in an asynchronous online collaborative learning exchange between technical communication students in Sweden and in the United States. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 24(3), 296–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651910363270

Bahari, A. (2020). Computer-mediated feedback for L2 learners: Challenges versus affordances. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12481

Boase-Jelinek, D., Parker, J., & Herrington, J. (2013). Student reflection and learning through peer reviews. Issues in Educational Research, 23(2), 119–131.

*Bradley, L. (2014). Peer-reviewing in an intercultural wiki environment - student interaction and reflections. Computers and Composition, 34, 80–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2014.09.008

*Chang, C.-F. (2009). Peer-review through synchronous and asynchronous CMC modes: A case study in a Taiwanese college English writing course. The JALT CALL Journal, 5(1), 45–64.

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, A.-H. (2015). Examining the Effects of Peer Review via the Computer-mediated Communication Device. Intergrams, 15. Retrieved from http://benz.nchu.edu.tw/~intergrams/intergrams/152/152-chen.pdf

Chen, T. (2014). Technology-supported peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing classes: a research synthesis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.960942

Cheung, Y. L. (2011). Critical feedback on peer review research. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 535–538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.137

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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088306289261

Choi, J. (2014). Online Peer Discourse in a Writing Classroom. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 26(2), 217–231.

Coniam, D., & Lee, M. W. K. (2008). Incorporating wikis into the teaching of English writing. Hong Kong Teachers’ Centre Journal, 7, 52–67.

Cotterall, S. (1995). Readiness for autonomy: Investigating learner beliefs. System, 23(2), 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(95)00008-8

DiGiovanni, E., & Nagaswami, G. (2001). Online peer review: An alternative to face-to-face? ELT Journal, 55(3), 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/55.3.263

Dippold, D. (2009). Peer feedback through blogs: Student and teacher perceptions in an advanced German class. ReCALL, 21(1), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/S095834400900010X

Dizon, G. (2016). A comparative study of Facebook vs. paper-and-pencil writing to improve L2 writing skills. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(8), 1249–1258. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2016.1266369

Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2017). Exploring the impact of online peer-editing using Google Docs on EFL learners’ academic writing skills: a mixed methods study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(8), 787–815. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2017.1363056

Ferris, D. R., & Hedgcock, J. S. (2005). Building a community of writers: Principles of peer response. In Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, process, and practice (2nd ed., pp. 223–259). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

*Gedera, D. S. P. (2012). The dynamics of blog peer feedback in ESL classroom. Teaching English with Technology, 12(4), 16–30.

*Guardado, M., & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 24(4), 443–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2007.03.002

Ho, P. V. P., Phung, L. T. K., Oanh, T. T. T., & Giao, N. Q. (2020). Should Peer E-comments Replace Traditional Peer Comments? International Journal of Instruction, 13(1), 295–314. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13120a

Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 321–342. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr169oa

Huisman, B., Saab, N., van den Broek, P., & van Driel, J. (2018). The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: a Meta-Analysis. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896

Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399

*Jin, L., & Zhu, W. (2010). Dynamic motives in ESL computer-mediated peer response. Computers and Composition, 27(4), 284–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2010.09.001

Lai, Y. H. (2010). Which do students prefer to evaluate their essays: Peers or computer program. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 432–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00959.x

*Li, J., & Li, M. (2018). Turnitin and peer review in ESL academic writing classrooms. Language Learning and Technology, 22(1), 27–41.

Li, M. (2018). Computer-mediated collaborative writing in L2 contexts: an analysis of empirical research. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(8), 882–904. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1465981

Liang, M. (2010). Using synchronous online peer response groups in EFL writing: Revision-related discourse. Language Learning and Technology, 14(1), 45–64.

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.

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, 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, J., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Understanding the effectiveness of online peer assessment: A path model. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(3), 313–333. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.46.3.f

Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (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

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1556703

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2010). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. International Journal of Surgery, 8(5), 336–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007

Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2013). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.795518

Pham, V. P. H., & Usaha, S. (2009). Blog-Based Peer Response for EFL Writing: a Case Study in Viet Nam. AsiaCall Online Journal, 4(1), 1–29.

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

*Razak, N. A., & Saeed, M. A. (2014). Collaborative writing revision process among learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) in an online community of practice (CoP). Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(5), 580–599.

Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59, 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci003

Rouhi, A., & Azizian, E. (2013). Peer review: Is Giving Corrective Feedback Better than Receiving it in L2 Writing? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 1349–1354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.042

Saldaña, J. (2013). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers (2nd Ed.). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Retrieved from www.sagepublications.com

Sánchez-Naranjo, J. (2019). Peer review and training: Pathways to quality and value in second language writing. Foreign Language Annals, 52(3), 612–643. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12414

Semeraro, J., & Moore, N. S. (2016). The Use of Google Docs Technology to Support Peer Revision. Writing Instruction to Support Literacy Success, 7, 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2048-045820160000007013

Song, W., & Usaha, S. (2009). How EFL University Students Use Electronic Peer Response into Revisions. Suranaree Journal of Science and Technology, 16(3), 263–275.

Suwantarathip, O., & Wichadee, S. (2014). The effects of collaborative writing activity using Google Docs on students’ writing abilities. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 13(2), 148–156.

Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/713611428

Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do Secondary L2 Writers Benefit from Peer Comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00022-9

van Popta, E., Kral, M., Camp, G., Martens, R. L., & Simons, P. R. J. (2017). Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider. Educational Research Review, 20, 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.10.003

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press.

Wang, W. (2014). Students’ perceptions of rubric-referenced peer feedback on EFL writing: A longitudinal inquiry. Assessing Writing, 19, 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.008

Yusof, J., Manan, N. A. A., & Alias, A. A. (2011). Guided Peer Feedback on Academic Writing Tasks using Facebook Notes: An Exploratory Study. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 67, 216–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.324

Zhu, Q., & Carless, D. (2018). Dialogue within peer feedback processes: clarification and negotiation of meaning. Higher Education Research and Development, 37(4), 883–897. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1446417

Zhu, W. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on students comments and interaction. Written Communication, 12(4), 492–528. https://doi.org/doi:10.1177/0741088395012004004

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v15i1.2872