EFL writing revision with blind expert and peer review using a CMC open forum

This exploratory computer assisted-language learning (CALL) study used a computer-mediated communication (CMC) interface to allow English as a foreign language (EFL) writing students in classes at two universities to give each other anonymous peer feedback about essay-writing assignments reacting to...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Computer assisted language learning 2015-01, Vol.28 (1), p.58-80
Main Authors: Wu, Wen-Chi Vivian, Petit, Emily, Chen, Ching-Huei
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
CAI
CMC
College Students
Computer assisted instruction
Computer Mediated Communication
discussion forum
EFL writing revision
English (Second Language)
English language
Essays
expert review
Feedback
Feedback (Response)
Focus Groups
Foreign Countries
Foreign language instruction
Grammar
Instructional Design
Interviews
Peer review
Qualitative Research
Scores
Scoring Rubrics
Second Language Instruction
Second Language Learning
Statistical Analysis
Taiwan
Universities
Writing Assignments
Writing instruction
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This exploratory computer assisted-language learning (CALL) study used a computer-mediated communication (CMC) interface to allow English as a foreign language (EFL) writing students in classes at two universities to give each other anonymous peer feedback about essay-writing assignments reacting to selected news stories. Experts also provided feedback review. Follow-up questions were facilitated by the interface. The students felt that they benefitted from the instructional design, but found that the peer review focused most on things like grammar whereas the experts focused on organization and structure, making the expert feedback more valuable. Researchers found that more complex issues discussed in the source news articles resulted in lower outcome scores, based on a rubric, than did source material simpler issues. The study also compared performance of students with higher and lower ability and evaluated the quality of the review comments. Conclusions and recommendations for practice are provided. This study is significant because it used CALL/CMC technology to provide online interactivity between students and reviewers in an open forum that allowed students to seek follow-up clarification to the comments of reviewers. The review process, therefore, was not a one-way anonymous communication from reviewer to student but rather allowed interactive discussion of the points and suggestions made by the reviewers.
ISSN:0958-8221
1744-3210
DOI:10.1080/09588221.2014.937442