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

• 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
• ISSN: 0958-8221; 1744-3210
• DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2014.937442

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.