Exploring e-learners’ perceptions of net-based peer-reviewed English writing

  • Zi-gang Ge


This study aims to investigate the effectiveness of a net-based peer review process for improving Chinese adult e-learners’ English writing ability. A class of 36 students participated in this study, which lasted one school year of two semesters. Participants were divided into three groups according to their English writing abilities at the beginning of the study. They attended regular synchronous classes and took writing assignments home. The feature of this experiment is that their writings were submitted for peers’ reviews from another group. At the end of each semester, an online writing contest was organized and all the participants took part in order to examine learning outcomes. A survey at the end of the study was also conducted to obtain students’ perceptions of the process. The result of the study shows that all the participants obtained satisfactory results, but the students with lower writing ability made more progress than those with higher ability. The finding also indicates that students with higher writing ability tend to become discouraged if they are grouped with lower-ability students for too long.


Distance education Peer review Teaching/learning strategies Pedagogical issues 


  1. Amores, M. J. (1997). A new perspective on peer-editing. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 513–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. An, H., Kim, S., & Kim, B. (2008). Teacher perspectives on online collaborative learning: Factors perceived as facilitating and impeding successful online group work. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(1). Retrieved July 10, 2010 from:
  3. Antil, L., Jenkins, J., Wayne, S., & Vadasy, P. (1998). Cooperative learning: Prevalence, conceptualizations, and the relationship between research and practice. American Educational Research Journal, 35(3), 419–454.Google Scholar
  4. Beckman, M. (1990). Collaborative learning: Preparation for the workplace and democracy? College Teaching, 38(4), 128–133.Google Scholar
  5. Chaulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student response to written work. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 181–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheng, H. F., & Lin, N. C. (2010). Exploring students’ perceptions of self-access English learning. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 2676–2680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7. Retrieved September 3, 2010 from: Scholar
  8. Davis, B. G. (1993). Tools for Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved July 4, 2010 from: Scholar
  9. Dembo, M. H., & McAuliffe, T. J. (1987). Effects of perceived ability and grade status on social interaction and influence in cooperative groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 415–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dwyer, N., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Consistent practices in artifact-mediated collaboration. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(4), 481–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fei, H. (2006). Students’ perceptions of peer response activity in English writing instruction. Teaching English in China, 29(4), 48–52.Google Scholar
  12. Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59(1), 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haythornthwaite, C., & Kazmer, M. M. (2002). Bringing the Internet home: Adult distance learners and their Internet, Home and Work worlds. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The internet in everyday life (pp. 431–463). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Hewett, B. (2000). Characteristics of interactive oral and computer mediated peer group talk and its influence on revision. Computers and Composition, 17, 265–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (1998). Cooperative CBI: The effects of heterogeneous versus homogeneous grouping on the learning of progressively complex concepts. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4, 413–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2004). Cooperation and the use of technology. In D. H. Johanssen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 785–811). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  17. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 4, George Washington University.Google Scholar
  18. Keegan, D., Schwenke, E., Fritsch, H., Kenny, G., Kismihók, G., Bíró, M., et al. (2005). Virtual classrooms in educational provision: Synchronous elearning systems for European institutions. Hagen: FernUniversitaet (ZIFF). Retrieved November 20, 2010 from: Scholar
  19. Kerr, N. L., & Brunn, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 78–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kruse, K. (2004), What are “Synchronous” and “Asynchronous” Training? Retrieved January 13, 2011 from:
  21. Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong Secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 144–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margin: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 57–68). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Liu, J. (1998). Peer reviews with the instructor: Seeking alternatives in ESL writing. In J. C. Richards (Ed.), Teaching in action: Case studies from second language classrooms (pp. 236–240). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.Google Scholar
  25. Liu, J., & Hansen, J. (2002). Peer Response in Second Language Writing Classrooms. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  26. 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, 30–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mendonça, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mills, C., & Durden, W. G. (1992). Cooperative learning and ability grouping: An issue of choice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mittan, R. (1989). The Peer Review Process: Harnessing Students Communicative Power. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in Writing: Empowering SLA Students (pp. 207–219). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  30. Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, M. (1992). An L2 writing group: Task and social dimensions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 171–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Dwyer, S. (2006). The English teacher as facilitator and authority. TESL-EJ, 9(4), Retrieved August 23, 2010 from:
  32. Panitz, T. (1997). Collaborative versus cooperative learning: A comparison of the two concepts which will help us understand the underlying nature of interactive learning. Retrieved July 24, 2010 from:
  33. Pfister, H. R. (2005). How to support synchronous net-based learning discourses: Principles and perspectives. In R. Bromme, F. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication (pp. 39–57). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Qi, Y. (2004). The effects of teacher versus peer feedback on revision of English majors’ argumentative writing. Foreign Language Teaching Abroad, 4, 47–53.Google Scholar
  35. Radencich, M., & McKay, L. (Eds.). (1995). Flexible grouping for literacy in the elementary grades. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  36. Robert, L. P., & Dennis, A. R. (2005). Paradox of richness: A cognitive model of media choice. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(1), 10–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Saito, H., & Fujita, T. (2004). Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writing classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Salomon, G. (1992). What does the design of effective CSCL require and how do we study its effects? ACM SIGCUE Outlook, 21(3), 62–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293–336.Google Scholar
  41. Smith, B. L., & MacGregor, J. T. (1992). What Is Collaborative Learning? In A. S. Goodsell, M. R. Maher, V. Tinto, B. L. Smith, & J. MacGregor (Eds.), Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education (pp. 9–22). University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment, Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved August 5, 2010 from: Scholar
  42. Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 147–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 491–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Warschauer, M. (2002). Networking into academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 45–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Webb, N. M., Nemer, K., Chizhik, A., & Sugrue, B. (1998). Equity issues in collaborative group assessment: Group composition and performance. American Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 607–651.Google Scholar
  48. Xu, Y. (2000). Case study on impact of peer revision on writing. Journal of F.A.C, (4), 86-89.Google Scholar
  49. Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yukawa, J. (2006). Co-reflection in online learning: Collaborative critical thinking as narrative. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 203–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 195–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zhang, S. (1995). Re-examining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhang, S. (2008). Assessing the impact of peer revision on English on English writing of tertiary EFL learners. Teaching English in China, 31(2), 47–54.Google Scholar
  54. Zhao, H. H. (2010). Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: A comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 15(1), 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of the Learning Sciences, Inc.; Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Network EducationBeijing University of Posts and Telecommunications BeijingChina
  2. 2.Room 414, School of Network EducationBeijing University of Posts and Telecommunications BeijingChina

Personalised recommendations