Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Amores, M. J. (1997). A new perspective on peer-editing. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 513–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: http://www.citejournal.org/vol8/iss4/general/article1.cfm.

  • 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 

  • Beckman, M. (1990). Collaborative learning: Preparation for the workplace and democracy? College Teaching, 38(4), 128–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student response to written work. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 181–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, H. F., & Lin, N. C. (2010). Exploring students’ perceptions of self-access English learning. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 2676–2680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: http://www.aahea.org/bulletins/articles/sevenprinciples1987.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, B. G. (1993). Tools for Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved July 4, 2010 from: http://teaching.berkeley.edu/bgd/collaborative.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, N., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Consistent practices in artifact-mediated collaboration. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(4), 481–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fei, H. (2006). Students’ perceptions of peer response activity in English writing instruction. Teaching English in China, 29(4), 48–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59(1), 31–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Hewett, B. (2000). Characteristics of interactive oral and computer mediated peer group talk and its influence on revision. Computers and Composition, 17, 265–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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: http://www.fernuni-hagen.de/ZIFF/synchronous.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruse, K. (2004), What are “Synchronous” and “Asynchronous” Training? Retrieved January 13, 2011 from: http://www.msmc.la.edu/include/learning_resources/online_course_environment/async_sync.pdf.

  • Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong Secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 144–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Liu, J., & Hansen, J. (2002). Peer Response in Second Language Writing Classrooms. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mendonça, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745–769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mills, C., & Durden, W. G. (1992). Cooperative learning and ability grouping: An issue of choice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 11–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, M. (1992). An L2 writing group: Task and social dimensions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 171–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Dwyer, S. (2006). The English teacher as facilitator and authority. TESL-EJ, 9(4), Retrieved August 23, 2010 from: http://tesl-ej.org/pdf/ej36/a2.pdf.

  • 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: http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED448443.pdf

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Radencich, M., & McKay, L. (Eds.). (1995). Flexible grouping for literacy in the elementary grades. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saito, H., & Fujita, T. (2004). Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writing classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 31–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 89–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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: http://learningcommons.evergreen.edu/pdf/collab.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 147–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 491–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warschauer, M. (2002). Networking into academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 45–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Xu, Y. (2000). Case study on impact of peer revision on writing. Journal of F.A.C, (4), 86-89.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yukawa, J. (2006). Co-reflection in online learning: Collaborative critical thinking as narrative. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 203–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 195–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Network Education, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, 28 Xinjiekou Outer Street,, Xicheng District,, Beijing, 100088, China

    Zi-gang Ge

  2. Room 414, School of Network Education, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, 28 Xinjiekou Outer Street,, Xicheng District,, Beijing, 100088, China

    Zi-gang Ge

Authors
  1. Zi-gang Ge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zi-gang Ge.

Appendices

Appendix A: Rules for grading writings

  1. 1.

    The full mark of a writing is 100 points.

  2. 2.

    Writings unrelated to the given topic means 100 points to be deducted.

  3. 3.

    Word count fewer than 150 means 40 points to be deducted.

  4. 4.

    Any mistake in grammar or vocabulary means 5 points to be deducted.

  5. 5.

    Wrong use of transitional words means 5 points to be deducted.

  6. 6.

    Wrong use of punctuation marks means 2 points to be deducted.

  7. 7.

    Illegibility means 1-3 points to be deducted.

Appendix B: Email survey

Please read the following statements and check the boxes next to the answers which you think are most appropriate to you.

  1. 1.

    I enjoy reviewing others’ writings.

Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Slightly Agree □ disagree □ Strongly Disagree □

  1. 2.

    The synchronous classes are still necessary.

Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Slightly Agree □ disagree □ Strongly Disagree □

  1. 3.

    I think it is interesting and challenging to review my classmates’ writings.

Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Slightly Agree □ disagree □ Strongly Disagree □

  1. 4.

    I will primarily focus on the grammatical mistakes when reviewing others’ works.

Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Slightly Agree □ disagree □ Strongly Disagree □

  1. 5.

    I will rewrite on the topic after obtaining others’ comments on the previous writing.

Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Slightly Agree □ disagree □ Strongly Disagree □

  1. 6.

    I need more online contests.

Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Slightly Agree □ disagree □ Strongly Disagree □

  1. 7.

    I think it is necessary for the teacher to provide his comment on my writings.

Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Slightly Agree □ disagree □ Strongly Disagree □

  1. 8.

    I would like to continue with the peer review process next year.

Strongly Agree □ Agree □ Slightly Agree □ disagree □ Strongly Disagree □

  1. 9.

    State your perceptions of the peer review process.

Appendix C: Some students’ answers to question 9 in the email survey

  1. 1.

    Student 1 (Group A) (translated from Chinese): I felt quite excited to acquire the teacher’s role at first, but felt bored as time went on. There were so many mistakes and errors I needed to point out in others’ compositions. I had little time to check my own work. Besides, I found that some comments on my work were not right. This greatly upset me.

  2. 2.

    Student 2 (Group A) (translated from Chinese): The editing work was interesting at the beginning, but I found it quite boring later. I found others’ comments on my writings were always so few and could hardly do me any good. In my mind, I think I need to collaborate with more competent and responsible peers. So I will say that I do not like the peer review experience. I paid too much but got too little.

  3. 3.

    Student 3 (Group B) (translated from Chinese): I like the experience. I got a lot of help from it, and I want to continue. By the way, I know the teacher is very busy, but can he provide his comments on my writings or perhaps can he comment more on our writings in the synchronous classes?

  4. 4.

    Student 4 (Group B) (translated from Chinese): I have really learnt a lot from the peer review process. I like to see others’ comments on my compositions, especially those from my classmates. One last thing, I found some comments are not so reasonable. Is it possible that I misunderstood their ideas?

  5. 5.

    Student 5 (Group C) (translated from Chinese): At the end of this semester, I feel that my writing abilities have been greatly improved. Thanks to the help from my classmates. But I think I still fall behind others. Maybe I need more such experiences. As you know my English is poor, so I often felt it was very difficult for me to comment on others’ writings. But I still tried hard to accomplish the task. I would use dictionaries or surf the Internet. Anyway, I was kept busy in the process. Maybe this is worthwhile.

  6. 6.

    Student 6 (Group C) (translated from Chinese): I like to hear others’ ideas about my writings. I think these ideas are quite useful and helpful for me to revise my compositions. I’d like hear the teacher’s opinions, too? Can he provide his? In addition, I think I need the synchronous classes, because I often feel quite uncertain and helpless when I study asynchronously. Sometimes, I don’t know what to do and where to begin in my learning. Asynchronous study gives me time, space and great autonomy, but as my English is poor I still need direct instructions from the teacher in synchronous classes.

  7. 7.

    Student 7 (Group C) (translated from Chinese): I have only one feeling that my English is so poor. Sometimes I felt quite upset. Why are others’ writings so good? Do you think I can catch up with those high-achievers, my dear teacher? Anyway, I will give it a last try next semester.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ge, Zg. Exploring e-learners’ perceptions of net-based peer-reviewed English writing. Computer Supported Learning 6, 75–91 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-010-9103-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-010-9103-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation