1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Chinese as a Second Language. The journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, USA
  4. Volume 54, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 54, Issue 3
  • ISSN 2451-828x
  • E-ISSN: 2451-8298
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Online peer feedback is advocated but not sufficiently used or researched in language classrooms, especially in Chinese as a foreign language (CFL) context. There is not sufficient evidence on the relationship of peer feedback type and revision, and controversies remain regarding learners’ perceptions of peer feedback, especially in terms of its trustworthiness. This study examines the typology, uptake, and learner perceptions of online peer feedback in an advanced level CFL classroom. Participants’ first drafts, feedback, and revisions in four writing assignments were analyzed and interviews were conducted. Feedback was mostly given on vocabulary, grammar, and character. 70.9% of the corrective feedback led to successful revision, and , , and most frequently led to revision. Participants generally trusted peer feedback, while they were also autonomous in giving feedback and deciding on uptakes. Learners’ positive perceptions include the comprehensibility of peer feedback and a sense of supportive community.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/csl.19012.zhu
2020-08-28
2024-09-14

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/csl.19012.zhu
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. AbuSeileek, A.
    (2013) Using track changes and word processor to provide corrective feedback to learners in writing. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(4), 319–333. doi:  10.1111/jcal.12004
     https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12004 [Google Scholar]
  2. AbuSeileek, A., & Abualsha’r, A.
    (2014) Using peer computer-mediated corrective feedback to support EFL learners’ writing. Language Learning & Technology, 18(1), 76–95.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines
    ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012 Alexandria, VA: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
  4. Berg, E. C.
    (1999) The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 215–237. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(99)80115‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80115-5 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U.
    (2009) The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322–329. 10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2008.12.006 [Google Scholar]
  6. (2010) Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207–217. 10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2010.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chandler, J.
    (2003) The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(3), 267–296. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(03)00038‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9 [Google Scholar]
  8. Chang, C. F.
    (2012) Peer review via three modes in an EFL writing course. Computers and Composition, 29(1), 63–78. 10.1016/j.compcom.2012.01.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2012.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cheng, P. C.
    (2009) Integrating online peer reviews into a college writing class in Taiwan (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University).
  10. Cho, K., & MacArthur, C.
    (2011) Learning by reviewing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 73–84. 10.1037/a0021950
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021950 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K.
    (2011) Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 629–643. 10.1007/s11251‑010‑9146‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9146-1 [Google Scholar]
  12. Choi, J. W.
    (2008) The role of online collaboration in promoting ESL writing. English Language Teaching, 1(1), 34–49. 10.5539/elt.v1n1p34
     https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v1n1p34 [Google Scholar]
  13. Ciftci, H., & Kocoglu, Z.
    (2012) Effects of peer e-feedback on Turkish EFL students’ writing performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(1), 61–84. 10.2190/EC.46.1.c
     https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.46.1.c [Google Scholar]
  14. Connor, U., & Asenavage, K.
    (1994) Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision?Journal of second language writing, 3(3), 257–276. 10.1016/1060‑3743(94)90019‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(94)90019-1 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cotterall, S., & Cohen, R.
    (2003) Scaffolding for second language writers: producing an academic essay. ELT journal, 57(2), 158–166. 10.1093/elt/57.2.158
     https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.2.158 [Google Scholar]
  16. Curtis, A.
    (2001) Hong Kong student teachers’ responses to peer group process writing. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 11, 129–143.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Diab, N. M.
    (2011) Assessing the relationship between different types of student feedback and the quality of revised writing. Assessing Writing, 16(4), 274–292. 10.1016/j.asw.2011.08.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2011.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  18. Donato, R.
    (1994) Collective scaffolding in second language learning. Vygotskian approaches to second language research, 33456.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. (2000) Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. InJ. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp.27–52). NY: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Ellis, R.
    (2009) A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107. 10.1093/elt/ccn023
     https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccn023 [Google Scholar]
  21. Elola, I., & Oskoz, A.
    (2016) Supporting second language writing using multimodal feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 58–74. 10.1111/flan.12183
     https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12183 [Google Scholar]
  22. Ene, E., & Upton, T. A.
    (2014) Learner uptake of teacher electronic feedback in ESL composition. System, 46, 80–95. 10.1016/j.system.2014.07.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.07.011 [Google Scholar]
  23. Ferris, D. R.
    (2003) Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9781410607201
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410607201 [Google Scholar]
  24. Ferris, D.
    (2006) Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. InK. Hyland & F. Hyland (Authors), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp.81–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524742.007
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524742.007 [Google Scholar]
  25. Ferris, D. R., Brown, J., Liu, H. S., & Arnaudo Stine, M. E.
    (2011) Responding to L2 students in college writing classes: teacher perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 207–234. 10.5054/tq.2011.247706
     https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.247706 [Google Scholar]
  26. Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S., Tade, C. R., & Tinti, S.
    (1997) Teacher commentary on student writing: Descriptions & implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 155–182. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(97)90032‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(97)90032-1 [Google Scholar]
  27. Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B.
    (2001) Error feedback in L2 writing classes: how explicit does it need to be?Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161–184. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(01)00039‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00039-X [Google Scholar]
  28. Godwin-Jones, R.
    (2018) Second language writing online: An update. Language Learning & Technology, 22(1), 1–15.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Guardado, M., & Shi, L.
    (2007) ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 24(4), 443–461. 10.1016/j.compcom.2007.03.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2007.03.002 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hu, G., & Lam, S. T. E.
    (2010) Issues of cultural appropriateness and pedagogical efficacy: Exploring peer review in a second language writing class. Instructional science, 38(4), 371–394. 10.1007/s11251‑008‑9086‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9086-1 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hyland, F.
    (2000) ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching Research, 4(1), 33–54. 10.1177/136216880000400103
     https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400103 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F.
    (2006) Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. 10.1017/S0261444806003399
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399 [Google Scholar]
  33. Jiang, W.
    (2013) Measurements of development in L2 written production: The case of L2 Chinese. Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 1–24. 10.1093/applin/ams019
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ams019 [Google Scholar]
  34. Keh, C.
    (1990) Feedback in the writing process: a model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal, 44(4), 294–305. 10.1093/elt/44.4.294
     https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/44.4.294 [Google Scholar]
  35. King, B. W.
    (2015) Wikipedia writing as praxis: Computer-mediated socialization of second-language writers. Language Learning & Technology, 19(3), 106–123.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Kurihara, N.
    (2017) Peer review in an EFL classroom: Impact on the improvement of student writing abilities. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 58–72.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Lantolf, J. P.
    (2000) Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33(2), 79–96.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Lee, M. K., & Evans, M.
    (2019) Investigating the operating mechanisms of the sources of L2 writing self-efficacy at the stages of giving and receiving peer feedback. The Modern Language Journal, 103(4), 831–847. 10.1111/modl.12598
     https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12598 [Google Scholar]
  39. Liao, J. L.
    (2018) The impact of face-to-face oral discussion and online text-chat on L2 Chinese writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 27–40. 10.1016/j.jslw.2018.06.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.06.005 [Google Scholar]
  40. 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.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Liu, J., & J. Hansen
    (2002) Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. 10.3998/mpub.8952
     https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.8952 [Google Scholar]
  42. 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. 10.1016/S1475‑1585(03)00025‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00025-0 [Google Scholar]
  43. Liu, Q., & Brown, D.
    (2015) Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 30, 66–81. 10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.011
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2015.08.011 [Google Scholar]
  44. Long, M. H.
    (1996) The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. InW. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.). Handbook of second language Acquisition. San Diego, CA: Academic Presspp.413–468.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A.
    (1985) Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 207–227. 10.2307/3586827
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3586827 [Google Scholar]
  46. 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. 10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  47. Manchón, R. M.
    (2011) The language learning potential of writing in foreign language contexts. Lessons from research. Foreign language writing. Research insights, 44–64.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Mendonca, C. O., & Johnson, K. E.
    (1994) Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL quarterly, 28(4), 745–769. 10.2307/3587558
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3587558 [Google Scholar]
  49. Martin-Beltrán, M., & Chen, P. J.
    (2013) From monologue to dialogue: A case study on mediated feedback in a transnational asynchronous online writing tutorial. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 17(1), 145–150.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. McGroarty, M., & Zhu, W.
    (1997) Triangulation in classroom research: A study of peer revision. Language Learning, 47(1), 1–43. 10.1111/0023‑8333.11997001
     https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.11997001 [Google Scholar]
  51. Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A.
    (Eds.) (2002) Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511667190
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511667190 [Google Scholar]
  52. Ruegg, R.
    (2015) Differences in the uptake of peer and teacher feedback. RELC Journal46(2), 131–145. 10.1177/0033688214562799
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688214562799 [Google Scholar]
  53. (2017) Learner revision practices and perceptions of peer and teacher feedback. Writing & Pedagogy, 9(2). 10.1558/wap.33157
     https://doi.org/10.1558/wap.33157 [Google Scholar]
  54. Santos, M., Serrano, S. L., & Manchón, R. M.
    (2010) The differential effect of two types of direct written corrective feedback on noticing and uptake: Reformulation vs. error correction. International Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 131–154. 10.6018/ijes/2010/1/114011
     https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/1/114011 [Google Scholar]
  55. Sheen, Y.
    (2007) The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. 10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2007.tb00059.x
     https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x [Google Scholar]
  56. Storch, N.
    (2001) How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 5(1), 29–53. 10.1177/136216880100500103
     https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880100500103 [Google Scholar]
  57. Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G.
    (2010) Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case Studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303–334. 10.1017/S0272263109990532
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990532 [Google Scholar]
  58. Swain, M.
    (2006) Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. InH. Byrnes (Ed.). Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky. New York, NY: Continuumpp.95–108.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Tai, H. C., Lin, W. C., & Yang, S. C.
    (2015) Exploring the effects of peer review and teachers’ corrective feedback on EFL students’ online writing performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(2), 284–309. 10.1177/0735633115597490
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115597490 [Google Scholar]
  60. Truscott, J. & Hsu, A. Y. P.
    (2008) Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 295–305. 10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.05.003 [Google Scholar]
  61. Tuzi, F.
    (2004) The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21(2), 217–235. 10.1016/j.compcom.2004.02.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2004.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  62. Villamil, O. S., & Guerrero, M. C.
    (2006) Sociocultural theory: A framework for understanding the social-cognitive dimensions of peer feedback. InK. Hyland & F. Hyland (Authors), Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues (pp.23–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524742.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524742.004 [Google Scholar]
  63. Vygotsky, L. S.
    (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Wang, W.
    (2014) Students’ perceptions of rubric-referenced peer feedback on EFL writing: A longitudinal inquiry. Assessing Writing, 19, 80–96. 10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.008 [Google Scholar]
  65. Warschauer, M., Turbee, L., & Roberts, B.
    (1996) Computer learning networks and student empowerment. System, 24(1), 1–14. 10.1016/0346‑251X(95)00049‑P
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(95)00049-P [Google Scholar]
  66. Xiao-Desai, Y.
    (2019) The effects of online writing on heritage language anxiety – A Bayesian analysis. InYuan, F. & Li, S. (Eds.), Classroom research on Chinese as a second language, (pp.128–151). NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203709740‑6
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203709740-6 [Google Scholar]
  67. Xu, Y.
    (2007) Re-Examining the effects and affects of electronic peer reviews in a first-year composition class. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 7(2), 1–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Yang, L. & Zhao, Z.
    (2018) Profiling L2 writing development: The case of CFL learners in intermediate classes. Chinese as a Second Language Research7(2), 221–247. 10.1515/caslar‑2018‑0009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/caslar-2018-0009 [Google Scholar]
  69. Yu, S., & Lee, I.
    (2015) Understanding EFL students’ participation in group peer feedback of L2 writing: A case study from an activity theory perspective. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 572–593. 10.1177/1362168814541714
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541714 [Google Scholar]
  70. (2016a) Exploring Chinese students’ strategy use in a cooperative peer feedback writing group. System, 58, 1–11. 10.1016/j.system.2016.02.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.02.005 [Google Scholar]
  71. (2016b) Peer feedback in second language writing (2005–2014). Language Teaching, 49(4), 461–493. 10.1017/S0261444816000161
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000161 [Google Scholar]
  72. Zhang, D.
    (2009) Essay writing in a Mandarin Chinese WebCT discussion board. Foreign Language Annals, 42(4), 721–741. 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.2009.01051.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2009.01051.x [Google Scholar]
  73. Zhang, H., Song, W., Shen, S., & Huang, R.
    (2014) The effects of blog-mediated peer feedback on learners’ motivation, collaboration, and course satisfaction in a second language writing course. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(6). 10.14742/ajet.860
     https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.860 [Google Scholar]
  74. Zhao, 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. 10.1016/j.asw.2010.01.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2010.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  75. Zhu, L.
    (2018) CHIN 313: Media Chinese course syllabus. The University of Mississippi.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Zhu, W., & Mitchell, D. A.
    (2012) Participation in peer response as activity: An examination of peer response stances from an activity theory perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 362–386. 10.1002/tesq.22
     https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.22 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/csl.19012.zhu
Loading
Online peer feedback in second language Chinese writing
Chinese as a Second Language. The journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, USA 54, 257 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1075/csl.19012.zhu
/content/journals/10.1075/csl.19012.zhu
/content/journals/10.1075/csl.19012.zhu
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Chinese as a foreign language; peer feedback; perception; revision; second language writing; 二语写作; 修改; 同伴反馈; 感受; 汉语二语学习

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error