1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics
  4. Volume 170, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 170, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

While the use of blogs has gained increasing popularity among second language (L2) writers, research into their role in developing L2 writing ability is yet underdeveloped. In particular, investigations into the use and effectiveness of peer feedback on L2 blogs are limited. The current study sought to fill this gap by comparing the provision of peer feedback in blogs versus on paper. Participants were a class of ESL students in a TESL university program in Quebec who produced written texts both in blogs and on paper, received peer feedback, and then revised their texts. Altogether, the findings suggest that while both blogs and paper can be influential mediums for L2 writing, they may inspire different types of errors, elicit different types and degrees of feedback, and lead to differences in subsequent revisions.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/itl.19011.lir
2019-09-04
2023-12-07

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/itl.19011.lir
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alavi, S., & Kaivanpanah, S.
    (2007) Feedback expectancy and EFL learners’ achievement in English. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 3(2), 181–196.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Aljamah, H. F.
    (2012) Saudi Learner Perceptions and Attitudes toward the Use of Blogs in Teaching English Writing Course for EFL majors at Qassim University. English language teaching. 5(1), 100–116.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Amores, M. J.
    (1997) A new perspective on peer-editing. Foreign Language Annals, 30(4), 513–522. 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.1997.tb00858.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1997.tb00858.x [Google Scholar]
  4. Arslan, R. Ş., & Şahin-Kızıl, A.
    (2010) How can the use of blog software facilitate the writing process of English language learners?. Computer assisted language learning, 23(3), 183–197. 10.1080/09588221.2010.486575
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2010.486575 [Google Scholar]
  5. Ashwell, T.
    (2000) Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multi-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method?Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227–257. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(00)00027‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00027-8 [Google Scholar]
  6. Asoodar, M., Atai, M. R., & Vaezi, S.
    (2016) Blog-integrated writing with blog-buddies: EAP learners’ writing performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(2), 225–252. 10.1177/0735633115615588
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115615588 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bitchener, J.
    (2008) Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102–18. 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.004 [Google Scholar]
  8. 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, 267–296. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(03)00038‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(03)00038-9 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen, W. C., Shih, Y. C. D., & Liu, G. Z.
    (2015) Task design and its induced learning effects in a cross-institutional blog-mediated telecollaboration. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(4), 285–305. 10.1080/09588221.2013.818557
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2013.818557 [Google Scholar]
  10. 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. doi:  10.2190/EC.46.1.c
     https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.46.1.c [Google Scholar]
  11. Dippold, D.
    (2009) Peer feedback through blogs: Student and teacher perceptions in an advanced German class. ReCALL, 21(1), 18–36. 10.1017/S095834400900010X
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S095834400900010X [Google Scholar]
  12. Ducate, L. C., & Lomicka, L. L.
    (2005) Exploring the blogosphere use of web logs in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 38(3), 410–421. 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.2005.tb02227.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2005.tb02227.x [Google Scholar]
  13. (2008) Adventures in the blogosphere: From blog readers to blog writers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(1), 9–28. 10.1080/09588220701865474
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220701865474 [Google Scholar]
  14. Ellis, R.
    (2008) 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]
  15. Ellis, J.
    (2011) Peer feedback on writing: Is on-line actually better than on-paper?Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 5(1), A88–A99.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Fathman, A. K., & Whalley, E.
    (1990) Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. InB. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom (pp.178–190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139524551.016
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524551.016 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fazio, L.
    (2001) The effects of corrections and commentaries on journal writing of minority- and majority-language minorities. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 235–249. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(01)00042‑X
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(01)00042-X [Google Scholar]
  18. Ferris, D.
    (1997) The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315–339. 10.2307/3588049
     https://doi.org/10.2307/3588049 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2004) The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime …?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49–62. 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.005 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ferris, D., & 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]
  21. Ferris, D.
    (2006) Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the shortand long-term effects of written error correction. InK. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), 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]
  22. (2010) Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201. 10.1017/S0272263109990490
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263109990490 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gascoigne, C.
    (2004) Examining the effect of feedback in beginning L2 composition. Foreign Language Annals, 37(1), 71–76. 10.1111/j.1944‑9720.2004.tb02174.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2004.tb02174.x [Google Scholar]
  24. Gedera, D. S.
    (2012) The dynamics of blog peer feedback in ESL classroom. Teaching English with technology, 12(4), 16–30.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Smeets, S.
    (2010) A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback and of various peer feedback forms in a secondary school writing curriculum. British Educational Research, 36(1), 143–162. 10.1080/01411920902894070
     https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902894070 [Google Scholar]
  26. Gómez Delgado, O. M., & McDougald, J. S.
    (2013) deveLoPing Writing throUgh BLogs and Peer feedBack. Ikala, revista de lenguaje y cultura, 18(3), 45–61.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Guénette, D.
    (2009) The cyberscript project: A mixed-method study of preservice ESL teachers’ corrective feedback beliefs and practices. (Doctoral dissertation), McGill University, Montreal, QC.
  28. Guénette, D., & Lyster, R.
    (2013) Written corrective feedback and its challenges for pre-service ESL teachers. Canadian modern language review, 69(2), 129–153. 10.3138/cmlr.1346
     https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.1346 [Google Scholar]
  29. Halic, O., Lee, D., Paulus, T., & Spence, M.
    (2010) To blog or not to blog: Student perceptions of blog effectiveness for learning in a college-level course. Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 206–213. 10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.04.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.04.001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Hansen, J. G.
    (2005) Cooperative learning methods and the teaching of English writing: Peer response. STETS Language & Communication Review, 4(1), 9–14.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Hendrickson, J. M.
    (1980) The treatment of error in written work. The Modern Language Journal, 64(2), 216–221. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1980.tb05188.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1980.tb05188.x [Google Scholar]
  32. Ho, M. C., & Savignon, S. J.
    (2007) Face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review in EFL writing. CALICO journal, 24(2), 269–290. 10.1558/cj.v24i2.269‑290
     https://doi.org/10.1558/cj.v24i2.269-290 [Google Scholar]
  33. Hyland, F.
    (2010) Future directions in feedback on second language writing: Overview and research agenda. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 171–182. 10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119251
     https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2010/2/119251 [Google Scholar]
  34. Huang, H. Y. C.
    (2016) Students and the teacher’s perceptions on incorporating the blog task and peer feedback into EFL writing classes through blogs. English Language Teaching, 9(11), 38–47. 10.5539/elt.v9n11p38
     https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n11p38 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kormos, J.
    (2012) The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 390–403. 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  36. Kepner, C. G.
    (1991) An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305–313. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1991.tb05359.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1991.tb05359.x [Google Scholar]
  37. Lalande, J. F.
    (1982) Reducing composition errors: an experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66(2), 140–149. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1982.tb06973.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1982.tb06973.x [Google Scholar]
  38. Leki, I.
    (1990) Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes. CATESOL Journal, 3(1), 5–19.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Lee, E. J. E.
    (2013) Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students. System, 41(2), 217–230. 10.1016/j.system.2013.01.022
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2013.01.022 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lee, I.
    (1997) ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for college-level teaching. System, 25(4), 465–477. 10.1016/S0346‑251X(97)00045‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0346-251X(97)00045-6 [Google Scholar]
  41. Lira Gonzales, M. L.
    (2012) A Teacher’s Formative Assessment Perceptions and Practices in Oral Intermediate English Courses at the Université de Montréal (Doctoral dissertation). Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Lira Gonzales, M. L. & Nassaji, H.
    (2018, October). The amount and usefulness of different written corrective feedback types across different L2 learners and contexts. Paper presented at theSecond Language Research Forum, Montréal, QC.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Lin, M. H.
    (2015) Learner-centered blogging: A preliminary investigation of EFL student writers’ experience. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 446.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Lin, H., & Chien, P.
    (2009) An investigation into effectiveness of peer feedback. Journal of Applied Foreign Languages Fortune Institute of Technology, 3, 79–87.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Liou, H. C., & Peng, Z. Y.
    (2009) Training effects on computer-mediated peer review. System, 37(3), 514–525. 10.1016/j.system.2009.01.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2009.01.005 [Google Scholar]
  46. Liu, J., & Hansen, J.
    (2002) Peer Response in Second Language Writing Classrooms. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. 10.3998/mpub.8952
     https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.8952 [Google Scholar]
  47. 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]
  48. Lizotte, R.
    (2001) Quantifying progress in an ESL writing class. MATSOL Currents, 27(1), 7–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. 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 Writing18(1) 30–43. 10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002 [Google Scholar]
  50. Mishne, G., & Glance, N.
    (2006, May). Leave a reply: An analysis of weblog comments. Paper presented at the3rd Annual Workshop on the Weblogging Ecosystem (WWW06): Aggregation, Analysis and Dynamics, Edinburgh, UK.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D.
    (2006) Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in higher education, 31(2), 199–218. 10.1080/03075070600572090
     https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090 [Google Scholar]
  52. Novakovich, J.
    (2016) Fostering critical thinking and reflection through blog-mediated peer feedback. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(1), 16–30. doi:  10.1111/jcal.12114
     https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12114 [Google Scholar]
  53. Ortega, L.
    (2012) Epilogue: Exploring L2 writing–SLA interfaces. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 404–415. 10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2012.09.002 [Google Scholar]
  54. Pham, V. P. H., & Usaha, S.
    (2015) Blog-based peer response for L2 writing revision. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 724–748. doi:  10.1080/09588221.2015.1026355
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1026355 [Google Scholar]
  55. (2016) Blog-based peer response for L2 writing revision. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 724–748. 10.1080/09588221.2015.1026355
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1026355 [Google Scholar]
  56. Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N.
    (1998) ‘If only I had more time’: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 43–68. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(98)90005‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90005-4 [Google Scholar]
  57. Rolliston, P.
    (2005) Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23–30. 10.1093/elt/cci003
     https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci003 [Google Scholar]
  58. Sayed, O. H.
    (2010) Developing Business Management Students’ Persuasive Writing through Blog-Based Peer-Feedback. English Language Teaching, 3(3), 54–66. 10.5539/elt.v3n3p54
     https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v3n3p54 [Google Scholar]
  59. Tian, J. & Nassaji, H.
    (2013) Verbal interaction in L2 writers’ peer editing activities: A meta-synthesis of selected research. InBaleghizadeh, S. & Zahedi, K. (Ed.). The handbook of current research in teaching second language skills (pp.166–180). Tehran. Shahid Beheshti University Press.
  60. Truscott, J.
    (1996) The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. 10.1111/j.1467‑1770.1996.tb01238.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x [Google Scholar]
  61. (1999) The case for ‘‘the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: a response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111–122. 10.1016/S1060‑3743(99)80124‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80124-6 [Google Scholar]
  62. (2001) Selecting errors for selective error correction. Concentric. Studies in English Literature and Linguistics, 27(2), 225–240.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. (2004) Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: a response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 337–343. 10.1016/j.jslw.2004.05.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  64. (2007) The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255–272. 10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.06.003 [Google Scholar]
  65. (2009) Arguments and appearances: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 59–60. 10.1016/j.jslw.2008.09.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  66. Tudini, V.
    (2007) Negotiation and intercultural learning in Italian native speaker chat rooms. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 577–601. 10.1111/j.1540‑4781.2007.00624.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2007.00624.x [Google Scholar]
  67. Vurdien, R.
    (2013) Enhancing writing skills through blogging in an advanced English as a Foreign Language class in Spain. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(2), 126–143. 10.1080/09588221.2011.639784
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.639784 [Google Scholar]
  68. Vygotsky, L. S.
    (1978) Mind in Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. 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, QC, J9X5E4Technology, 30(6), 670–685.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/itl.19011.lir
Loading
The provision and efficacy of peer feedback in blogs versus paper-based writing
ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 170, 228 (2019); https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.19011.lir
/content/journals/10.1075/itl.19011.lir
/content/journals/10.1075/itl.19011.lir
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): blogs; peer-feedback; types of errors; types of revisions; writing

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