A review of previous studies on ESL/EFL learners’ interactional feedback exchanges in face-to-face and computer-assisted peer review of writing

Abstract

This paper is a review of previous studies on learners' interactional feedback exchanges in face-to-face peer review (FFPR) and computer-assisted peer review (CAPR) of English as Second/Foreign Language (ESL/EFL) writing. The review attempted to (1) identify the patterns of interactional feedback, (2) search an empirical evidence of learners' incorporation of peer interactional feedback in their text revisions and (3) identify the factors affecting learners' interactional feedback as reported in these previous studies. To achieve this, a search of previous studies on peer review in writing from 1990 to 2016 was conducted. However, only 37 out of 58 peer reviewed studies were extensively reviewed and systematically analyzed by two independent coders. The findings showed that in terms of the language functions, learners' interactional feedback exchanges are categorized as (1) exploratory (showing learners' reflection and interpretation of the task), (2) procedural (showing how learners handle the task of revising their texts) and (3) social (showing how learners maintain good relationships). In relation to the nature and focus areas, learners' interactional feedback exchanges are revision-oriented (targeting problems or errors in written texts) and non-revision-oriented (do not target any problems). Results of some previous reviewed studies also provided evidence of learners' integration of peer feedback into their text revisions. However, peer interactional feedback is affected by several factors: training learners on feedback, mode of peer review, type of written tasks, learners' roles in peer review activties, learners' proficiency in English and other factors, including learners' gender differences and configuration of peer review dyads as well as context of peer review. Synthesizing the findings of the reviewed studies, we proposed a dual space-interactional feedback model that comprises the learning space and the social space of interactional feedback in peer review. Several pedagogical, research and technological implications were also drawn from the major findings. Future researchers should pay attention to both spaces of interactional feedback and identify further factors affecting interactional feedback in peer review.

Assessing peer review pattern and the effect of face-to-face and mobile-mediated modes on students’ academic writing development

“…The results revealed that the revisionoriented comments were more prevalent in both MMPR and FFPR groups. The existence of revision-oriented comments in this study shows that the participants remained on the task and aimed at various problems in their peers' writings (Saeed, Ghazali, & Aljaberi, 2018). This is in line with other previous studies which reported that students in technology-enhanced environments take part more in making revisionoriented peer review (Bradley, 2014;Ho, 2015;Liou & Peng, 2009;Pham & Usaha, 2015).…”

Online and face-to-face peer review in academic writing: Frequency and preferences

“…The least effective mode of PR was online PR during class time. While the informants' preferences to in-person review has echoes in some previous studies (Ho, 2015;Liu & Sadler, 2003), this finding contradicts the findings of many other studies (Breuch, 2004;Huang, 2016;Saeed et al, 2018;Vorobel & Kim, 2017). 3 & 4) reveal only two significant differences between the groups.…”

“…In a more elaborated study, Saeed, Ghazali, and Aljaberi (2018) traced the development of relevant research in L2 writing from 1990 to 2016. The author reviewed 37 studies on feedback exchange in F2F and online PR.…”

“…Besides classroom interaction, they can meet and interact through numerous electronic applications and platforms. Insofar as writing is concerned, technology is increasingly incorporated with peer-to-peer reviews (Ahmed, 2020;Moloudi, 2011;Saeed, Ghazali, & Aljaberi, 2018). In class and in online composition, the peer review (hereafter PR), also known as peer assessment, peer editing, or peer evaluation has become a vivid activity.…”

How Teachers Affect Students’ Online Participation in EFL Courses in Uruguay

“…Research on feedback for EFL learning in computer-mediated (CM) environments has widely focused on peer feedback, often on EFL writing (Guardado and Shi, 2007;Ho, 2015;Saeed et al, 2018). Jiang and Ribeiro (2017) present a systematic literature review on the effect of CM peer-written feedback on adult EFL writing.…”