Investigating the impact of peer feedback in foreign language writing

Altstaedter, Laura Levi

doi:10.1080/17501229.2015.1115052

Cited by 20 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Results indicated that collaborative writing may enable students to engage in peer interactions and motivate them to argue, reason, and negotiate while participating in writing‐related discourse, corroborating previous findings (e.g., Yarrow & Topping, 2001). Collaborative learning in planning, drafting, reviewing, and revising may foster students' capacity to pool ideas and provide feedback (Altstaedter, 2018), develop self‐regulatory guidelines (Lam & Kapur, 2017), and detect discrepancies between the actual and intended level of text quality (Storch, 2005; Suzuki, 2008; Teng, 2019a,b). This process may help learners identify and solve problems that arise while writing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effectiveness of incorporating metacognitive prompts in collaborative writing on academic English writing skills

Teng

2021

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research shows that acquisition of writing skills can be supported by metacognitive strategy training. However, research on incorporating metacognitive guidance for collaborative writing is scarce. The current study explores the potential effectiveness of incorporating metacognitive prompts, that is, a form of metacognitive guidance, into collaborative writing on academic English writing skills. This study involves four instructional methods, that is, collaborative writing combined with embedded metacognitive guidance (COLL+META), metacognitive training without collaborative writing (META), collaborative writing without metacognitive training (COLL), and individual learning (CG). The dependent variables were students' four academic writing skills, that is, reproduction of text structure knowledge, application of text structure knowledge, reduction of text content, and abstract writing. Participants included 160 students who were learning English as a foreign language (EFL) at a university in mainland China. The participants in each condition received 16 weeks of treatment sessions. The results revealed the improvement from pre‐test to post‐test, supporting the main effects of each learning condition on the four academic writing skills. The results also showed that the COLL+META students demonstrated significantly higher scores in the four academic writing skills than students in the other conditions. This study underlines the importance of incorporating metacognitive strategies for collaborative writing in developing academic writing skills for university EFL students. This study also highlights the potential in applying educational psychology theories for English education.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effectiveness of incorporating metacognitive prompts in collaborative writing on academic English writing skills

Teng

2021

Applied Cognitive Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From the socio-cultural approach (Vygotsky, 1987), particularly the notions of scaffolding and regulation, as stated by some researchers (eg., Levi Altstaedter, 2016;Yang, 2011), peer review is a constructive or collaborative activity in which students negotiate the intended ideas and meaning and mutually scaffold each other. Within this theory, peer review provides learners with opportunities to exchange multiple corrective feedback and articulate their knowledge of L2 (Hyland & Hyland, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Saeed

Ghazali

Aljaberi

2018

Int J Educ Technol High Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…In addition, the finding reported earlier in this paragraph raises issues on peer feedback training. Literature has established that careful training is essential to success in peer feedback (Altstaedter, 2018;Lam, 2010;Liou & Peng, 2009;Min, 2005Min, , 2006Rahimi, 2013), but little attention has been paid to training when peer feedback involves different forms and sequences. Since WACMC and OF2F commenting are different in their affordances, peer feedback using them requires different sets of skills.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Computer-mediated and face-to-face peer feedback: student feedback and revision in EFL writing

Pham

2021

Computer Assisted Language Learning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigates how two feedback forms and sequences influence peer feedback and revision. The two feedback forms included: written asynchronous computermediated communication (hereafter WACMC) in Google Docs and traditional oral face-to-face interaction (hereafter OF2F). These two forms were used in two sequences: WACMC followed by OF2F (WACMC-OF2F) and OF2F followed by WACMC (OF2F-WACMC). Participants were twenty-six Vietnamese EFL students. After feedback training, students completed four writing tasks, provided feedback in pairs, and finally revised their work. This study employed a mixed-method approach. Written and oral feedback, student revision, as well as student interviews were collected, transcribed, coded, and analysed. Pairedsamples t-tests and ANOVA tests were employed to compare student feedback and revision in the two forms and sequences. The findings showed that: (1) more revision-oriented comments were associated with the WACMC form and with the WACMC-OF2F sequence; (2) written comments had a higher uptake rate in both sequences; (3) global revisions were more often found in the WACMC-OF2F sequence; (4) while students perceived WACMC feedback in Google Docs as more helpful than OF2F feedback, most suggested using both feedback forms. Pedagogical implications for the L2 writing class will also be included.

show abstract

Investigating the impact of peer feedback in foreign language writing

Cited by 20 publications

References 22 publications

The effectiveness of incorporating metacognitive prompts in collaborative writing on academic English writing skills

The effectiveness of incorporating metacognitive prompts in collaborative writing on academic English writing skills

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

Computer-mediated and face-to-face peer feedback: student feedback and revision in EFL writing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About