Abstract

This study aims to investigate the effects of the two-step blended computer mediated communication (CMC) peer review process (Word commenting followed by Zoom discussion) in an English writing course for 29 Chinese EFL learners, and their perceptions of this mode. Compared with previous studies, the findings of this study are encouraging: 1) the proportions of revision-oriented comments students gave reached at a high level of above 85% of the total comments; 2) students gave more local comments, but the ratio of revision-oriented comments in global areas to revision-oriented comments in local areas was more balanced (approximately 40% vs 60%); 3) the adoption rates of revision-oriented comments in text revision were also at a high level (63%-73%). What’s more, most students held positive attitudes toward this mode, perceiving it useful in their text revision and development of writing ability. 65% of them expressed their willingness to attend this mode of review activities in the future. This study reveals that the two-step CMC peer review process with Word commenting followed by discussion via online video conferencing system can be used as a useful tool in EFL writing class. This study contributes to the current research on CMC peer review since most previous studies investigated effects of peer review using text-based CMC tools and little research has been done on speech-based tools.

Highlights

  • Peer review is considered as an indispensable part of process writing

  • This study aims to investigate the effects of the two-step blended computer mediated communication (CMC) peer review process (Word commenting followed by Zoom discussion) in an English writing course for 29 Chinese EFL learners, and their perceptions of this mode

  • This study reveals that the two-step CMC peer review process with Word commenting followed by discussion via online video conferencing system can be used as a useful tool in EFL writing class

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Peer review is considered as an indispensable part of process writing. Its potential benefits have been revealed in many scholars’ researches. Some scholars adopted asynchronous communication tools such as MS Word (Ho & Savignon, 2007), blog (Liou & Peng, 2009; Chen, 2012; Xu & Yu, 2018), Blackboard (Guardado & Shi, 2007; Chang, 2012) and online forum (Pritchard & Morrow, 2017); some scholars used synchronous tools such as instant messaging MSN (Jin & Zhu, 2010; Chang, 2012). Some scholars (Liu & Sadler, 2003; Yu & Choe, 2010; Ho, 2015) adopted a two-step blended peer review procedure combining asynchronous interaction (Microsoft Word commenting) and synchronous interaction (online chat or OnlineMeeting)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call