EFL Writing Revision with Blind Expert and Peer Review Using a CMC Open Forum

Autor/inn/en	Wu, Wen-Chi Vivian; Petit, Emily; Chen, Ching-Huei
Titel	EFL Writing Revision with Blind Expert and Peer Review Using a CMC Open Forum
Quelle	In: Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28 (2015) 1, S.58-80 (23 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0958-8221
DOI	10.1080/09588221.2014.937442
Schlagwörter	Computer Mediated Communication; Grammar; Scores; English (Second Language); Second Language Learning; Feedback (Response); Essays; Writing Assignments; Second Language Instruction; Instructional Design; Scoring Rubrics; College Students; Statistical Analysis; Qualitative Research; Focus Groups; Interviews; Foreign Countries; Taiwan + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Computerkonferenz; Grammatik; English as second language; English; Second Language; Englisch als Zweitsprache; Zweitsprachenerwerb; Essay; Aufsatzunterricht; Fremdsprachenunterricht; Lesson concept; Lessonplan; Unterrichtsentwurf; Scoring formulas; Auswertungsbogen; Collegestudent; Statistische Analyse; Qualitative Forschung; Interviewing; Interviewtechnik; Ausland
Abstract	This exploratory computer assisted-language learning (CALL) study used a computer-mediated communication (CMC) interface to allow English as a foreign language (EFL) writing students in classes at two universities to give each other anonymous peer feedback about essay-writing assignments reacting to selected news stories. Experts also provided feedback review. Follow-up questions were facilitated by the interface. The students felt that they benefitted from the instructional design, but found that the peer review focused most on things like grammar whereas the experts focused on organization and structure, making the expert feedback more valuable. Researchers found that more complex issues discussed in the source news articles resulted in lower outcome scores, based on a rubric, than did source material simpler issues. The study also compared performance of students with higher and lower ability and evaluated the quality of the review comments. Conclusions and recommendations for practice are provided. This study is significant because it used CALL/CMC technology to provide online interactivity between students and reviewers in an open forum that allowed students to seek follow-up clarification to the comments of reviewers. The review process, therefore, was not a one-way anonymous communication from reviewer to student but rather allowed interactive discussion of the points and suggestions made by the reviewers. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10