Cover not available

Article published In: Chinese as a Second Language (漢語教學研究—美國中文教師學會學報)
Vol. 54:3 (2019) ► pp.257–287

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Online peer feedback in second language Chinese writing

From feedback, uptake, to perception

 | University of Pittsburgh
 | University of Mississippi
Published online: 28 August 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/csl.19012.zhu
Abstract
Online peer feedback is advocated but not sufficiently used or researched in language classrooms, especially in Chinese as a foreign language (CFL) context. There is not sufficient evidence on the relationship of peer feedback type and revision, and controversies remain regarding learners’ perceptions of peer feedback, especially in terms of its trustworthiness. This study examines the typology, uptake, and learner perceptions of online peer feedback in an advanced level CFL classroom. Participants’ first drafts, feedback, and revisions in four writing assignments were analyzed and interviews were conducted. Feedback was mostly given on vocabulary, grammar, and character. 70.9% of the corrective feedback led to successful revision, and direct change, suggestion, and clarification most frequently led to revision. Participants generally trusted peer feedback, while they were also autonomous in giving feedback and deciding on uptakes. Learners’ positive perceptions include the comprehensibility of peer feedback and a sense of supportive community.
摘要
网络环境下的同伴反馈在外语教学中可能发挥重要的作用。然而网上同伴互评在中文二语教学课堂中的应用并未普及，对这个话题的研究也刚刚起步。 同伴反馈对学习者修正作文究竟有怎样的影响，学习者又怎样看待同伴反馈活动，他们是否信任同伴反馈，以往的研究尚未能对这些问题给出明确的答案。本文以高级中文学习者为研究对象，探究汉语二语学习者如何在网络平台上对同伴的新闻写作进行反馈。实验数据包括学习者在四项新闻写作任务中产出的作文原稿、同伴互评反馈、作文修改稿、以及实验后期一对一的访谈记录。结果显示，学习者们大多就同伴的词汇、语法、汉字等语言问题作出了反馈；有70.9%的修正性反馈被采纳入修改稿。直接修订、建议、疑问性质的同伴反馈常常会被作者采纳。学习者们大多表示信任同伴的反馈；同时，他们在采纳反馈意见时，也表现了自主性。同伴反馈还具有“易懂”的特性， 并有助于建立学习者们互帮互助的网上社群。
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Literature review
    • Feedback typology
    • Uptake and revision
    • Perceptions of online peer feedback
    • SLW of Chinese in online platforms
  • Methodology
    • Participants
    • Writing assignments
    • Procedure and data collection
    • Data analysis
      • Feedback coding
      • Uptake coding
  • Results
    • Feedback types and levels
    • Uptake and self-initiated revision
    • Perception
      • Writer’s perspective
      • Reviewer’s perspective
      • Overall experience
  • Discussion
    • Feedback typology and percentage of uptake
    • Uptake from different types of feedback
    • Agency and autonomy
    • Comprehensibility and supportive community
  • Conclusion and limitations
  • Notes
  • References
References (76)
References
AbuSeileek, A. (2013). Using track changes and word processor to provide corrective feedback to learners in writing. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(4), 319–333. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
AbuSeileek, A., & Abualsha’r, A. (2014). Using peer computer-mediated corrective feedback to support EFL learners’ writing. Language Learning & Technology, 18(1), 76–95.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines 2012. Alexandria, VA: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 81, 215–237. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37(2), 322–329. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19(4), 207–217. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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(3), 267–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chang, C. F. (2012). Peer review via three modes in an EFL writing course. Computers and Composition, 29(1), 63–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheng, P. C. (2009). Integrating online peer reviews into a college writing class in Taiwan (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2011). Learning by reviewing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 73–84. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2011). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 629–643. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Choi, J. W. (2008). The role of online collaboration in promoting ESL writing. English Language Teaching, 1(1), 34–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Connor, U., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision? Journal of second language writing, 3(3), 257–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cotterall, S., & Cohen, R. (2003). Scaffolding for second language writers: producing an academic essay. ELT journal, 57(2), 158–166. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Curtis, A. (2001). Hong Kong student teachers’ responses to peer group process writing. Asian Journal of English Language Teaching, 111, 129–143.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diab, N. M. (2011). Assessing the relationship between different types of student feedback and the quality of revised writing. Assessing Writing, 16(4), 274–292. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. Vygotskian approaches to second language research, 33456.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 27–52). NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2009). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A. (2016). Supporting second language writing using multimodal feedback. Foreign Language Annals, 49(1), 58–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ene, E., & Upton, T. A. (2014). Learner uptake of teacher electronic feedback in ESL composition. System, 461, 80–95. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. New York, NY: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the short- and long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Authors), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R., Brown, J., Liu, H. S., & Arnaudo Stine, M. E. (2011). Responding to L2 students in college writing classes: teacher perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 207–234. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S., Tade, C. R., & Tinti, S. (1997). Teacher commentary on student writing: Descriptions & implications. Journal of Second Language Writing, 6(2), 155–182. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R., & 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Godwin-Jones, R. (2018). Second language writing online: An update. Language Learning & Technology, 22(1), 1–15.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guardado, M., & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 24(4), 443–461. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hu, G., & Lam, S. T. E. (2010). Issues of cultural appropriateness and pedagogical efficacy: Exploring peer review in a second language writing class. Instructional science, 38(4), 371–394. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Language Teaching Research, 4(1), 33–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83–101. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jiang, W. (2013). Measurements of development in L2 written production: The case of L2 Chinese. Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keh, C. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: a model and methods for implementation. ELT Journal, 44(4), 294–305. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
King, B. W. (2015). Wikipedia writing as praxis: Computer-mediated socialization of second-language writers. Language Learning & Technology, 19(3), 106–123.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kurihara, N. (2017). Peer review in an EFL classroom: Impact on the improvement of student writing abilities. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 58–72.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learning as a mediated process. Language Teaching, 33(2), 79–96.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, M. K., & Evans, M. (2019). Investigating the operating mechanisms of the sources of L2 writing self-efficacy at the stages of giving and receiving peer feedback. The Modern Language Journal, 103(4), 831–847. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liao, J. L. (2018). The impact of face-to-face oral discussion and online text-chat on L2 Chinese writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 411, 27–40. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lin, W. C., & Yang, S. C. (2011). Exploring students’ perceptions of integrating wiki technology and peer feedback into English writing courses. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(2), 88–103.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, J., & J. Hansen. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, Q., & Brown, D. (2015). Methodological synthesis of research on the effectiveness of corrective feedback in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 301, 66–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.). Handbook of second language Acquisition. San Diego, CA: Academic Press pp. 413–468.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 207–227. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 Writing, 181, 30–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manchón, R. M. (2011). The language learning potential of writing in foreign language contexts. Lessons from research. Foreign language writing. Research insights, 44–64.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mendonca, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL quarterly, 28(4), 745–769. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin-Beltrán, M., & Chen, P. J. (2013). From monologue to dialogue: A case study on mediated feedback in a transnational asynchronous online writing tutorial. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 17(1), 145–150.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McGroarty, M., & Zhu, W. (1997). Triangulation in classroom research: A study of peer revision. Language Learning, 47(1), 1–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (Eds.). (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruegg, R. (2015). Differences in the uptake of peer and teacher feedback. RELC Journal 46(2), 131–145. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Learner revision practices and perceptions of peer and teacher feedback. Writing & Pedagogy, 9(2). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Santos, M., Serrano, S. L., & Manchón, R. M. (2010). The differential effect of two types of direct written corrective feedback on noticing and uptake: Reformulation vs. error correction. International Journal of English Studies, 10(1), 131–154. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Storch, N. (2001). How collaborative is pair work? ESL tertiary students composing in pairs. Language Teaching Research, 5(1), 29–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing: Case Studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303–334. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language proficiency. In H. Byrnes (Ed.). Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky. New York, NY: Continuum pp. 95–108.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tai, H. C., Lin, W. C., & Yang, S. C. (2015). Exploring the effects of peer review and teachers’ corrective feedback on EFL students’ online writing performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(2), 284–309. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Truscott, J. & Hsu, A. Y. P. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(4), 295–305. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21(2), 217–235. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Villamil, O. S., & Guerrero, M. C. (2006). Sociocultural theory: A framework for understanding the social-cognitive dimensions of peer feedback. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Authors), Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues (pp. 23–41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, W. (2014). Students’ perceptions of rubric-referenced peer feedback on EFL writing: A longitudinal inquiry. Assessing Writing, 191, 80–96. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Warschauer, M., Turbee, L., & Roberts, B. (1996). Computer learning networks and student empowerment. System, 24(1), 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xiao-Desai, Y. (2019). The effects of online writing on heritage language anxiety – A Bayesian analysis. In Yuan, F. & Li, S. (Eds.), Classroom research on Chinese as a second language, (pp. 128–151). NY: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xu, Y. (2007). Re-Examining the effects and affects of electronic peer reviews in a first-year composition class. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 7(2), 1–20.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yang, L. & Zhao, Z. (2018). Profiling L2 writing development: The case of CFL learners in intermediate classes. Chinese as a Second Language Research 7(2), 221–247. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2015). Understanding EFL students’ participation in group peer feedback of L2 writing: A case study from an activity theory perspective. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 572–593. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016a). Exploring Chinese students’ strategy use in a cooperative peer feedback writing group. System, 581, 1–11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016b). Peer feedback in second language writing (2005–2014). Language Teaching, 49(4), 461–493. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, D. (2009). Essay writing in a Mandarin Chinese WebCT discussion board. Foreign Language Annals, 42(4), 721–741. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 Technology, 30(6). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhao, H. (2010). Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: A comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing writing, 15(1), 3–17. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhu, L. (2018). CHIN 313: Media Chinese course syllabus. The University of Mississippi.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhu, W., & Mitchell, D. A. (2012). Participation in peer response as activity: An examination of peer response stances from an activity theory perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 362–386. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Alharbi, Mohammed Abdullah & Abdulrahman Nasser Alqefari
2022. Students’ uptake and perspectives on teacher and peer feedback on written assignments. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education: Gulf Perspectives 18:2 ► pp. 107 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue