Cover not available

Article published In: Technology-mediated feedback and instruction
Edited by Hossein Nassaji and Eva Kartchava
[ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 170:2] 2019
► pp. 228–250

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

The provision and efficacy of peer feedback in blogs versus paper-based writing

ORCiD logo with link | Université du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
 | University of Victoria
Published online: 4 September 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.19011.lir
Abstract
While the use of blogs has gained increasing popularity among second language (L2) writers, research into their role in developing L2 writing ability is yet underdeveloped. In particular, investigations into the use and effectiveness of peer feedback on L2 blogs are limited. The current study sought to fill this gap by comparing the provision of peer feedback in blogs versus on paper. Participants were a class of ESL students in a TESL university program in Quebec who produced written texts both in blogs and on paper, received peer feedback, and then revised their texts. Altogether, the findings suggest that while both blogs and paper can be influential mediums for L2 writing, they may inspire different types of errors, elicit different types and degrees of feedback, and lead to differences in subsequent revisions.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • Literature review
    • Corrective feedback
    • Peer feedback
    • Blog-mediated peer feedback in writing classes
    • The current study
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Research design
  • Procedures
    • Written productions on paper
    • Written productions in blog
  • Data analysis
  • Results
    • Types of errors
    • Types of peer feedback
  • Discussion
  • Conclusions and implications
  • References
References (69)
References
Alavi, S., & Kaivanpanah, S. (2007). Feedback expectancy and EFL learners’ achievement in English. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 3(2), 181–196.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aljamah, H. F. (2012). Saudi Learner Perceptions and Attitudes toward the Use of Blogs in Teaching English Writing Course for EFL majors at Qassim University. English language teaching. 5(1), 100–116.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Amores, M. J. (1997). A new perspective on peer-editing. Foreign Language Annals, 30(4), 513–522. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arslan, R. Ş., & Şahin-Kızıl, A. (2010). How can the use of blog software facilitate the writing process of English language learners?. Computer assisted language learning, 23(3), 183–197. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multi-draft composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(3), 227–257. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Asoodar, M., Atai, M. R., & Vaezi, S. (2016). Blog-integrated writing with blog-buddies: EAP learners’ writing performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(2), 225–252. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 171, 102–18. 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, 121, 267–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, W. C., Shih, Y. C. D., & Liu, G. Z. (2015). Task design and its induced learning effects in a cross-institutional blog-mediated telecollaboration. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(4), 285–305. 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
Dippold, D. (2009). Peer feedback through blogs: Student and teacher perceptions in an advanced German class. ReCALL, 21(1), 18–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ducate, L. C., & Lomicka, L. L. (2005). Exploring the blogosphere use of web logs in the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 38(3), 410–421. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Adventures in the blogosphere: From blog readers to blog writers. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(1), 9–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, R. (2008). A typology of written corrective feedback types. ELT Journal, 63(2), 97–107. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ellis, J. (2011). Peer feedback on writing: Is on-line actually better than on-paper? Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 5(1), A88–A99.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fathman, A. K., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom (pp. 178–190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fazio, L. (2001). The effects of corrections and commentaries on journal writing of minority- and majority-language minorities. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 235–249. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315–339. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime …?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 131, 49–62. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ferris, D., & 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
Ferris, D. (2006). Does error feedback help student writers? New evidence on the shortand long-term effects of written error correction. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 81–104). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 181–201. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gascoigne, C. (2004). Examining the effect of feedback in beginning L2 composition. Foreign Language Annals, 37(1), 71–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gedera, D. S. (2012). The dynamics of blog peer feedback in ESL classroom. Teaching English with technology, 12(4), 16–30.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Smeets, S. (2010). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback and of various peer feedback forms in a secondary school writing curriculum. British Educational Research, 36(1), 143–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gómez Delgado, O. M., & McDougald, J. S. (2013). deveLoPing Writing throUgh BLogs and Peer feedBack. Ikala, revista de lenguaje y cultura, 18(3), 45–61.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guénette, D. (2009). The cyberscript project: A mixed-method study of preservice ESL teachers’ corrective feedback beliefs and practices. (Doctoral dissertation), McGill University, Montreal, QC.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guénette, D., & Lyster, R. (2013). Written corrective feedback and its challenges for pre-service ESL teachers. Canadian modern language review, 69(2), 129–153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halic, O., Lee, D., Paulus, T., & Spence, M. (2010). To blog or not to blog: Student perceptions of blog effectiveness for learning in a college-level course. Internet and Higher Education, 13(4), 206–213. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hansen, J. G. (2005). Cooperative learning methods and the teaching of English writing: Peer response. STETS Language & Communication Review, 4(1), 9–14.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hendrickson, J. M. (1980). The treatment of error in written work. The Modern Language Journal, 64(2), 216–221. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ho, M. C., & Savignon, S. J. (2007). Face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review in EFL writing. CALICO journal, 24(2), 269–290. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, F. (2010). Future directions in feedback on second language writing: Overview and research agenda. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 171–182. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, H. Y. C. (2016). Students and the teacher’s perceptions on incorporating the blog task and peer feedback into EFL writing classes through blogs. English Language Teaching, 9(11), 38–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kormos, J. (2012). The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 390–403. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kepner, C. G. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the development of second-language writing skills. Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 305–313. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lalande, J. F. (1982). Reducing composition errors: an experiment. Modern Language Journal, 66(2), 140–149. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leki, I. (1990). Potential problems with peer responding in ESL writing classes. CATESOL Journal, 3(1), 5–19.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, E. J. E. (2013). Corrective feedback preferences and learner repair among advanced ESL students . System, 41(2), 217–230. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, I. (1997). ESL learners’ performance in error correction in writing: Some implications for college-level teaching. System, 25(4), 465–477. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lira Gonzales, M. L. (2012). A Teacher’s Formative Assessment Perceptions and Practices in Oral Intermediate English Courses at the Université de Montréal (Doctoral dissertation). Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lira Gonzales, M. L. & Nassaji, H. (2018, October). The amount and usefulness of different written corrective feedback types across different L2 learners and contexts. Paper presented at the Second Language Research Forum, Montréal, QC.
Lin, M. H. (2015). Learner-centered blogging: A preliminary investigation of EFL student writers’ experience. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 446.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lin, H., & Chien, P. (2009). An investigation into effectiveness of peer feedback. Journal of Applied Foreign Languages Fortune Institute of Technology, 31, 79–87.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liou, H. C., & Peng, Z. Y. (2009). Training effects on computer-mediated peer review. System, 37(3), 514–525. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liu, J., & Hansen, J. (2002). Peer Response in Second Language Writing Classrooms. Ann Arbor: 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
Lizotte, R. (2001). Quantifying progress in an ESL writing class. MATSOL Currents, 27(1), 7–17.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 18(1) 30–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mishne, G., & Glance, N. (2006, May). Leave a reply: An analysis of weblog comments. Paper presented at the 3rd Annual Workshop on the Weblogging Ecosystem (WWW06): Aggregation, Analysis and Dynamics, Edinburgh, UK.
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in higher education, 31(2), 199–218. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Novakovich, J. (2016). Fostering critical thinking and reflection through blog-mediated peer feedback. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32(1), 16–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortega, L. (2012). Epilogue: Exploring L2 writing–SLA interfaces. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 404–415. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pham, V. P. H., & Usaha, S. (2015). Blog-based peer response for L2 writing revision. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 724–748. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Blog-based peer response for L2 writing revision. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 724–748. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Polio, C., Fleck, C., & Leder, N. (1998). ‘If only I had more time’: ESL learners’ changes in linguistic accuracy on essay revisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(1), 43–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rolliston, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23–30. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sayed, O. H. (2010). Developing Business Management Students’ Persuasive Writing through Blog-Based Peer-Feedback. English Language Teaching, 3(3), 54–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tian, J. & Nassaji, H. (2013). Verbal interaction in L2 writers’ peer editing activities: A meta-synthesis of selected research. In Baleghizadeh, S. & Zahedi, K. (Ed.). The handbook of current research in teaching second language skills (pp. 166–180). Tehran. Shahid Beheshti University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327–369. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1999). The case for ‘‘the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes”: a response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(2), 111–122. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Selecting errors for selective error correction. Concentric. Studies in English Literature and Linguistics, 27(2), 225–240.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004). Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: a response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 131, 337–343. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(4), 255–272. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Arguments and appearances: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 59–60. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tudini, V. (2007). Negotiation and intercultural learning in Italian native speaker chat rooms. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 577–601. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vurdien, R. (2013). Enhancing writing skills through blogging in an advanced English as a Foreign Language class in Spain. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(2), 126–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.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, QC, J9X5E4Technology, 30(6), 670–685.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Muñoz Muñoz, Belén, Ignacio Ferrada Valenzuela, Daniel Mesia Romero, Lucía Ubilla Rosales & Pamela Saavedra Jeldres
2026. The role of feedback explicitness in L2 morpheme acquisition: Evidence from Chile. System 139 ► pp. 104027 ff. DOI logo
Muñoz, Belén C. & Hossein Nassaji
2025. The Effect of Indirect Error Correction Strategies on Complex Target Forms in Young Chilean L2 Learners. International Journal of Applied Linguistics DOI logo
Nassaji, Hossein & Eva Kartchava
2025. Epilogue. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics 28:1 ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo
Lira-Gonzales, Maria-Lourdes, Hossein Nassaji & Kuok Wa Chao Chao
2024. Les facteurs influençant la profondeur de traitement de la rétroaction corrective écrite des apprenants de français langue étrangère. La Revue de l’AQEFLS 37:1 DOI logo
Chao Chao, Kuok Wa, Maria-Lourdes Lira-Gonzales & Joanie David
2023. Technologies in English as a Second/Foreign Language Writing Classes. Folios :58 ► pp. 171 ff. DOI logo
Martin, Ines A. & Lieselotte Sippel
2023. Long-term effects of peer and teacher feedback on L2 pronunciation. Journal of Second Language Pronunciation 9:1 ► pp. 20 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 march 2026. 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