Chen 2014 Tech Supported Peer Feedback in Esl Writing Classes PDF

This article was downloaded by: [Kyungpook National University]
On: 16 March 2015, At: 15:47

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Computer Assisted Language Learning

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20
Technology-supported peer feedback

in ESL/EFL writing classes: a research
synthesis
Tsuiping Chen
Department of Applied English, Kun Shan University, Tainan City,

Taiwan, Republic of China
Published online: 24 Sep 2014.
Click for updates

To cite this article: Tsuiping Chen (2014): Technology-supported peer feedback in ESL/
EFL writing classes: a research synthesis, Computer Assisted Language Learning, DOI:
10.1080/09588221.2014.960942
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.960942
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:47 16 March 2015
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 2014

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.960942
Technology-supported peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing classes:

a research synthesis
Tsuiping Chen*
Department of Applied English, Kun Shan University, Tainan City, Taiwan, Republic of China
Some studies on technology-supported peer feedback in the writing classroom claim
that it reduces the threatening atmosphere caused by face-to-face interaction and that
the discourse patterns and language use in the electronic feedback are more flexible
than in spoken discourse. Others present a negative view that the comments generated
from technology-supported interaction tend to be superficial and that technical
problems reduce participant motivation in peer interaction. These contradictory results
call for a systematic literature review of this topic. An exhaustive literature search in a
variety of academic sources identified 95 studies from 1990 to 2010 dealing with peer
feedback in English as a second or foreign language (ESL/EFL) writing classrooms.
Of these, 54 contained qualitative data, 20 of which were specifically on computermediated peer feedback. Concentrating on these 20 articles, the researcher conducted
comparative reviews of the characteristics, the pros and cons, and the differences
between synchronous and asynchronous interaction for this mode of peer feedback,
using Glaser and Strauss Grounded Theory (1967) constant comparison method.
Based on the findings, several main themes are identified and three implications
involving pedagogy, group dynamics, and training for future research on this mode of
peer feedback are discussed.
Keywords: technology-supported; peer feedback; synthesis; grounded theory
Introduction
Peer feedback (also referred to as peer review, peer response, peer editing, or peer evaluation) activities, in which students work together to provide comments on one anothers
writing in both written and oral formats through active engagement with each others
progress over multiple drafts (Liu & Hansen, 2005, p. 1) have been introduced from L1
into L2 (English for second/foreign language or ESL/EFL) writing instruction in the
1980s (Zamel, 1982). They have been employed intensively as an instructional method in
ESL/ EFL writing classrooms since 1990 as a means to encourage students to provide
feedback on their peers drafts for improving their writing (Berg, 1999; Carson & Nelson,
1996; Mendonca & Johnson, 1994; Min, 2006; Nelson & Murphy, 1992; Paulus, 1999;
Sengupta, 1998; Tsui & Ng, 2000; Villamil & Guerrero, 1996, 1998). According to these
studies, peer feedback was considered as being able to encourage collaborative learning,
contribute to learner autonomy, enhance a sense of audience awareness, foster the ownership of texts, etc. In addition, it was also found that the full preparation and training of
peer feedback to students prior to peer-feedback activities affected the student reviewers
stances, student writers attitudes, and the quality of students interaction (Berg, 1999;
Min, 2005, 2006; Stanley, 1992; Zhu, 1995).
*Email: tsuiping0925@gmail.com
2014 Taylor & Francis
T. Chen
The increasing use of peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing settings in the past 20 years
was strongly supported by four theoretical frameworks: process-oriented writing
approach, Vygotskys sociocognitive theory of learning, collaborative learning theory,
and interactionist theory of L2 acquisition (Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Liu & Hansen,
2005). Process-oriented writing was defined as an approach containing a multiple-draft
process. This process consists of generating ideas in the pre-writing stage, followed by
writing a first draft focusing on meaning and ideas, and then revising the first or subsequent drafts by integrating feedback provided by readers prior to completing the eventual
writing product (Keh, 1990). Peer feedback is an essential element in the process-oriented writing approach (Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Mittan, 1989; Zamel, 1985).
Vygotskys sociocognitive theory of learning also stressed the importance of social interaction with peers for learning. With the assistance and scaffolding of readers, in the zone
of proximal development (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978), writers go from a potential development level to an actual development level. The concept of ZPD usually refers to the supporting behaviors from an expert learner to a novice learner. In other words, peer
feedback constructs a favorable instructional environment for readers and writers to
work within their respective zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Villamil & Guerrero,
1998, p. 495). Collaborative learning theory emphasized that learning, and even knowledge itself, was constructed socially through communication with knowledgeable peers
in a community. It is through collaboration among peers that some kinds of knowledge
can be acquired (Bruffee, 1984; Liu & Hansen, 2005). Bruffee (1984) even argued that
students should pool the resources that a group of peers brings with them to the task
(p. 644) to complete a task if they could not successfully complete it individually. Peer
feedback provides students with the opportunities to facilitate the completion of a writing
task through dialogue and interaction with their peers (Hirvela, 1999). Interactionist theory of second language acquisition provides another important theoretical basis for peer
response in writing groups. It suggests that the opportunities to encourage students to
negotiate meaning through group work enhance the effectiveness of language learning
(Hyland & Hyland, 2006; Long & Porter, 1985). Just as Hyland and Hyland (2006)
claimed, effective peer feedback helps less capable writers understand how readers
perceive their work:
Interactional modification can assist acquisition by making input available and comprehensible while providing learners with important opportunities for practice, for testing hypotheses
about language use against peers responses, and for revision and writing in response to peer
feedback. (p. 90)
In the traditional writing classroom, students were assigned to a group or a pair to read
their peers writings and give comments in a face-to-face mode. Later on, due to advances
in technology, many writing teachers began to shift the traditional mode of peer-feedback
activity to one that utilized a combination of electronic media, such as through networkbased or web-based discussion boards. In the 1990s, the most widely used technologysupported peer-feedback activities involved synchronous computer-mediated peer feedback occurring in real time, such as the discussion software on local area networks
(LANs) (Braine, 1997, 2001), and Internet chat sites. In addition to that, asynchronous
computer-mediated peer feedback using electronic mail (email) and bulletin board systems (BBS) was also popular. Most of the studies utilizing technology-supported peer
feedback have compared the effects of the two modes of feedback, either traditional or
computer-mediated, on students writing. For example, Ware (2004) argued that a
networked environment could help raise greater audience awareness and communication
purpose, for it made students drafts more widely available and provided student more
audiences. Warschauer (2002) also claimed that the networked communication offered a
non-threatening environment for less proficient students, which resulted in more equal
participation from students of different levels of proficiency, different cultures, or bearing
different characteristics. However, not all findings of technology-supported peer feedback
were so positive. Braine (1997, 2001) discovered that students in traditional face-to-face
classes produced better quality essays than their counterparts in LAN-mediated classes
after a semester of treatment instruction. In addition, Liu and Sadler (2003) found that the
quality of peer comments from traditional face-to-face interaction was higher than those
from synchronous online chat rooms. They attributed the result to the pressure of the
need for participants to respond immediately for online interaction. Proliferation of
research on technology-supported peer feedback since 1990 calls for the necessity of a
systematic method to synthesize the study findings.
The present study intended to synthesize the qualitative inquiries in 20 primary studies which either employed a qualitative or a mixed research design to investigate technology-supported peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing classrooms between the years of 1990
and 2010. The researcher followed the constant comparative method of grounded
theory (GT) (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to analyze the discussion sections of the selected
20 studies. According to Glaser (1992), researchers who use GT as their research method
do not test or verify any preconceived hypothesis; instead, they develop new theory based
on the systematically collected evidence. Therefore, the present synthesis aims to integrate and interpret the findings of different groups of research about technologysupported peer-feedback activities conducted in ESL/EFL writing classrooms. The
research questions guiding the present synthesis are as follows:
(1) What are the characteristics of technology-supported peer-feedback activities
found in the primary studies from 1990 to 2010?
(2) What are the advantages and disadvantages in technology-supported peer-feedback activities demonstrated in the primary studies?
(3) What are the technologies used in the synchronous or asynchronous types of peer
interaction in the primary studies and what are the differences between synchronous or asynchronous types of peer interaction?
(4) What are the main themes emerging from the GT analysis and what is the metatheory for the synthesis?
The following subsections first present the different groups of computer-mediated
peer-feedback research conducted in ESL/EFL writing classrooms during 1990 2010.
Second, the stages of conducting this grounded meta-analysis are described. Then, the
coding results, including the subcategories and core-categories elicited from the constant
comparison on the discussion sections of the 20 studies, are provided. Finally, the findings
for the research questions and the main themes emerging from the grounded analysis are
discussed.
Literature review
Computer technology has played an important role in L2 writing instruction through both
the cognitive era of the 1980s when word processing was deemed as a revision tool
(Pennington, 1993; Warschauer, 2010) and the socio-cognitive era of the 1990s, when
T. Chen
computer-mediated communication was deemed a viable tool of social construction of

meaning (Kern & Warschauer, 2000; Kitade, 2000; Warschauer, 2010). After 2000, when
the multimedia-networked computer era came, some important new tools such as blogs
(Fellner & Apple, 2006; Liou & Peng, 2009; Song, 2007; Wu, 2006) and wikis (Kessler,
2009; Kessler & Bikowski, 2010; Lee, 2010; Li & Zhu, 2013) emerged for the teaching
and learning of writing. Over the past two decades, technology has been continually
explored as a way to promote interaction about writing through peer response groups
(Ware & Warschauer, 2006, p. 109). The central question in the exploration was whether
computer-mediated peer response worked better than traditional face-to-face peer review
(FFPR) in the ESL/EFL writing classrooms. Unfortunately, ESL/EFL professionals in
this field often found that this comparison question could not offer a satisfying answer to
the value of using the technology in the peer-feedback writing classes. Therefore, the following literature review provides a description of how technology was used in the ESL/
EFL peer-feedback activities and how different technology fit or failed to fit with the
peer-feedback activities in ESL/EFL writing instruction during the past two decades
rather than a prescription for how technology should be used in the ESL/EFL peer-feedback activities. Just As Noblit and Hare (1988) argued, the goal of a qualitative or interpretive synthesis is more concerned about informing readers the contexts than
generalizing what constitutes effective practices across contexts. Therefore, before doing
further grounded meta-analysis on this topic, it is very important for the author to give
the readers an outline of the development and various uses of technology-supported peerfeedback activities employed in the ESL/EFL writing classrooms. It includes the discussion of ESL/EFL studies involving the comparison of two modes (technology mode and
traditional face-to-face mode) of peer-feedback activities, ESL/EFL studies regarding the
combination of the two modes of peer-feedback activities, and other ESL/EFL research
on technology-supported peer feedback during the past 20 years.
Comparison of two modes of peer feedback
The first group of studies was conducted by Sullivan and Pratt (1996), Braine (1997,
2001), and Liu and Sadler (2003). Sullivan and Pratts studies focused on comparing
students writing apprehension, writing quality, and writing improvement. Braines two
studies and Liu and Sadlers study compared peer-response length, peer interaction types,
and their influences on the revision between computer-mediated peer-feedback writing
class and traditional peer-feedback writing class (two modes of writing classes).
Sullivan and Pratt (1996) investigated if there were differences in students writing
apprehension, writing attitudes, and overall writing quality between the two writing environments. Three measurements were used to assess anxiety, attitudes, and writing quality.
The statistical results of the pre-and post-tests indicated that within each of the two modes
of writing classes the changes of the three aspects were significant. However, the writing
apprehension between the two modes of writing classes was not significantly different.
As for the attitudes toward using computers, the students in a computer-assisted class
expressed significantly more positive attitudes than the students of a traditional oral class
in both pre-and post-tests; thus, it could not demonstrate that the difference was caused
by the 15 weeks of treatment difference. The results also indicated that the computerassisted class increased significantly, while the traditional oral class decreased significantly, in the pretest posttest writing gain scores. However, the score difference between
the two modes of classes was not significant. Sullivan and Pratt also found out that the
nature of participation and discourse were different for the two groups of students. The
students of computer-assisted class demonstrated much higher participation and turntaking initiation in large group discussion than they were in the traditional oral class.
Further examination on the peer-response discussions showed that the amount of turns
for the traditional oral class groups was greater than that for the computer-assisted class
groups; however, the talk in the computer-assisted class groups was more focused. In
addition, the responses to the writers for the computer-assisted class groups were repetitive which made the problems more visible to the writers (p. 499), while the responses
to the writers for the traditional oral class groups were short and easily eliminated. The
authors finally concluded that students in the computer-assisted classroom engaged more
in discussions, and, subsequently, they got more practice in writing English. Moreover,
they were more focused on the task at hand than students in the traditional oral classroom.
Following Sullivan and Pratt, Braine conducted two studies (1997, 2001) to compare
writing quality and improvement in writing quality between the networked computer classes and the traditional lecture-style classes. In his 1997 study, Braine used a software program which was designed to teach writing on LAN computers. This program also
provided a private editing function and a public viewing function. In the traditional lecture-style writing classes, the computer was used only for word-processing. The first and
final drafts from the two modes of classes were collected for holistic scoring with a TWE
scoring guide. The writing scores indicated that the writing quality in the networked classes was higher than that in the traditional classes but the improvement of writing quality
in the traditional classes was slightly higher. In addition, Braine also collected peer
reviews and teacher comments on students papers to measure the length of comments.
The results showed that the students in the networked classes wrote longer comments and
the teachers in the networked classes also provided more comments while spending less
time. The results of Braines study in students writing improvement were to some degree
different from Sullivan and Pratts study, but the overall results that the networked setting
promoted better writing, more improvement in writing and more peer and teacher feedback echoed Sullivan and Pratts study that technology-supported peer-response activities did work more effectively than traditional ones.
However, in Braines 2001 study, the results did not favor the LAN-based classes as
much as his previous study. In this study, Braine compared EFL undergraduates writings
in the networked classes and traditional classes in Hong Kong. Again, the first and final
drafts were collected to examine the quality of writing and the degree of improvement for
the two modes of classes. The results indicated that the first drafts scores in LAN classes
were higher than the ones in traditional classes; however, the score improvements in the
traditional classes were higher than those in the LAN classes. Braine claimed that this
study was more longitudinal than any previous comparative studies and demonstrated
that LAN classes were no more beneficial to students writing improvement than traditional classes. Since the findings did not show that technology promoted peer-response
discussion or improved students writing quality, Braine called for cautious examination
on the use of LAN in writing classes.
Liu and Sadler (2003), in a similar study, examined if students from different modes
of peer-review groups brought different areas (global versus local), different types (evaluation, clarification, suggestion, alternation), and different natures (revision-oriented versus non-revision-oriented) of comments and to what extent these comments influenced
their peers subsequent revision. The findings indicated that the numbers for total comments, revision-oriented comments and the actual revision produced by the technologysupported peer-review group were larger than the traditional face-to-face group. However, the percentage of subsequent revision made based on the revision-oriented
T. Chen
comments for traditional face-to-face group (41%) was higher than the technologysupported group (27%), which indicated that the overall numbers of comments made by
the two groups could not reflect the real influences of technology on the peer-review process. Another important finding of their study was that the technology-supported group
enjoyed the synchronous communication mode via MOO (multi-user domains object-oriented) because they found it fun, but disliked the asynchronous Word editing function
because it was time-consuming. However, the qualitative and quantitative data demonstrated that the asynchronous commenting mode (i.e., Word editing) of technology-supported peer review worked more effectively than the synchronous commenting mode (i.e.,
MOO) of technology-supported peer review. On the other hand, the face-to-face interaction, another synchronous commenting mode of peer review, worked more effectively
than another asynchronous commenting mode of peer review with paper and pen. Liu and
Sadler (2003) further concluded that the effectiveness of peer review taking place in different modes of classes was more complicated than what was demonstrated.
Indeed, the results of this handful of studies echoed Liu and Sadlers conclusion that
the effectiveness of peer review in the two different environments was beyond what had
been assumed. In some cases, technology facilitated the interaction in peer-feedback
activities and enhanced students revision, while in some other cases, technology could
not offer the functions taking place in the face-to-face peer discussions.
Combination of two modes of peer feedback
The second group of studies were conducted by Warschauer (1996), Sengupta (2001),
DiGiovanni and Nagaswami (2001), Tuzi (2004), Fitze (2006), and Ho and Savignon
(2007). They stressed the importance of using a combination of the two modes of peerfeedback activities into classroom practice.
Using a counter-balanced repeated measure procedure, Warschauer (1996) compared
the two modes of four peer-response groups. He used audiotape recorders to record the
face-to-face discussion and used the software Daedalus InterChange to make students
carry out the electronic discussions. The results indicated that three out of the four groups
showed greater equality of participation in the electronic mode of peer discussions. In the
survey, most students expressed that they had experienced free, comfortable, and creative
discussions through the electronic mode. In addition, two measures of linguistic complexity, type token ratio and coordination index, were used to analyze the content of the electronic discussions and face-to-face discussions. It was found that the language used in
electronic discussions was significantly more complex than that used in the face-to-face
discussions. This finding indirectly suggested that the lack of oral fluency and discomfort
in speaking are important factors in determining students relative participation in faceto-face and electronic mode (p. 21). Warashauer also found that in the electronic discussions, the interactional features such as questioning, recasting, confirmation checks, etc.,
appeared much less than as seen in the face-to-face discussions. Therefore, he argued that
the functions of language learning provided by the two modes of environments should be
carefully examined and considered before any mode of peer response was selected for a
writing class. He further suggested that electronic discussion might be used effectively as
a prelude (p. 22) to oral discussion because electronic discussion contained several features, the longer turns involved, the more equal opportunities for all students to express
their ideas, and the capacity of saving produced texts for further review and analysis.
That is, the two modes of discussion could be combined in the same writing class rather
than being used separately in different writing classes.
Senguptas (2001) study investigated the nature of peer exchange and the conflicts
students face in the class combining the two modes of peer response in Hong Kong. With
data analyses of the archives of discussion, learning logs, the tasks completed, responses
provided, and student interviews from the web-based classrooms, the research found that
these students were learning to use a language as a means of socialization (p. 119) to
establish a community-like classroom in which they adopted agreement and praise moves
of responses to help their peers to reach their goals of writing. The research also found
that these students had experienced a kind of anxiety caused by textual interactions (p.
124), and public visibility of text-based response, which not only demanded their critical
thinking but also their language knowledge. However, it was also this demand that urged
students to develop a sense of personal accountability (p. 124) for learning.
Another study conducted by DiGiovanni and Nagaswami (2001) also required all participants to take part in two modes of peer-review activities, face-to-face peer response,
and online peer response. The authors examined students responses in both modes of
peer review and found that students demonstrated more focus and remained on task when
doing peer review online. In addition, they also found teachers in the networked classroom could monitor students interaction more closely than in the face-to-face classroom.
With the help of the Norton Textra Connect (NTC) interactive software, the teachers
could fully access every pairs interaction, which helped the teachers to intervene at an
appropriate time. Furthermore, the students in the online mode of peer review could
retrieve their peers comments at any time which also encouraged more revisions.
Similar to DiGiovanni and Nagaswamis findings from their participants, in Tuzis
(2004) study, many students also expressed that receiving e-feedback from peers made
them focus on the strong and weak points of their writings, which directly encouraged
them to re-read their writings and revise them. Besides, the availability of e-feedback at
later time also encouraged them to revise more. Another interesting finding in Tuzis
study was that the majority (35%) of the draft revisions came from electronic feedback
and the e-feedback had a great impact on revision at clause, sentence, and paragraph levels (p. 29). However, many students still claimed that they preferred the traditional mode
of feedback. The author, therefore, suggested the L2 writers preference for the oral feedback might only be because they were more accustomed to it.
Following Warschauers (1996) counter-balanced design, Fitze (2006) also conducted
a comparative study combining the two modes of peer feedback for two advanced ESL
writing classes to compare the textual features and participation. These two classes took
turns to experience two weeks of electronic peer-feedback conferences and two weeks of
face-to-face peer-feedback conferences. To decide if there was a difference in the total
number of words produced by the students of the two types of conferences, the total
words produced by the students of the two types of conferences were counted. The results
revealed there was no significant difference in the amount of words produced by the two
conferences. To decide if students in one type of conferences produced more advanced
words than in the other type of conferences, the type token ratio was employed to measure the discourse produced by students in the two types of conferences. The results indicated that the discourse produced in the electronic conferences was more lexically
complex than the discourse produced in the face-to-face conferences and the difference
was significant. In addition, the interaction competence was also compared and it was
found that the discourse produced in the electronic conferences demonstrated a higher
level of interactive competence. Similar to Warschauers (1996) finding, the participation
in the electronic conferences was also distributed in a more balanced way than it was in
the face-to-face conferences.
T. Chen
The final study in this group is Ho and Savignons (2007) study. They investigated 37
two-year college students attitudes towards the two modes of peer review in Taiwan
(face-to-face peer review and asynchronous computer-mediated peer review). Responses
to the open-ended and close-ended questions both indicated that students favored FFPR
much more than computer-mediated peer review (CMPR); however, 72% of the students
preferred the combination of the two modes in the open-ended questions. The students
who favored much more the FFPR mode considered oral discussions during peer reviewsessions crucial, and the drawback of the CMPR mode was its lack of oral discussion.
However, many students still expressed it was stressful to point out their peers writing
problems face to face and they were afraid of hurting their peers feeling by providing
critical comments. These expressions directly echoed Carson and Nelsons (1996) and
Nelson and Carsons (1998) studies that Chinese students tended to avoid providing critical comments or pointing out problems during the peer review in order to keep a harmonic relationship with peers. Even so, most students still had positive attitudes toward
peer review and accepted the value of peer review for their writing development. Therefore, many students suggested using the combination of the two modes which made students provide online comments first, and then discuss these comments face to face later to
lessen the discomfort previously mentioned. In short, Ho and Savignons study did provide a new way for teachers in EFL contexts to reconsider the application of the two
modes of peer review into their writing classrooms.
All in all, the researchers in this group tended to stand in a more moderate position;
they all required their participants to take part in both face-to-face and computer-mediated modes of peer-review activities at the time of their studies and later on asked these
participants to compare these two modes of peer review. Although the results were not all
the same, most of them either encouraged teachers to combine the two modes of peer
review together in the writing classrooms, or provided more objective perspectives on
these two modes of peer review.
Multifarious research on technology-supported peer feedback
The studies in the third group present the multifarious research on technology-supported peer review happening recently. They are as follows: Songs (2007) study discussing how to enhance low-level EFL students composition by using an online
collaborative web serious game
Moses with Blogs, Liou and Pengs (2009) study
examining the training effects on CMPR, and Liangs (2010) study exploring the
revision-related discourse collected from synchronous online peer-response groups in
an EFL writing classroom.
In Songs (2007) study, an online writing program Moses with Blogs was designed
to help EFL learners to elaborate their writing idea and motivate them to become independent writers. Three stages were included in the program. The first stage involved individual self-learning interaction with the Moses website and a free writing based upon this
interaction. The second stage involved collaborative peer-review interaction, and the third
stage involved a combination of rewriting and interacting with peer groups, whole groups,
and online teachers. The purpose of the study was to investigate whether high and lowlevel EFL undergraduates made overall writing progress after using the writing program
and whether high- or low-level EFL undergraduates made overall writing progress in their
vocabulary, flow, creativity, grammar, clarity, and all scores. The results revealed that the
difference between pre/post-test scores for high-level students was not statistically significant, while for low-level students it was statistically significant. Low-level EFL
undergraduates made overall writing progress after using the Moses with Blogs writing
program. The analysis of the five variables in writing indicated that high-level students
made slight progress in vocabulary and clarity, while low-level students made progress in
all five aspects and made significant progress in vocabulary, flow and clarity. These findings demonstrated that the low-level students seemed to be motivated much more than
the high-level students after using the Moses with Blogs program. Song justified the
result by claiming that the program used in the study was not challenging enough for
high-level students and suggested a more complex interaction program to be designed for
high-level students in the future.
Liou and Pengs (2009) study examined the training effects on CMPR. To explore
how the CMPR training affected students peer comments, peer comment adoption,
revised text quality, and students perceptions, this study made use of a commercial free
blog environment Vox (http://www.vox.com). This might provide a new vision for
weblog writing program designers such as Song. Under Vox, the students went through
five stages of writing process (brainstorming, drafting outlines, writing the first draft, peer
comments on the first draft, and revision for the first draft) as a writing cycle for each of
their four writing assignments. A peer-review guiding sheet adapted from Min (2005) and
a peer-review model demonstration formed the peer-review training procedure which
took place in the second and the third assignment cycles. A rubric designed by Liu and
Sadler (2003) was adapted to analyze the peer comments and peer comment adoption
degree. The results indicated that after training, the students comments emphasized more
global issues and suggestions and became more revision-oriented. It was also found that
after training, the revision-oriented comments increased, but the adoption rate declined.
However, the degree of peer comments adopted resulted in successful revision improved
after training. The comparison of the first and the fourth revised drafts demonstrated that
students revising quality improved after training even though the students adopted less
of their peers comments and made fewer revisions in their fourth drafts. A five-point Likert scale questionnaire was administered to find out students perceptions on CMPR. The
results showed that the students attitudes to the CMPR were mixed. For example, they
valued reading and evaluating peers essays in class but they were not sure if their peers
comments were helpful. The questionnaire findings implied that these students in this
study did not believe themselves or their classmates to be eligible to give solid comments on their peers compositions (p. 523). These findings might explain the low adoption of students comments into revision and also revealed the importance of step-to-step
training when applying technology-supported peer review into the writing classroom.
The final study of this group is Liangs (2010) study. Liang explored three groups
(12 students) of the EFL students synchronous online peer response in a writing class. In
order to investigate the different types of interaction in synchronous online discourse and
their influences on the subsequent writing and revision, students online chat sessions, student blogs, and students writing assignments were collected and analyzed. For analyzing
the discourse types, Liang devised taxonomy of revision-related discourse including six
categories: (1) meaning negotiation, (2) content discussion, (3) error correction, (4) task
management, (5) social talk, and (6) technical action, among which meaning negotiation,
content discussion, error correction, and task management were revision-related categories, while social talk and technical action were non-revision-related categories. The
results indicated that the rates in students discourse for meaning negotiation, error correction, and technical action were very low but the rates for content discussion, task management and social talk were much higher. There were no significant differences among
the three groups in terms of revision-related discourse or non-revision-related discourse.
10
T. Chen
However, the relationship between the online peer-review discourses and subsequent
revision actions among the three groups were complex and dynamic (p. 56). That is,
both revision-related discourse and non-revision-related discourse of online interaction
influenced the quality of students subsequent revision in different writing tasks. In the
revision-related discourse, the content discussion and task management categories
showed higher frequency than the meaning negotiation and error correction, which corroborated DiGiovanni and Nagaswamis (2001) findings that students demonstrated more
focus on content discussion and remained on task when doing online peer review. In the
non-revision-related discourse, social talk appeared more frequently than technical
actions, which indicated various interactional processes interdependent with linguistic
negotiations and their relative contribution to synchronous online peer response (Liang,
2010, p. 55). Hence, Liang further argued that the nature of online synchronous peer
response and its influence on subsequent text revisions were even more complicated than
that the previous studies had outlined, valuing the revision-related discourse and disregarding non-revision-related discourse (Liu & Sadler, 2003). Therefore, it is necessary
for writing instructors to proactively model, scaffold, and support revision-related online
discourse if it is to be of benefit (Liang 2010, p. 45).
The third group of studies which provided multifarious perspectives on the research of
technology-supported peer review in ESL/EFL writing contexts implies that the diffusion
of different technologies and different views into the peer-feedback research has made
the writing instruction enter a new era (Warschauer, 2010). Therefore, the ESL/EFL writing teachers should realize that different technologies have different features and should
consider carefully the affordances and constraints of each technology when implementing
it into the peer-feedback activities.
Methodology
The data collection stage
In order to identify the primary research studies to be included for the meta-analysis, the
researcher performed an exhaustive search of the literature through a variety of academic
sources from the year 1990 to the year 2010, including (1) review articles, (2) references
in studies, (3) computerized bibliographic databases, (4) relevant journals, (5) conference
programs and proceedings, and (6) the World Wide Web.
Literature searching steps
The searching process consisted of the following steps:
Step 1: Identification of relevant keywords/subject words.
The following keywords or subject words were identified and used in the follow-up
literature search:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
peer feedback/peer response/peer review/peer editing/peer interaction

peer feedback (and the interchangeable items in item (1) C ESL/EFL writing)
peer cooperation C ESL/EFL writing
peer feedback (and the interchangeable terms in item (1) C training in ESL/EFL
writing)
(5) online (computer-mediated, technology-enhanced, synchronous, asynchronous)
C peer feedback (the interchangeable terms in item (1) C ESL/EFL writing)
11
Step 2: Computerized bibliographic database search

The primary computerized bibliographic databases used for the literature search for eligible studies included (1) Educational Resource Information Center (ERIC), (2) Dissertation Abstract International (DAI), (3) Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), (4) Arts &
Humanities Citation Index (AHCI), (5) Academic Search Premier (EBSCO HOST), (6)
Online Computer Library Center (OCLC), (7) Cambridge Collection Online, (8) Periodicals Archive Online (PAO), (9) Project Muse, (10) JSTOR Arts and Sciences IV Collection, and (11) Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). Searches utilized the above
words and word combinations.
Step 3: Major ESL/EFL refereed journals search

Subsequently, the keyword and subject-word searching techniques were also used to
browse the 29 academic journals that were identified as major sources that would publish
the targeted studies. These targeted journals include: Computers and Composition,
Computer Assisted Language Learning, ReCALL Journal, Language Learning & Technology, System, CALICO Journal, Journal of Second Language Writing, Foreign Language Annual, TESOL Quarterly, The Modern Language Journal, Applied Linguistics,
ELT Journal, Language Learning, Written Communication, TESOL Journal, Language
Teaching Research, RELC Journal, English Language and Linguistics, English Language
Teaching, English Journal, Studies in Second Language Acquisition, The Writing Instructor, Language Teaching, Journal of East Asian Linguistics, Teaching English in China,
CELEA Journal, IRAL Journal, TESOL Canada Journal, and Language Awareness. In
addition, four local journals (Language Teaching and Learning, Taiwan Journal of
TESOL, Studies in English Language and Literature, and Journal of Curriculum and
Instruction) which could not be retrieved electronically were searched through a local
library.
Step 4: Conference proceedings/papers search
In order to lessen the file drawer problem (Rosenthal, 1979, p. 638), a publication
bias in research synthesis, papers which were not published in journals but presented at
conferences and were selected to be included in proceedings were also retrieved. According to Rosenthal, the extreme effect of publication bias is that the published journal studies (5%) which mostly carried out significant results may not be truly representative of all
valid studies (95%) undertaken and this bias may distort meta-analyses and systematic
reviews of large numbers of studies. However, due to the limited access/availability of
most conference papers/proceedings, only the conference papers that could be retrieved
from the Web or certain digital libraries were included. Local conference papers/proceedings were also included if a hard copy was obtainable. The main source used to retrieve
conference proceedings is the Digital Library of Association for Advancement of
Computing in Education (AACE). This library collects papers from five conferences hosted
every year in the field of computations and education overall. The total number of conference papers collected in the AACE digital library is 21,790. It has to be noted that only the
papers related to technology-supported peer feedback conducted in the ESL/EFL writing
classrooms were retrieved from this digital library. Two additional local proceedings, The
Proceedings of International Symposium on English Teaching (distributed by English
Teachers Association in ROC) and Proceedings of International Conference on English
Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (distributed by The English Teaching and
Research Association, Taiwan) were also sources for retrieving eligible studies.
12
T. Chen
Step 5: World Wide Web search

Finally, the World Wide Web was also used to look for additional journals that previous
searches failed to identify as possible sources that published the eligible studies, such as
TESL-EJ. The Google academic search engine (http://scholar.google.com) that deals specifically with sites relevant to the conferences was also used for searching more unpublished studies.
The data evaluation stage
Evaluating the literature: inclusion criteria

Ninety-five studies on peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing were identified through the initial literature search. Of these, 54 studies contained qualitative inquires, 20 of which were
specific to computer-mediated peer feedback. These studies were then retrieved and
reviewed by the author and an invited coder to determine whether they were relevant to
the technology-supported peer-feedback research taking place in the ESL/EFL writing
classrooms. To further screen the retrieved studies, the following inclusion criteria were
developed by the author and the invited coder and used to determine if each specific study
was qualified as an eligible study for this meta-analysis research:
(1) The studies had to be published or completed between 1990 and 2010 and had to
take place in ESL/EFL writing classrooms.
(2) The instructors of the studies had to employ at least one type of technology (computer-mediated) mode of peer-feedback activities in the writing classrooms.
(3) The studies had to employ either a qualitative research design or a mixed research
design including qualitative analysis. The eligible qualitative data within the
mixed research were retained and went through a qualitative analysis in the dataanalysis stage.
(4) The studies for qualitative analysis had to meet several criteria adopted from the
Qualitative Research Guidelines of Journals of Language Learning and Technology and TESOL Quarterly: (a) the studies had to provide detailed descriptions of
the participants and research contexts; (b) the theoretical framework guiding the
research questions had to be clearly stated; (c) the procedures of data collection
and data analysis had to be fully described; (d) the studies had to include the finding reports and study limitations and implications; (e) data analysis should
include descriptions of clear and salient organization of patterns found in the
studies; and (f) the authors had to interpret the findings employing a holistic perspective and trace the meaning of patterns across all contexts in which they were
embedded.
After evaluating each of the retrieved 54 studies according to the inclusion criteria by
the researcher and the invited coder, 20 individual studies were retained as the body of
research for the synthesis. Most of the reviewed studies in the literature review section,
which contained valuable qualitative analyses, were included in this grounded meta-analysis. Of the 20 studies, 16 studies employed a mixed research design (Braine, 1997, 2001;
Chien, 2005; Choi, 2008; DiGiovanni & Nagaswami, 2001; Fitze, 2006; Ho & Savignon,
2007; Huang, 2004; Liang, 2010; Lin, 2005; Liu & Sadler, 2003; Sullivan & Pratt, 1996;
Tuzi, 2004; Wang, 2004; Warschauer, 1996; Wu, 2006) and 4 studies employed a qualitative research design (Cheng, 2007; Lin & Tsai, 2008; Sengupta, 2001; Ware, 2004).
13
Coding the literature

In this stage, the coding was done by the researcher and the invited coder employing the
constant comparative method developed in Glaser and Strauss (1967) GT. First, the
researcher and the invited coder selected 5 studies from the retrieved 20 studies to code
them together for establishing a model of coding for all 20 studies. The following
describes the procedures of the coding for the researcher and the invited coder and the
coding procedures following the GT.
Procedures of coding for two coders. In order to enhance the research credibility for
this grounded meta-analysis, a second coder with more than 10 years of college composition teaching experience and plentiful experiences in employing peer-feedback activities
in her own writing classes was invited to code and analyze the 20 studies with the
researcher. First, the researcher and the invited coder independently went through three
phases of data analysis including data coding, memo writing, and memo and coding sorting for the selected five studies. Then, they engaged in discussion through Skype. Prior to
that, the invited coder was provided with the study background information and GT. The
researcher and the invited coder also discussed face to face to reach common understanding on GT and the coding and analysis procedures. During that meeting, the researcher
and the invited coder also discussed how the 20 studies were selected from the 54
retrieved studies and arranged the schedules for discussion through Skype. It took the
researcher and the invited coder five weeks to finish coding and sorting of the 20 studies.
In the Skype discussions, they compared each individual code, written memos for the
codes, clustered categories, selected core categories, and the properties and dimensions
of the core categories. Each discussion lasted about three to four hours. Based on the
model of coding and analysis established from analyzing the qualitative data of the first 5
selected studies, the researcher and the invited coder continued to code and analyze the
rest 15 studies independently. However, all the resulting codes, memos, categories, and
core categories created by the two coders were compared and discussed before the author
started to write out the synthesis.
Coding procedures of grounded theory. According to Glaser (1978), coding is the
central tenet of GT and it involves substantive coding and theoretical coding. Substantive
coding concerns the conceptualization of the empirical substance found from the area of
research, and theoretical coding concerns the conceptualization of relating the substantive
codes to each other as hypotheses integrated into the theory (p. 55). Therefore, the qualitative data from the 20 studies were coded through both substantive and theoretical
coding.
The substantive coding started from open coding, generating the categories of the
codes, to selective coding for each ESL/EFL technology-supported peer-feedback
research. The open coding began with listing the discrete words or ideas expressed by
each primary study author(s). The researcher and the invited coder coded different incidences into as many categories as possible (Glaser, 1978, p. 56). The purpose of open
coding was to allow the researcher and the invited coder to see different aspects of ESL/
EFL technology-supported peer-feedback studies before they became selective and
focused on particular problems and directions for this strand of research. Therefore, after
open coding, certain categories were generated, and the properties and dimensions for
these categories were also developed and compared in the subsequent process. The selective coding was done after the two coders thought it was time to select a core variable
(category) from generated categories and to stop the open coding; that is, the two coders
were to delimit the coding to the variables that were related to the core variable.
14
T. Chen
Substantive coding
Open coding
Generating
the categories
Selective
coding
Theoretical coding
Yielding the
conceptual
relationship
between the
categories
Integrating
the concepts
Theory
writing
The two
rounds of
qualitative
coding
Figure 1. The two rounds of qualitative coding.
After finishing the substantive coding, the researcher and the invited coder entered the
second round of coding, i.e., theoretical coding. It started from yielding the conceptual
relationship between the categories and their properties, then integrating the relevant concepts and finally to writing theory. During the theoretical coding, the two coders sorted
the coding results from substantive coding and written memos to yield conceptual relationships between core variables (categories) and other subcategories, and then integrated
the concepts found from technology-mode of peer-feedback research to form a theory
that can explain the phenomena of the research. The main force to bring out the theoretical codes from substantive codes could be attributed to memo writing. Glaser (1992)
defined memo writing in this way: . . .the theorizing write-up of ideas as they emerge,
while coding for categories, their properties and their theoretical codes. . .they are written
up as they strike the analyst when constantly comparing, coding and analyzing (p. 108).
It has to be noted that the relationship among the different types of coding during substantive and theoretical coding is not linear once the coding starts and some of the coding
may happen simultaneously. Figure 1 illustrates the two rounds of coding.
Analysis and interpretation stage

Data analysis using GT methodology is combined with coding by which data are broken
into smaller parts, categorized, examined, and conceptualized in new ways (Strauss &
Corbin, 1990). Four phases formed the basis of the data analysis for the 20 studies of technology-mode of ESL/EFL peer-feedback research. These four phases were data coding,
memo writing, memo and code sorting, and theory writing, which were not sequential
acts, but continued to emerge during analysis, as illustrated in Figure 2.
Coding results
In total, 327 initial codes were created, which resulted in 13 subcategories and 4 core categories as shown in Table 1. The four core categories contain: (A) the characteristics of
technology-supported mode of peer-feedback activities, (B) comparison of two modes
(traditional face-to-face mode and technology mode) of peer-feedback activities, (C)
functions of two types (synchronous type and asynchronous type) of peer-feedback activities, and (D) implications for future research on the technology mode of peer-response
activities. In the first core category, four dimensions involved in technology-supported
peer-feedback activities were discussed. They were interaction situations, discourse patterns and language usage, teachers role, and students role. In the second core category,
Phase 1
Data Coding
Phase 4
Theory Writing
Theory finding
Integrating the
concepts
15
Open coding
Phase 2
Memo Writing
Generating the
categories
Selective coding
Concepts emerging
Theoretical coding
Substantive coding
Phase 3
Memo + Code
Sorting
Figure 2. Four phases of qualitative data analysis.
the positive and negative points of traditional and technology modes of peer-feedback
activities were elaborated. In the third core category, the different functions of synchronous and asynchronous peer-feedback activities were demonstrated. In the final core category, three aspects (the pedagogical aspect, grouping dynamic aspect, and training
aspect) of directions for future research on the technology mode of peer-response activities were provided (see example codes for all subcategories in the Appendix).
Of the 20 studies, the first rank of subcategories involved in reporting asynchronous
type of peer feedback (endorsed by 17 studies), the positive points of the technology
mode of peer-response activities (endorsed by 18 studies) and the pedagogical implications for implementing successful peer-response activities (endorsed by 20 studies). The
second rank (endorsed by 13, 9, or 8 studies) of subcategories included synchronous type
peer feedback, the training aspect of concern for future research on technology mode of
peer feedback, interaction situations, students role, discourse patterns and language
usage, teachers role, and negative points of the technology mode of peer feedback, and.
The third rank of subcategories included positive (endorsed by five studies) and negative
points (endorsed by two studies) of traditional (face-to-face) mode peer feedback, and the
grouping dynamic aspect of technology mode of peer-feedback activities (endorsed by
five studies). The reasons for fewer studies to report these concepts might be they were
peripheral for this strand of research, they were only attended to by some researchers, or
they were just emerging. For example, the categories of positive points and negative
points of traditional peer feedback were mentioned so little within these 20 studies
because most of attention was put on discussing the advantage or disadvantages of technology-supported peer feedback. Although about half of 20 studies made comparison
16
T. Chen
Table 1. Core category and subcategories.

Core category A
The characteristics of
technology-supported mode
of peer-feedback activities
Subcategories of core category A

(1) Interaction situations (8)
(2) Discourse patterns and language usage (8)
(3) Teachers role (8)
(4) Students role (9)
Core category B
Comparison of two modes of
peer-feedback activities
Subcategories of Core category B

(1) Positive points of technology mode of feedback (18)
(2) Negative points of technology mode of peer feedback
(8)
(3) Positive points of traditional (face to face) mode of peer
feedback (5)
(4) Negative points of traditional (face to face) mode of
peer feedback (2)
Core category C
Functions of two types of peerfeedback activities
Subcategories of Core category C

(1) Synchronous type of peer feedback (13)
(2) Asynchronous type of peer feedback (17)
Core category D
Implications for future research
on technology mode of peerfeedback activities
Subcategories of Core category D

(1) The pedagogical aspect of technology mode of peerfeedback activities (20)
(2) The grouping dynamic aspect of technology mode of
peer-feedback activities (5)
(3) The training aspect of technology mode of peerfeedback activities (9)
Note: number of studies endorsing this concept embedded in the subcategory.
between the two modes of peer feedback, the discussion on traditional mode of peer
feedback was scarce.
Discussion of research questions
Research Question 1: What are the characteristics of technology-supported peer feedback activities found in the primary studies from 1990 2010?
Within the past 20 years, technology has been employed increasingly in the writing
classrooms since it is considered a viable way to promote meaning construction and different types of interaction (Donato, 1994; Peterson, 2009; Swain & Lapkin, 1998; van
Lier, 1996; Watanabe, 2008). The main reason that incorporating technology into peerfeedback activities became so popular came from its great capacity of information storage
and instant access to feedback. That is, no matter if the interaction was synchronous or
asynchronous, the interaction content could be saved simultaneously when the students
were providing feedback. More than that, teachers could also access or monitor the
students technology-supported peer-feedback activities much more closely and timely
than they could in the traditional peer-feedback activities.
Characteristics of technology-supported peer-feedback activities found in the 20 primary studies could be summarized into three aspects. The first aspect concerned the interaction situations. For example, the participants in this mode of peer-response activities
showed higher and more equal patterns of participation because the electronic interaction
benefited the participants who were not good at or used to traditional face-to-face oral
17
interaction (Sullivan & Pratt, 1996; Warschauer, 1996). In addition, the technology mode
of exchange was longer and less direct (Warschauer, 1996) and the turn-taking was not
clear because the participants rushed into typing in order to follow the communication
flow (Liu & Sadler, 2003). This way of interaction reduced the threatening atmosphere
caused by face-to-face interaction. It was also demonstrated that when students took on
the technology mode of interaction, they remained much more on the task (DiGiovanni &
Nagaswami, 2001) and devoted greater attention to the writing task (Chien, 2005). On the
other hand, students expressed that they felt more comfortable in providing comments
through electronic modes of interaction. Therefore, the computer-mediated mode of peerfeedback activities increased student motivation and participation in the composition
class (Cheng, 2007).
The second aspect concerned the discourse patterns and language usages. The results
of the data analysis showed that the discourse and language use in the electronic feedback
were more flexible. Some e-feedback appeared to have greater lexical range because the
paralinguistic cues had to be expressed in explicit language. (Fitze, 2006). Without time
constraint in asynchronous type of exchanges, some comments in the electronic peer
feedback were considered more focused and specific (Sullivan & Pratt, 1996) and some
were even considered as involving more complex and formal expression lexically and
syntactically (Warschauer, 1996). Moreover, some comments made in Word were considered more thoughtful (Liu & Sadler, 2003). On the other hand, some revision-related discourse was demonstrated to focus more on content discussion rather than error correction,
and some non-revision-related discourse focused more on social talk rather than technical
actions (Liang, 2010).
The third aspect concerned the teachers role and the students role. In the technologysupported peer group, the teachers role was less dominating in controlling students discussion than it was in the traditional peer group classroom (Sullivan & Pratt, 1996). However, through computers, teachers could monitor students interaction much more closely
and intervene right away when necessary (DiGiovanni & Nagaswami, 2001). Through
close monitoring, teachers could also provide quick feedback to students (Cheng, 2007)
and add some activities during the process to increase students motivation (Wang,
2004). Moreover, by means of technology, teachers could model and scaffold the revision
strategies more effectively and efficiently. As for the students role, it was found that students engaged more in discussion and providing suggestions in this mode of peer-feedback activities because they were more able to control the flow of discourse (Sullivan &
Pratt, 1996). Students also became much more critical and more involved in effective
negotiations. (DiGiovanni & Nagaswami, 2001). Therefore, L2 students in the written
electronic interaction showed more interactive competence and more control of the discussion (Fitze, 2006). On the other hand, it was found that students were more able to
cooperate with their peers mainly with task-related online talk (Chien, 2005) and could
critique each other much more freely and directly than they did in the traditional face-toface classes (Cheng, 2007). It could be said that under this mode of interaction, students
easily observed their peers taking risks, and they were more willing to participate actively
in discussion (Braine, 1997). Such engagement helped students to share perspectives and
reach the intersubjectivity level of learning which would result in better subsequent
writing and revision (Liang, 2010, p. 56).
Research Question 2: What are the advantages and disadvantages in technology-supported peer feedback activities as demonstrated in the primary studies?
The reported advantages and disadvantages of technology-supported peer-feedback
activities were discussed in three issues, the affective, the practical, and the technical
18
T. Chen
issues. For the advantages of positive affective issues, the technology mode of feedback
reduced students worry about non-native accents and bias caused by social norms (Ware,
2004). In addition, the lack of face-to-face interaction was also beneficial for some students whose cultural backgrounds did not encourage peer interactions in a classroom
environment (Liu & Sadler, 2003). However, the heavy workload feeling could be raised
by the fact that the Web made each individual much more accountable because all interaction and participation appeared on the Web classroom (Sengupta, 2001).
In terms of positive practical issues, computer interaction allowed students to respond
spontaneously, to reflect on their ideas, to rehearse their responses, and to work at their
own pace (DiGiovanni & Nagaswami, 2001). It also allowed students to express themselves freely, comfortably, and creatively (Warschauer, 1996). Additionally, the use of
technology tools such as blogs in the L2 writing class expanded the audience of L2 writers and allowed them to feel that they were writing to more than just their classmates or
instructor (Tuzi, 2004). More than that, a sense of responsibility arose in learners minds
because the high visibility in the technology mode made everyone know who was not
keeping up with the class (Sengupta, 2001). On the other hand, there were some practical
disadvantages. For example, it was found that the rapidly added messages on the computer screen could create confusing ideas (Braine, 1997, 2001). Moreover, the peer-editing job done on the computer (e.g., Word) could be very time-consuming and the
comments generated from synchronous conversation (e.g., MOO) tended to be more
superficial (Liu & Sadler, 2003).
With regard to positive technical issues, technology provided students many possibilities for learning from peer-feedback activities. For instance, the peer comments stored in
the computer could be printed out for later revision and reflection and even for further
research (DiGiovanni & Nagaswami, 2001). The interactive network task provided students with authentic and communicative learning (Lin & Tsai, 2008). The Word commenting mode gave student reviewers more space in giving comments and reduced
student writers face-threatening opportunities as receiving a paper full of red ink, crossing out sentences (Liu & Sadler, 2003), etc. The negative points for technical issues were
reflected in many examples. First, the technical problems such as unstable servers, slow
speeds for connection, difficult access to chat rooms, faulty email connections, etc.,
caused the participants negative attitudes to the incorporation of the technology into the
peer-feedback activities (Cheng, 2007; Huang, 2004). In addition to that, the nonverbal
communication which was important for intercultural communication in peer-review
activities was neglected in the computer-mediated communication (Liu & Sadler, 2003;
Warschauer, 1996).
Research Question 3: What are the technologies used in the synchronous or asynchronous types of peer interaction in the 20 primary studies and what are the differences
between synchronous or asynchronous types of peer interaction?
The technology-supported mode of peer interaction referred to synchronous and asynchronous types of communication. As we can see from Table 2, the researchers in 10 of
the 20 studies used both synchronous and asynchronous types of software, platform or
forum in their writing classrooms. Seven studies employed only synchronous type of peer
interaction and three studies employed only asynchronous types of peer interaction.
Of the 20 studies, some researchers argued that synchronous online communication
did not allow enough time for participants to correct errors or clarify meanings in writing
but allowed participants to get immediate response from peers. It was considered a more
dynamic communicative way for group interaction (Liang, 2010). Some other researchers
claimed that synchronous communication, such as chat rooms, was favored by a majority
Sullivan and Pratt (1996)
Braine (1997)
Braine (2001)
DiGiovanni and
Nagaswami (2001)
Sengupta (2001)
Liu and Sadler (2003)
Tuzi (2004)
Ware (2004)
Wang (2004)
Huang (2004)
10
11
Warschauer (1996)
Author (year)
Study no.
Write On-Line Website
On-line Process-oriented Writing

Program (OPWP)
WebCT interface
Microsoft Word
MOO (an online chatroom)
A database-driven website
Image & Text Bulletin Board
A software program designed to

teach writing on local-area
networked computers (LANs)
A software program designed to
teach writing on local-area
networked computers (LANs)
Norton Textra Connect (NTC)
Daedalus
Daedalus InterChange
Names of software, platform, or

forum
A software with real-time communication component of the
Daedalus Integrated Writing Environment
A software including several modules: a word processor, two
heuristic programs, a message system, and a real time
electronic discussion program (InterChange)
To display three windows on each computer screen one for
private editing, another one for public viewing and the other
one for simultaneous group discussion
To display three windows on each computer screen one for
private editing, another one for public viewing, and the other
one for simultaneous group discussion
An interactive software that allows students to collaborate
synchronously and asynchronously
A forum for discussing topics related to image and text and
learning logs
Editing (commenting mode)
Synchronous interaction mode
A web site that can house all the essays and responses in a
database
An online learning management platform that allows for both
synchronous chat session and asynchronous threaded
discussions
A platform for writing instruction including three areas: the
registration area, the writing activity area, and the online
questionnaire area
A website for the online writing project web pages to be
designed and uploaded and offering chat room for
discussion
Function of the software, platform, or forum
Table 2. Software, platform, or forum used in the technology-supported peer-feedback research.
(continued)
A/S
A/S
A
S
A
A/S
A/S
A/S
A/S
Temporality
(asynchronous/
synchronous)

19
Lin (2005)
Chien (2005)
Wu (2006)
Fitze (2006)
Ho and Savignon (2007)
Cheng (2007)
Lin and Tsai (2008)
Choi (2008)
Liang (2010)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Author (year)
12
Study no.
Table 2. (Continued )
Email
(1) USD Online Writing center
(2) Daves ESL Caf
e
(3) FanStory
Email system of WebCT
MSN Messenger Blog
MSN Messenger Chat
Track Changes in Word
WebCT
Email
Blogger Website
Online Writing & Editing Room

(POWER)
WebBoard
Names of software, platform, or

forum
To submit essays and communicate with peers

To post writing assignments and responses
To join synchronous online group discussion
To document every change made in a text, including questions,

comments, insertions, and deletions
An asynchronous electronic exchange
On-line Writing Forum
A software with a conference system used for synchronous (a

small program chat-space) and asynchronous (web-based
bulletin board system) online communication
Power was developed based on PLog, a popular PHP and My
SOL blogging platform. A blog is usually a journal that is
available on the web and the activities of updating a blog is
blogging. Power combines the advantages of chat rooms
and document management programs.
A free blog featuring blog hosting services to post writing
assignments and responses
A software used for the written electronic conferences
An asynchronous electronic exchange
Function of the software, platform, or forum
A
A
S
A
A
S
A
A/S
A/S
Temporality
(asynchronous/
synchronous)
20
T. Chen
21
of students over the bulletin board due to the nature of communication (i.e., instantaneous feedback) and usability (i.e., better control) (Lin, 2005, p. 105). In addition, the
synchronous chat room was considered more suitable for brainstorming ideas at the
beginning of writing. However, it was also noted that students frequently strayed off discussion tasks in the chat room (Lin, 2005). Furthermore, some researchers discovered
that recording students synchronous online interactions was beneficial for instruction
and research because it encouraged the reflective way of learning to look at the dynamics
of group interaction (Chien, 2005; Liang, 2010).
Asynchronous computer-mediated peer interaction also had its strengths. For example, it was recommended for enabling learners to take time to reflect on their ideas and
rehearse responses to their partners (Liu & Sadler, 2003; Wang, 2004). In addition, in the
asynchronous types of peer interaction, learners could give feedback at their own pace,
which resulted in facilitating serious and deeply-thought-out discussion (Lin, 2005,
p. 107). Some studies found out that learners felt more relaxed in providing asynchronous
feedback than synchronous feedback (Lin, 2005; Liu & Sadler, 2003), and the asynchronous peer interaction reduced the pressure occurred in the synchronous peer interaction
(Ho & Savignon, 2007; Wang, 2004). Moreover, it was considered that students were
quicker to respond with direct critiques of their classmates essays when using asynchronous computer-mediated discussions (Cheng, 2007).
Research Question 4: What are the main themes emerging from the grounded theory
analysis and what is the meta-theory for the synthesis?
The main themes elicited from the research synthesis are connected with successful
incorporation of technology into peer-feedback activities and training. The first theme is
that the writing instructor should make good use of the functions that technology affords,
such as using the student peers interaction log files for further instruction or as materials
for peer-feedback training (Choi, 2008; DiGiovanni & Nagaswami, 2001; Tuzi, 2004).
Second, characteristics of both synchronous and asynchronous types of peer interaction
should be considered when determining to apply them into writing instruction simultaneously or interchangeably (Cheng, 2007; Chien, 2005; Fitze, 2006; Liang, 2010; Lin,
2005; Liu & Sadler, 2003). Third, to what extent the length of employing technology into
peer interaction writing activities would affect writing instruction should be carefully
evaluated (DiGiovanni & Nagaswami, 2001). Fourth, the benefits of combining traditional and technology modes of peer-feedback activities should be taken into consideration (Ho & Savignon, 2007; Liu & Sadler, 2003; Warschauer, 1996). Finally, the group
dynamics regarding the relationship within group members or between groups (Chien,
2005; Choi, 2008; Fitze, 2006; Lin, 2005), students characteristics (Fitze, 2006; Ho &
Savignon, 2007) and computer literacy (Choi, 2008; Wang, 2004), and students motivation for participating in the peer interaction should also be concerned.
The concepts supporting the emerging five themes interrelated with five components,
i.e., technology affordances, technology features, technology constraints, combination of
technology-supported and traditional peer feedback, and learner factors. Based on the
five components, the meta-theory of this qualitative synthesis can be constructed in
this way:
The teachers capability in fostering technology affordances, realizing technology features
and constraints, combining the benefits provided by traditional and technology-supported
peer feedback and raising students affective, strategic, and technical competence to take on
peer interaction tasks through sufficient training determines the success or failure of technology-supported peer feedback activities.
22
T. Chen
The teachers capability is dependent on his/her belief in the effect of technology on

peer-feedback activities as well as his/her enthusiasm in spending time and energy in
designing peer interaction tasks and training students different kinds of competence.
Students affective competence involves their acknowledgement of the importance of
being a collaborative and facilitative reader and a challenging and challengeable writer
within a group or between groups. Students strategic competence involves their ability
to engage in peer interaction in two-way, supportive and negotiable manners. Students
technical competence includes their satisfactory level of computer literacy and skills in
making use of various functions afforded by the technology. Once these kinds of competence are appropriately developed via trainings, favorable results of technology-supported
peer-feedback activities can be expected.
Implications for future research
The implications found in the 20 studies for future research can be discussed in three
aspects: the pedagogical implication, the group dynamic implication, and the training
implication. Regarding the pedagogical implication, first of all, the findings suggested
that in the technology mode of peer feedback, students appear to give more suggestions;
however, if these suggestions are benefiting student writers, they need to be examined.
Furthermore, it is necessary to conduct a longitudinal study with a larger sample
(DiGiovanni & Nagaswami, 2001). Second, it is suggested that face-to-face and electronic discussions should be combined for the most effective peer review to occur. The
use of technology in peer review should not be seen as unchangeable, and L2 writing
teachers must be familiar with multiple types of peer review in both traditional and technology-supported modes (Ho & Savignon, 2007; Liu & Sadler, 2003; Warschauer, 1996).
Third, future research on peer review in ESL/EFL settings should examine if the learners
perceptions on interaction patterns in both face-to-face and computer-mediated peer
review are affected by such variables as English learning experiences, assignment types,
learners age, speaking fluency, and characteristics (Fitze, 2006; Ho & Savignon, 2007).
Finally, teachers should prepare the students well for employing new technology into
peer-reviewing writing instruction. It is only with the instruction and supervision of teachers and user-friendliness of the technology that effective computer-mediated student peer
interaction can happen (Choi, 2008; Wang, 2004).
Another implication for this mode of research concerns the grouping dynamics. The
findings suggested that different compositions of groups generate different types of interactions (Liang, 2010). Therefore, it is likely that group peer reviews may provide students
with various perspectives and reduce students risk of being paired with a partner who is
irresponsible, not easy to get along with, or too different in English writing abilities
(Huang, 2004). More than that, the inter- and intra-group collaboration should also be
strengthened at the same time. Allowing inter-group interactions will encourage more
online discussion for students and increase students feedback sources (Choi, 2008). In
addition to that, future studies should examine whether grouping or pairing for online
peer response affects the interaction effect or efficiency (Chien, 2005; Fitze, 2006;
Lin, 2005).
The third implication involves training. First, it is found that by giving sufficient peerfeedback training, purpose explanation and combining two modes of peer feedback, the
students will benefit the most from the activities (Ho & Savignon, 2007; Liu & Sadler,
2003). Next, some researchers claimed that printouts of students interactions can be a
useful training tool. From them, teachers can demonstrate appropriate examples of
23
response rhetoric to students and teach them how to generate the most useful, relevant and
helpful online comments and how to make use of peers comments into the following
revision (Choi, 2008; DiGiovanni & Nagaswami, 2001; Tuzi, 2004). Last, it is suggested
that prior to the start of the peer-reviewing tasks, teachers should explicitly model useful
peer-response strategies for students at different levels of English and schedule practice
sessions for them (Chien, 2005; Choi, 2008; Liang, 2010).
Conclusion
A research synthesis is useful to reveal deep insights into disparate literature for future
research (Bangert-Drowns, Hurley, & Wilkinson, 2004). The conclusions can be made on
the basis of the results of the grounded analysis. First, this paper included 20 studies,
most of which were conducted after the year of 2000, indicating the fact that the year
2000 was an important turning point to bring various technology-supported peer-feedback
activities into ESL/EFL writing instruction. A variety of software, platforms or forums,
such as LANs (Braine, 2001), WebCT (Choi, 2008; Fitze, 2006; Ware, 2004), and Messenger Blog (Liang, 2010; Wu, 2006), were employed in ESL/EFL peer-feedback activities. Using technology in peer-feedback activities, students were given more chances to
access written discourse, which helped indirectly to improve their skills and strategies to
written communications. In addition, the problems, which always existed in traditional
face-to-face peer writing groups, such as off-task discussions, individuals domination,
and unequal participation, became less influential in computer-mediated interactions. For
writing teachers, technology provided them with the opportunities to closely observe and
timely intervene students interaction processes during the peer-feedback activities. That
is, technology gave teachers more alternatives in applying the peer-feedback strategy in
their writing classrooms. With the emerging technology, such as Facebook, Twitter,
Wikis, etc., it is expected that after the year 2010, the studies on the face-to-face peer
interactions will gradually be shifted to computer-to-computer ones. The level of
students computer literacy will partially replace students oral proficiency to affect
students involvement in the interactions among peers in computer-mediated writing
classrooms. In this way, text revision and peer interaction quality and quantity generated
from different types of technology-supported peer feedback should be different from
those generated from face-to-face peer feedback. Therefore, more scientific studies
should be carried out to compare the traditional and technology based peer feedback, or
compare different types of technology-supported peer feedback to tell which is more
effective.
Second, the capacity of technology should be carefully evaluated for its full utilization. Synchronous online peer feedback, asynchronous peer interaction in computer labs,
and the other forms of technology-based feedbacks may not always yield positive results.
However, its power of instant access to or reply to any feedbacks, and its capability to
monitor students interactions indeed deserves our sufficient attention. In addition to that,
the information storage capacity also has a great impact on peer-feedback training. Just as
Swaffar, Romano, and Arens (1998) mentioned, computer conversation offers students
the opportunities to work at their own pace reflecting on their ideas and rehearsing their
responses. Sullivan (1993) also suggested that the accessible transcripts of real-time discussions are beneficial for research and reference.
Finally, a team process (Hossler & Scalese-Love, 1989, p. 13) of inquiry for
research synthesis was suggested to address the concern of internal or external validity of
the primary studies. Actually, it was strongly recommended by quantitative meta-analysts
24
T. Chen
(Norris & Ortega, 2006), and qualitative meta-analysts (Hossler & Scalese-Love, 1989;
Light & Pillemer, 1982) to use a research team to reduce the biases and subjectivity
caused by individual researcher. On the other hand, a team approach allows researchers
to analyze a large amount of studies thoroughly. A meta-analysis method, wherever it is
applied to synthesize quantitative or qualitative studies, involves intensive labor in data
collection and analysis. Thus, a group of researchers working together is the best way to
guarantee the research quality of any synthesis research. In addition, investing time and
resources to synthesize the information that already exists (Light & Pillemer, 1984, pp.
vii viii) should be valued. Because of the effort of conducting this qualitative meta-analysis on ESL/EFL computer-mediated peer feedback using the ground theory, this
researcher was edified by realizing the importance of teachers belief on peer-feedback
effect, the dynamics of grouping and training on peer-feedback activities, and the power
of making use of technology in peer-reviewing writing instruction. This experience confirmed the assertion made by Light and Pillemer (1984): society must improve its effort
to learn from existing findings, to discover what is known (p. ix). Based on the results of
this work on qualitative meta-analysis, future researchers can explore peer-feedback
research further in many areas. For example, one possible area is to compare the computer-mediated peer-feedback activities taking place in the EFL contexts of Asia and
European countries. Because the homogeneity of settings and writers characteristics
among those countries is higher than that between the ESL contexts (USA or UK) and
EFL contexts (Asia or European countries), it seems to be more meaningful for further
research to do a comparison within the similar EFL contexts. Another area of research is
to investigate how computer-mediated peer feedback outside writing classrooms contributes to students long-term development of being a good writer. As the technology continues to influence students lives and learning processes outside classrooms and to be
incorporated in ESL/EFL writing classrooms, there is a need for more research on how to
integrate that technology effectively in both settings through peer interactions.
Although the concepts developed in the research synthesis on this topic are not complete, the iterations of category identification demonstrated in this study will benefit
future researchers using a similar strategy (Tellez & Waxman, 2006). Moreover, the conceptual holes and gaps resulting from the study also help indicate the directions that future
researchers can pursue.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank Dr Huifen Lin, Dr Boyd Davis, Dr Elizabeth Gatbonton and
Dr Meaghan Rand for their encouraging comments and suggestions on this paper.
Funding
This research is partially supported by a grant from the National Science Council in Taiwan
[NSC- 101-2410-H-168-008].
Notes on contributor
Dr Tsuiping Chen is an associate professor in the Applied English Department of Kun Shan University, Tainan, Taiwan. Her research focuses on using qualitative and quantitative meta-analysis
methods to investigate peer feedback research conducted in the ESL/EFL writing classrooms.
25
References
Note. Studies that were included in the qualitative meta-analysis are marked with one asterisk ().
Bangert-Drowns, R.L., Hurley, M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing-tolearn interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 74(1), 29 58.
Berg, E.C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students revision types and writing
quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 215 241.

Braine, G. (1997). Beyond word-processing: Networked computers in ESL writing classes.
Computers and Composition, 14(1), 45 58.

Braine, G. (2001). A study of English as a foreign language (EFL) writers on a local-area network
(LAN) and in traditional classes. Computers and Composition, 18, 275 292.
Bruffee, K. (1984). Peer tutoring and the conversation of mankind. College English, 26,
635 652.
Carson, J.G., & Nelson, G.L. (1996). Chinese students perceptions of ESL peer response group
interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 1 19.

Cheng, M.C. (2007). Improving interaction and feedback with computer mediated communication
in Asian EFL composition classes: A case study. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 4(1), 65 97.

Chien, C. (2005). Effects of online peer response on EFL college writing (Unpublished master thesis). National Tsing-Hua University, Taiwan.

Choi, J. (2008). The role of online collaboration in promoting ESL writing. English Language
Teaching, 1(1), 34 49.

DiGiovanni, E., & Nagaswami, G. (2001). Online peer review: An alternative to face-to-face. ELT
Journal, 55, 263 272.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J.P. Lantolf, & G. appel
(Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33 56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Fellner, T., & Apple, M. (2006). Developing writing fluency and lexial complexity with blogs. The
JALT CALL Journal, 2(1), 15 26.
*Fitze, M. (2006). Discourse and participation in ESL face-to-face and written electronic conferences. Language Learning & Technology, 10(1), 67 86. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/
vol10num1/fitze/default.html
Glaser, B.G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology.
Glaser, B.G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs. forcing. Mill Valley, CA:
Sociology Press.
Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Hirvela, A. (1999). Collaborative writing instruction and communities of readers and writers.
TESOL Quarterly, 8(2), 7 12.

Ho, M., & Savignon, S.J. (2007). Face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review in EFL writing.
CALICO Journal, 24(2), 269 290.
Hossler, D., & Scalese-Love, P. (1989). Grounded meta-analysis: A guide for research synthesis.
Review of Higher Education, 13 (1), 1 28.

Huang, M. (2004). The use of process writing and internet technology in a Taiwanese college
English writing class: A focus on peer reviews (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University
Park: The Pennsylvania State University.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students writing. Cambridge
Journal, 39, 83 101.
Keh, C.L. (1990). Feedback in the writing process: A model and methods for implementation. ELT
Journal, 44(4), 294 304.
Kessler, G. (2009). Student-initiated attention to form in wiki-based collaborative writing.
Language Learning & Technology, 13(1), 79 95. Retrieved May 20, 2010, from http://llt.msu.
edu/vol13num1/kessler.pdf
Kessler, G., & Bikowski, D. (2010). Developing collaborative autonomous learning abilities in
computer mediated language learning: Attention to meaning among students in wiki space.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(1), 41 58.
Kern, R., & Warschauer, M. (2000). Introduction. In M. Warschauer, & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based
language teaching: Concepts and practice (pp. 1 19). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26
T. Chen
Kitade, K. (2000). L2 learners discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in
Internet chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(2), 143 166.
Lee, L. (2010). Exploring wiki-mediated collaborative writing: A case study in an elementary Spanish course. CALICO Journal, 27(2), 260 276.
Li, M., & Zhu, W. (2013). Patterns of computer-mediated interaction in small writing groups using
wikis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(1), 61 82.
*Liang, M.-Y. (2010). Using synchronous online peer response groups in EFL writing: Revisionrelated discourse. Language Learning & Technology, 14(1), 45 64. Retrieved from http://llt.
msu.edu/vol14num1/liang.pdf
Light, R., & Pillemer, D. (1982). Numbers and narrative: Combining their strengths in research
reviewers. Harvard Educational Review, 52, 1 26.
Light, R., & Pillemer, D. (1984). Summing up: The science of reviewing research. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.

Lin, J.Y. (2005). Synchronous and asynchronous conferencing: A comparison of two modes of
online ESL peer response and their effects on student talk and subsequent text revision. Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(7), 2548.
*Lin, C.H., & Tsai, P.L. (2008). Case study on Chinese students perceptions of revision in English
Writing with interaction of feedback from tutor, peers, and on-line consultants. In K. McFerrin
et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2008 (pp. 3568 3573). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://
www.editlib.org/p/27798
Liou, H.-C., & Peng, Z.-Y. (2009). Training effects on computer-mediated peer review. System, 37,
514 525.
Liu, J., & Hansen, J.G. (2005). Peer response in second language writing classroom. Ann Arbor:
The University of Michigan Press.

Liu, J., & R. Sadler (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional
modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 193 227.
Long, M., & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition.
TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207 227.
Mendonca, C.O., & Johnson, K.E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (4), 745 769.
Min, H.T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293 308.
Min, H.T. (2006). The effects of training peer review on EFL students revision types and writing
quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265 289.
Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: Harnessing students communicative power. In D.M.
Johnson, & D.H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 207 219).
New York, NY: Longman.
Nelson, G.L., & Carson, J.G. (1998). ESL students perceptions of effectiveness in peer response
groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 113 132.
Nelson, G.L., & Murphy, J.M. (1992). An L2 writing group: Task and social dimensions. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 1(3), 171 193.
Noblit, G.W., & Hare, R.D. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Norris, J.M., & Ortega, L. (2006). The value and practice of research synthesis for language learning and teaching. In J.M. Norris & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing research on language learning and teaching (pp. 3 50). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Paulus, T.(1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second
Lan-guage Writing, 8, 265 289.
Pennington, M. (1993). Exploring the potential of word processing for non-native writers.
Computers and the Humanities, 27(3), 149 163.
Peterson, M. (2009). Learner interaction in synchronous CMC: A sociocultural perspective.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22(4), 303 321.
Rosenthal, R. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638 641.
Sengupta, S. (1998). From text revision to text improvement: A story of secondary school composition. RELC Journal, 29(1), 110 137.
27
*Sengupta, S. (2001). Exchanging ideas with peers in network-based classrooms: An aid or a pain?
Language Learning & Technology, 15(1), 103 134. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/
vol5num1/sengupta/default.html
Song, C. (2007). Enhancing low level EFL undergraduates composition by using an online collaborative web serious game: Moses with blogs. In C. Montgomerie, & J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings
of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2007
(pp. 4466 4474). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved from http://www.editlib.org/p/26023
Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 217 234.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedure and
techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Sullivan, N. (1993). Teaching writing on a computer network. TESOL Journal, 3(1), 34 35.

Sullivan, N., & Pratt, E. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional oral classroom. System, 29(4), 491 501.
Swaffar, J., Romano, S., & Arens, K. (1998). Language learning online: Theory and practice in ESL
and L2 computer classroom. Austin, TX: Labyrinth Publications.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French
immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320 337.
Tellez, K., & Waxman, H.C. (2006). A meta-synthesis of qualitative research on effective teaching
practices for English language learners. In J.M. Norris, & L. Ortega (Eds.), Synthesizing
research on language learning and teaching (pp. 279 298). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Tsui, A.B.M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of
Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147 170.

Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing
course. Computers and Composition, 21, 217 235.
van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity.
London: Longman.
Villamil, O.S., & Guerrero, M.C.M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive
activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 5(1), 51 75.
Villamil, O.S., & Guerrero, M.C.M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing.
Applied Linguistics, 19, 491 514.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wang, M. (2004). A study on online peer feedback. English Teaching & Learning, 29(2), 63 77.

Ware, P.D. (2004). Confidence and competition online: ESL student perspectives on web-based
discussions in the classroom. Computers and Composition, 21(4), 451 468.
Ware, P.D., & Warschauer, M. (2006). Electronic feedback and second language writing. In K.
Hyland, & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues
(pp. 105 122). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language
classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7 26.
Warschauer, M. (2002). Networking into academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 1(1), 45 58.
Warschauer, M. (2010). Invited commentary: New tools for teaching writing. Language Learning &
Technology, 14(1), 3 8. Retrieved from http//llt.msu.edu/vol14num1/commentary.pdf
Watanabe, Y. (2008). Peer-peer interaction between L2 learners of different proficiency levels:
Their interactions and reflections. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 64(4), 605 663.

Wu, W. (2006). The effect of blog peer review and teacher feedback on the revisions of EFL writers. Journal of Education and Foreign Language and Literature, 3, 125 139.
Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 195 209.
Zamel, V. (1985). Responding to student writing. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 79 l02.
Zhu, W. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on students comments and interaction. Written
Communication, 12(4), 492 528.
28
T. Chen
Appendix. Core categories, subcategories, and example codes from the analysis
of the 20 studies on technology-supported peer feedback
Core category A: The characteristics of technology-supported mode of peer-feedback activities
Subcategory A1: Interaction situations (8)
Example codes
A1.1: Participation is higher and equal for students.
A1.2: When the students are online, they remain on task and focused.
A1.3: The electronic exchanges are longer and the level of interaction is less direct.
A1.4: For students in MOO, turn-taking is not clear and each student feels rushed to type his or her
comments in order to follow the flow of communication.
A1.5: Different compositions of groups generate different proportions of interactions.
A1.6: Participation is significantly more balanced among students in written electronic conferences.
A1.7: During the Power sessions, learners devote great attention to the writing task and task-related
issues with little off-task talk.
A1.8: In terms of participation, CMC encourages a more even pattern of participation among
students.
A1.9: Using CMC increases student motivation and participation. Student comments after the first
CMC class show great enthusiasm for conducting the class via the Internet.
Subcategory A2: Discourse patterns and language usage (8)
Example codes
A2.1: The feedback in the LAN classrooms appears to be sporadic, scattered, and less organized and
unplanned.
A2.2: The turn taking is less but the suggestions are more specific and focused.
A2.3 Through using networks available on the Internet, ESL/EFL students are encouraged to
engage in true life, authentic discussion.
A2.4: The electronic discussions involve more complex language and more formal expressions
lexically and syntactically.
A2.5: Comments made in Word mode are usually thoughtful, and worth considering.
A2.6: L2 writers use e-feedback as a tool for larger blocks of text like ideas, examples, etc., rather
than smaller elements like grammar, punctuation, or single word changes.
A2.7: In terms of revision-related discourse, meaning negotiation and error correction are less
frequent than content discussion and task management.
A2.8: In terms of non-revision-related discourse, social talk occurs more frequently than technical
actions.
A2.9: In written electronic conferences, some paralinguistic cues must be expressed in explicit
language.
A2.10: The discourse in electronic written conferences has a greater lexical range.
A2.11: Students during the online peer-response sessions used different types of language functions
for negotiation.
Subcategory A3: Teachers role(8)
Example codes
A3.1: The teachers role is drastically minimized.
A3.2: Teachers can monitor students interaction much more closely in OLPR.
A3.3: L2 writing teachers can combine traditional with technological modes for the most effective
peer review to occur.
A3.4: Writing instructors need to proactively model, scaffold and support revision-related online
discourse if it is to be of benefit.
A3.5: Examples of quality blog peer review and response rhetoric should also be modeled by L2
writing teachers.
(continued)
29
A3.6: Teachers are suggested to monitor students learning process and add some activities during
the process to increase students motivation.
A3.7: Teachers should closely monitor the peer or group dynamics. If things go wrong, teachers
need to intervene.
A3.8: In computer-mediated classrooms instructors are able to closely monitor student work and
provide quick feedback.
Subcategory A4: Students role (9)
Example codes
A4.1: Students control the flow of discourse.
A4.2: Students engage more in discussion and give more suggestions
A4.3: Students become much more critical and involve effective negotiations.
A4.4: Students engagement and shared perspectives in the collaborative process of reaching
intersubjectivity may impact subsequent writing and revision
A4.5: After the peer-response session, L2 writers can continue the process of negotiating with
various resources and audiences.
A4.6: Students learn to respond to meaning first and to form in later drafts.
A4.7: When students observe their peers taking risk, they are more likely to participate actively
in discussions.
A4.8: Second language students in written electronic conferences display more interactive
competence, and more control of the discussion.
A4.9: Students cannot resist doing irrelevant activities on the computer in class.
A4.10: The participating students maintain their authorship well and the participating students do
not accept whatever their peers advised.
A4.11: Chinese students can behave cooperatively and actively either as a reader or as a writer.
A4.12: Learners are found to be able to cooperate with their peers mainly with task-related online
talk.
A4.13 Students can critique each other much more freely and directly than they do in the traditional
face-to-face classes
Core category B: Comparison of two modes of peer-feedback activities
Subcategory B1: Positive points of technology mode of peer feedback (18)
Example codes
B1.1: In computer-assisted classrooms, the students participation percentage is higher and equal.
(affective)
B1.2: In OLPR, students can rely on the printouts of peer comments to revise their drafts. (practical)
B1.3: Computer conversation allows students to respond spontaneously, to reflect on their ideas,
rehearse their responses, and work at their own pace. (technical)
B1.4: Transcripts of real-time discussions in CALL can be stored easily as a shared accessible
resource for research and reference. (technical)
B1.5: Technology mode is better than traditional mode because students do not have to worry about
accents and social norms. (affective)
B1.6: Web-based discussion is more for open and constructive criticism. (affective)
B1.7: The students benefit from the authentic, communicative and interactive network task in many
aspects:
(1) Accumulation of ideas to enrich the content, (practical)
(2) Diagnosis of mistakes and problems, (practical)
(3) Awareness of the reader, (practical)
(4) Thinking reshaped and writing organized. (practical)
B1.8: Students can express themselves freely, comfortably, and creatively during electronic
discussion. (affective)
(continued)
30
T. Chen
B1.9: A sense of responsibility arising from the high visibility in the technology mode where
everyone knows who is not keeping up with the class. (affective)
B1.10: The lack of face-to-face interaction is beneficial for some students whose cultural
backgrounds do not encourage such interactions in a classroom environment. (affective)
B1.11: Advantages of Word commenting mode are no space limitation in giving comments
(practical) and less face-threatening than marking a paper in red ink, crossing out sentences, etc.
(affective)
B1.12: e-feedback had a greater impact on revisions at the clause, sentence, and paragraph levels.
(technical)
B1.13: Most learners feel more comfortable and less pressure giving feedback on the computer.
(affective)
B1.14: Benefits of online interaction: 1) increase in motivation 2) enhancement of sense of audience
3) promotion of importance of revision 4) reduction of stress in writing 5) cultivation of positive
attitudes towards writing. (affective)
B1.15: Revision-related online discourse in small-group synchronous writing tasks can provide
potentially useful pedagogical insights and tools for the teaching of writing. (practical)
B1.16: Using blogs in the L2 writing class can expand the audience of students and allow L2 writers
to feel that they are writing to more than just their classmates or instructor. (technical)
B1.17: By providing a less threatening environment than traditional classes, computer networks
may have generated better student writing. (affective) C (practical)
B1.18: Students think the WPW program provides them with opportunities to share and receive
feedback of what they wrote on the same topics in the same speech community. It makes the
reading practice and writing practice interpenetrate and reinforce each other. (practical) C
(technical)
B1.19: Even low technology can promise good learning gain as long as the systems are well
designed and taught. (technical)
B1.20: The students learn a lot from the On-line Writing Project, in which they have more
opportunities to write, cooperate, and think. (technical) C(practical)
B1.21: The web-based POWER platform with TOTAL recall and Tango were regarded as effective
for English writing. (technical)
B1.22: Using CMC increases student motivation and participation. (affective)
Subcategory B 2: Negative points of technology mode of peer feedback (8)
Example codes
B2.1: The rapidly added message in LANs class may create somewhat confusing ideas. (technical)
B2.2: Much of the feeling of heavy workload is arising from the fact that the Web was making each
individual much more accountable because all the evidence of participation is there on the Web
classroom. (affective)
B2.3: Students do not find it easy to give feedback on the Web because the feedback demands
quality. (practical)
B2.4: Students in the technology-supported group seem to dislike the Word editing feature, mainly
because they find it to be very time-consuming. (technical)
B2.5: Students in the MOO tend to generate more superficial than substantive comments. (practical)
B2.6: The lack of verbal communication in CMPR is seen to be one of its drawbacks. (practical)
B2.7: The students negative attitudes toward the incorporation of the Internet in the project can be
due to the fact that the server goes down easily, the speed for connection is slow, and the chat
room is difficult to access. (technical)
B2.8: The choice of using email leads to the major problem encountered in these CMC classes
faulty email connections. (technical)
(continued)
31
Subcategory B3: Positive points of traditional (face to face) mode of peer feedback (5)
Example codes
B3.1: In face-to-face discussion some confusing suggestions can be avoided.
B3.2: Papers in the traditional classes showed more improvement.
B3.3: Even though the technology-supported group has a larger number of revisions, the comments
made appear to be less effective overall.
B3.4: For traditional commenting, students can write down their comments directly without going
through some unfriendly technical procedures.
B3.5: The majority of the comments generated from traditional mode are taken into consideration in
revision.
B3.6: In this mode, peer comments can be immediately compared and clarified.
B3.7: The nonverbal communication in this mode cannot be replaced by technology mode.
Subcategory B4: Negative points of traditional (face to face) mode of peer feedback (2)
Example codes
B4.1: In the traditional oral classroom the teacher often dominated the class discussion.
B4.2: Shyness can cause some students to limit discussion in face-to-face mode.
Core category C: Functions of two types of peer-feedback activities
Subcategory C1:Synchronous type of peer feedback (13)
Example codes
C1.1: Traditional peer review works more effectively in the synchronic commenting mode (i.e.,
face-to-face interaction) than in the asynchronic commenting mode (i.e., paper and pen).
C1.2: Synchronous online conferencing does not allow time for correcting errors or clarifying
meanings in writing but allows instant support and more dynamic communicative behaviors for
expressing opinions and developing ideas.
C1.3: Synchronous Web technology adds a valuable tool for facilitating and recording the dynamics
of group interaction.
C1.4: A majority of students favor the chat room over the bulletin board due to synchronity (instant
feedback) and usability (better control) inherent in the chat room program.
C1.5: The chat room is more suitable for such discussion as brainstorming and idea sharing in class.
C1.6: Students in the chat room stray off discussion task more frequently, and spend a lot of time on
maintaining social relationships and managing group order.
C1.7: Students synchronous online interaction can be recorded which is claimed to facilitate
reflective, meaning-based communication.
C1.8: The disadvantage of synchronous chat: having a constant stream of messages appearing on the
computer screen can be distracting.
Subcategory C2: Asynchronous type of peer feedback (7)
Example codes
C2.1: Technology-supported peer review works more effectively in the asynchronic commenting
mode (i.e., Word editing) than in the synchronic commenting mode (i.e., MOO).
C2.2: Learners are able to take time to reflect on their ideas and rehearse responses to their partner.
C2.3: Teachers can make good use of asynchronous learning systems in order to provide each
student with enough learning time and to help them to learn at their own pace.
C2.4: Asynchronous learning can really extend the curriculum effectively.
C2.5: The bulletin board system is a better medium for facilitating serious and deeply thought out
discussion than the chat room.
C2.6: Students are quick to respond with direct critiques of their classmates essays when using
asynchronous computer-mediated discussions.
(continued)
32
T. Chen
C2.7: By using asynchronous communication, the instructor is able to easily organize and filter the
emails, thus limiting the messages that students received to those messages that are most
beneficial for learning.
Core category D: Implications for future research on technology mode of peer-feedback
activities
Subcategory D1: The pedagogical aspect of technology mode of peer-feedback activities (20)
Example codes
D1.1: In computer-assisted classrooms, the student reviewers may give more suggestions; however
if student writers benefit from them needs to be further examined.
D1.2: To fully evaluate the OLPR pedagogical potential, the longitudinal study with a larger sample
is necessary.
D1.3: The formality and complexity of language in electronic discussions suggests that it might be
an excellent medium for pre-writing work since it could serve as a bridge from spoken interaction
to written composition.
D1.4 Face-to-face and electronic discussions could be combined in different ways to highlight the
advantages of each.
D1.5: The technology mode is opening up an opportunity to learn from others in a more powerful
way because of the ability to go back to the interaction.
D1.6: It is also fascinating to go back to the classroom data and see the social processes within
which students co-construct and contextualize their Web-based classroom communities.
D1.7: The use of technology in peer review should not be seen as monolithic. L2 writing teachers
must be familiar with multiple types of peer review in both traditional and technology-supported
modes and can try to combine traditional with technological modes for the most effective peer
review to occur.
D1.8: A web-based writing environment expands the audience for L2 writers and provides a new
avenue for feedback to be received. The expanded audience offers many advantages for both
instructor and writer.
D1.9: It is even possible to theorize that Internet-based writing systems as robust as current word
processors will flourish and allow greater interaction between writers and their audience.
D1.10: CMPR should not be used alone in the writing class due to its main limitation lack of oral
communication. Since peer review is a highly interactive activity, oral discussion is more
efficient than written communication.
D1.11 Future research on peer review in EFL settings should well examine how learners
perceptions toward both face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review are affected by such
variables as teaching style, assignment types, learners age, and English learning experience.
D1.12: In the process of planning, the course developer should try to create writing tasks that
require simpler procedures and shorter length.
D1.13: The user-friendliness of the technology employed in an online course can be a crucial factor
contributing to students positive attitudes towards the effectiveness of the course
D1.14: Revision-related online discourse in small-group synchronous writing tasks can provide
potentially useful pedagogical insights and tools for the teaching of writing.
D1.15: A blog is an effective tool that can provide a forum for social interaction, learning
collaboration, and negotiation of meaning.
D1.16: For teachers faced with heavy workloads in writing classes, networked computers may
provide a way to lessen the tedium of paper correction.
D1.17: It would be helpful if future studies that compare participation patterns in ESL written
electronic and face-to-face conferences would assess factors such as speaking fluency, shyness,
and introversion as dependent measures.
D1.18: It is only with the instruction and supervision of teachers that effective computer-assisted
language learning can occur. Effective tracking mechanisms must be implemented in web-based
courses to monitor and record students online learning process.
(continued)
33
D1.19: Teachers should prepare the students well for using new technology into peer reviewing
writing instruction.
D1.20: It is proposed to employ the bulletin board system as a medium for students to get
acquainted before or during peer-review activities.
D1.21: Many educators in distance education have advocated the importance of moderators and
facilitators for managing computer conferencing efficiently.
D1.22: Even with the help of other peers in an online mode, students are still anxious and
unconfident in writing English essays. The roots of the anxiety should be investigated.
D1.23 With full preparation and careful instructional design, online peer response can be an
alternative for EFL composition teachers to guide their learners to undergo and to facilitate their
process of writing.
D1.24: Using email to communicate with students during class time on a periodic basis can change
the dynamics of a class by creating an environment conducive to learning.
Subcategory D2: The grouping dynamic aspect of technology mode of peer-feedback activities (5)
Example codes
D2.1: Inter- and intra-group cooperation should be strengthened. A possible incentive for students
to collaborate more online is to allow inter-group interactions and comments.
D2.2: Group peer reviews may satisfy the students desire for more feedback and at the same time
reduce the risk of their being paired with a partner who is irresponsible, hard to get along with, or
too different in English writing abilities.
D2.3: Future studies may examine the optimal grouping or pairing for online peer response to
trigger efficient and effective scaffolding.
D2.4: It may be desirable for future studies to add an assessment of the group process and dynamic
as a dependent measure.
D2.5: The effect of group size (i.e., pairs vs. small groups) can be investigated in the future study.
Subcategory D3: The training aspect of technology mode of peer-feedback activities (9)
Example codes
D3.1: Using printouts of students interaction as a training tool, teachers can show the students the
appropriateness, relevance and helpfulness of the comments, and train them to be more effective
online peer reviewers.
D3.2: It is believed that given sufficient training, the combination of technology-supported and
traditional peer-review modes will likely result in more positive affect and a better effect.
D3.3: The L2 writers receive training and learn response rhetoric. The training appears evident in
their responses.
D3.4: It should be noted that proper training is important before having learners do peer review.
Teachers should explain the purpose of peer review and let learners know that their responsibility
is to offer honest feedback in an effort to help their peers.
D3.5: More training and practices on how to give and receive the most useful comments need to be
provided to students prior to the start of the writing tasks.
D3.6: Modeling peer-response strategies at the beginning of the course can prepare students at
different L2 proficiency levels for online negotiation and discussion.
D3.7: Thorough and practical online peer-review training should be provided especially for L2
learners from Chinese culture.
D3.8: If the teachers can have training in using network computer systems and instructional
strategies, they will use the systems well and then help their students to use the systems well, too.
D3.9: Useful strategies in conducting online peer response should be made explicit and practice
sessions scheduled as guidance to the peer collaboration project.
Note: number of studies endorsing this concept embedded in the subcategory.

Chen 2014 Tech Supported Peer Feedback in Esl Writing Classes PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chen 2014 Tech Supported Peer Feedback in Esl Writing Classes PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Kyungpook National University]

On: 16 March 2015, At: 15:47

Computer Assisted Language Learning

Technology-supported peer feedback

Department of Applied English, Kun Shan University, Tainan City,

Click for updates

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:47 16 March 2015

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Computer Assisted Language Learning, 2014

Technology-supported peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing classes:

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:47 16 March 2015

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:47 16 March 2015

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:47 16 March 2015

Computer Assisted Language Learning

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:47 16 March 2015

computer-mediated communication was deemed a viable tool of social construction of

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:47 16 March 2015

Computer Assisted Language Learning

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:47 16 March 2015

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:47 16 March 2015

Computer Assisted Language Learning

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:47 16 March 2015

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:47 16 March 2015

Computer Assisted Language Learning

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:47 16 March 2015

peer feedback/peer response/peer review/peer editing/peer interaction

Computer Assisted Language Learning

Step 2: Computerized bibliographic database search

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:47 16 March 2015

Step 3: Major ESL/EFL refereed journals search

Step 5: World Wide Web search

The data evaluation stage

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:47 16 March 2015

Evaluating the literature: inclusion criteria

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:47 16 March 2015

Computer Assisted Language Learning

Coding the literature

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:47 16 March 2015

Figure 1. The two rounds of qualitative coding.

Analysis and interpretation stage

Computer Assisted Language Learning

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:47 16 March 2015

Figure 2. Four phases of qualitative data analysis.

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:47 16 March 2015

Table 1. Core category and subcategories.

Subcategories of core category A

Subcategories of Core category B

Subcategories of Core category C

Subcategories of Core category D

Note: number of studies endorsing this concept embedded in the subcategory.

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:47 16 March 2015

Computer Assisted Language Learning

Downloaded by [Kyungpook National University] at 15:47 16 March 2015

Sullivan and Pratt (1996)

Liu and Sadler (2003)

Write On-Line Website

On-line Process-oriented Writing

Image & Text Bulletin Board

A software program designed to

Names of software, platform, or

Function of the software, platform, or forum

Table 2. Software, platform, or forum used in the technology-supported peer-feedback research.