Dergiler / Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics / 2021 / Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 1

Online and face-to-face peer review in academic writing: Frequency and preferences

Sayfa
169–201
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Analyzing the extent to which native English speakers, non-native speakers, and instructors find virtual and face-to-face types of review worthwhile makes the study a valuable factor for instructors who wish to incorporate peer editing into their teaching.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:With the current advancement of technology and its potential for better teaching and learning outcomes, this paper compares the use of peer review in face-to-face settings and online platforms.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The study recruited 142 students and 20 instructors from an American public mid-southern university.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Analyzing the extent to which native English speakers, non-native speakers, and instructors find virtual and face-to-face types of review worthwhile makes the study a valuable factor for instructors who wish to incorporate peer editing into their teaching.
🔬Tür:Uygulamalı Anket & Alan Araştırması
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Academic writing · feedback · peer review

Abstract

With the current advancement of technology and its potential for better teaching and learning outcomes, this paper compares the use of peer review in face-to-face settings and online platforms. The study recruited 142 students and 20 instructors from an American public mid-southern university. Data were collected over two academic semesters and included three instruments: questionnaires, observations, and interviews. Findings indicated that the participants generally hold a positive stance towards peer evaluation. They found face-to-face peer assessment during writing class time to be the most common and effective mode for they preferred immediate feedback in person. Contrary to laudable prior research findings, the majority of participants considered online review ineffective. They found various forms of technology quite distracting. Analyzing the extent to which native English speakers, non-native speakers, and instructors find virtual and face-to-face types of review worthwhile makes the study a valuable factor for instructors who wish to incorporate peer editing into their teaching.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Ahmed, R., Al-Kadi, A. (2022). Online and face-to-face peer review in academic writing: Frequency and preferences. Eurasian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Cilt: 7 - Sayı: 1, 169–201. https://ajindex.com/articles/506960

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (14)

  1. Ahmed, R. (2020) Peer review in academic writing: Different perspectives from instructors and students. TESOL J., 00:e537. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.537
  2. Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students' revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215-241.
  3. Bradley, L. (2014). Peer reviewing in an intercultural wiki environment: Student interaction and reflections. Computers and Composition, 14, 80–95.
  4. Brammer, C., & Rees, M. (2007). Peer review from the students’ perspective: Invaluable or valid? Composition Studies, 35(2), 71. Breuch, L.K. (2004). Virtual peer review: Teaching and learning about writing in online environments. New York: State University of New York Press.
  5. Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student responses to written work. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 181-188.
  6. Chen, K. (2012). Blog-based peer reviewing in EFL writing classrooms for Chinese speakers. Computers and Composition, 29, 280–291.
  7. Daweli, T. W. (2018). Engaging Saudi EFL students in online peer review in a Saudi university context. Arab World English Journal, 9(4), 270-280. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol9no4.20
  8. Desirable, M. (2015). Social media and peer feedback: What do students really think about using Wiki and Facebook as platforms for peer feedback? Active Learning in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787415589530.
  9. DiCamilla, F., J. & Anton, M. (1997). Repetition in the collaborative discourse of L2 learners: A Vygotsky perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(4), 609-633.
  10. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd edition). Sage Publications Ltd. Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT journal, 59(1), 31-38.
  11. Ho, M. C. (2015). The effects of face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review on EFL writers’ comments and revisions. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1). Hojeij, Z. & Baroudi, S. (2018). Student perceptions on peer feedback training using a blended method: A UAE case. Issues in Educational Research, 28(3), 655- 678. http://www.iier.org.au/iier28/hojeij.pdf
  12. Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 321-342.
  13. Huang, J. (2016). Contribution of online peer review to effectiveness of EFL writing. American Journal of Educational Research, 4(11), 811-816. Doi: 10.12691/education-4- 11-6
  14. Kaufman, J. H., & Schunn, C. D. (2011). Students’ perceptions abou