Combining electronic commenting and face-to-face interaction in peer review : a case study of ESL writing classrooms in Hong Kong

Abstract

Recent developments in technology have increased the potential uses of electronic peer feedback. Because both computer-mediated and traditional peer review modes have their own strengths, some researchers have suggested that these two different modes can be used together; however, this combination mode of peer review has not been widely investigated. This study examines the impact of combining electronic commenting using editing features of Microsoft word and a course management system (Moodle) with face-to-face interaction as a two-step peer review process and compares this with a more traditional mode (pen-and-paper commenting and oral talk). It investigates students’ perceptions and attitudes toward these different modes of peer review and examines whether there are differences in the types of peer feedback given and the use of peer feedback in students’ subsequent revisions.

Adopting a case study approach, both qualitative and quantitative data—students’ written and electronic texts (draft, peer feedback, and revisions), transcriptions of oral interactions, and pre-, mid-, post-stage interviews— were collected from eight ESL sub-degree students in Hong Kong. The results revealed that the majority of participants preferred the combination mode of peer review because it merged some of the most useful features of e-feedback and oral talk. In terms of feedback, students in both the combination group and the traditional group liked to receive revision-oriented comments; however, their preferences for feedback on their own writing were not always consistent with the types of comments they actually provided. The findings also indicated that the combination mode was more effective in terms of number of comments and different types of feedback provided. It was found that there was a complex relationship between different aspects of peer feedback, including area (global versus local), function (evaluation, question, explanation, suggestion, and alteration), and medium (written, electronic, and oral). Oral responses and comments on the Moodle forum focused more on global evaluation and suggestions, while large amounts of written comments and e-feedback generated by the editing features were corrections for surface level errors. With respect to revisions, both groups made a similar total number of changes to their texts but changes from the combination group included more frequent direct use of peer feedback, whereas a larger percentage of self-initiated changes were made by the traditional group. In addition, this study shows how other individual factors influence the efficacy of peer review, including relationship between peers; students’ attitudes and stances; motivation, and participation; (mis)match between writer’s expected feedback and reviewer’s comments and students’ prior experiences with peer response. This study has demonstrated the considerable benefits of using both electronic and face-to-face peer feedback in a combination mode and shed light on the changing roles of the instructor, students and technology in the twenty-first century writing classroom. This study has also yielded a number of pedagogical insights to help teachers to effectively implement new technologies when planning to use peer response in their writing classrooms.