Using synchronous online peer response groups in EFL writing: Revision-related discourse

Language Learning and Technology

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 45-64

  Liang, Mei Ya ^a  

^a NATIONAL CENTRAL UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77950205082     PISSN: None     EISSN: 10943501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. 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.
2. Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4 (1), 120-136. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/blake/default.html
3. 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.
4. Chun, D. (1994). Using computer network to facilitate the acquisition of interactive competence. System, 22(1), 17-31.
5. Darhower, M. (2002). Interactional features of synchronous computer-mediated communication in the intermediate L2 class: A sociocultural case study. CALICO Journal, 19 (2), 249-277.
6. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J.P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 173-193). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
7. Donato, R. (2000). Sociocultural contributions to understanding the foreign and second language classroom. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 27-50). Oxford University Press.
8. de Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51-68.
9. DiGiovanni, E., & Nagaswami, G. (2001). Online peer review: An alternative to face-to-face? ELT Journal, 55(3), 263-272.
10. 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
11. Foster, P., & Ohta, A. S. (2005). Negotiation for meaning and peer assistance in second language classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 26, 402-430.
12. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold.
13. Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59(1), 31-38.
14. Hewett, B. (2000). Characteristics of interactive oral and computer mediated peer group talk and its influence on revision. Computers and Composition, 17, 265-288.
15. Hewett, B. (2006). Synchronous online conference-based instruction: A study of whiteboard interactions and student writing. Computers and Composition, 23, 4-31.
16. Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students. Journal of Language Teaching Research, 4(1), 33-54.
17. Hyland, K. & Hyland, F. (2006). Contexts and issues in feedback on L2 writing. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. New York: Cambridge University Press.
18. Jones, R. H., Garralda, A., Li, D. C. S., & Lock, G. (2006). Interactional dynamics in on-line and face-to-face peer-tutoring sessions for second language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 1-23.
19. Lee, L. (2001). Online interaction: Negotiation of meaning and strategies used among learners of Spanish. ReCALL, 13(2), 232-244.
20. Liang, M. Y. (2008). SCMC interaction and EFL writing revision: Facilitative or futile? Proceedings of E-learn 2008 (pp. 2886-2892). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
21. Liu, J., & Sadler, R. W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 193-227.
22. Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances, functions, and content. Language Learning, 45(4), 1-51.
23. Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic Press.
24. Min, H-T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students' revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118-141.
25. Min, H-T. (2008). Reviewer stances and writer perceptions in EFL peer review training. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 285-305.
26. Mendonça, C. O., & Johnson, K.E.(1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly 28, 745-769.
27. Negretti, R. (1999). Web-based activities and SLA: A conversation analysis research approach. Language Learning & Technology, 3(1), 75-87. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol3num1/negretti/index.html
28. Pica, T. (1996). Do second language learners need negotiation? International Review of Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 1-19.
29. Roever, C., & Pan, Y-C. (2008). GEPT: General English Proficiency Test. Language Testing, 25(3), 403-418.
30. Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 5(1), 23-30.
31. Smith, B. (2003). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 38-57.
32. Sotillo, S. (2000). Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 82-119. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/sotillo/default.html
33. Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be more effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 217-233.
34. Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97-114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35. Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2), 147-170.
36. 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.
37. van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity. New York: Longman.
38. van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 245-260). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39. Varonis, E. M., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 71-90.
40. Villamil, O. S., & de 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.
41. 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.
42. Warschauer, M. (1996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13(2), 7-26.
43. Warschauer, M. (2002). Networking into academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 45-58.