Which do students prefer to evaluate their essays: Peers or computer program

British Journal of Educational Technology

Volumn 41, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 432-454

  Lai, Yi Hsiu ^a  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF KAOHSIUNG   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATED GRADING SYSTEMS; COMPUTER ANXIETY; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CULTURAL IMPACTS; ENGLISH-AS-A-FOREIGN-LANGUAGE; FEEDBACK STRATEGIES; NEW TECHNOLOGIES; PEER EVALUATIONS; SOCIAL LEARNING;

BREATH CONTROLLED DEVICES; COMPUTER CRIME;

LEARNING SYSTEMS;

EID: 77951124383     PISSN: 00071013     EISSN: 14678535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00959.x     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Allaei, S. K. Connor, U. M. (1990). Exploring the dynamics of cross-cultural collaboration in writing classrooms. The Writing Instructor, 10, 19 28.
2. Berg, B. 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. Carson, J. G. Nelson, G. L. (1994). Writing groups: cross-cultural issues. Journal of Second Language Writing, 3, 1, 17 30.
4. Chandler, J. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267 296.
5. Chang, S. C. Tung, F. C. (2008). An empirical investigation of students' behavioural intentions to use the online learning course websites. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 1, 71 83.
6. Chase, N. D. Hynd, C. R. (1987). Reader response: an alternative way to teach students to think about text. Journal of Reading, 30, 6, 530 539.
7. Chen, C. F. Cheng, W. Y. (2006). The use of a computer-based writing program: facilitation or frustration? Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on English Teaching and Learning in ROC, Vol. 1 (pp. 112 129).
8. Chen, H. J. (2006). Examining the scoring mechanism and feedback quality of MyAccess. Paper presented at Tamkang International Conference on Second Language Writing, Tamkang University, Tamsui, Taiwan.
9. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P. Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35, 982 1002.
10. Davies, N. Omberg, M. (1986). Peer group teaching and the composition class. System, 15, 3, 313 323.
11. Denton, P., Madden, J., Roberts, M. Rowe, P. (2008). Students' response to traditional and computer-assisted formative feedback: a comparative case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 3, 486 500.
12. 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).
13. Ferris, D. R. (1995a). Can advanced ESL students be taught to correct their most serious and frequent errors? California Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (CATESOL) Journal, 8, 41 62.
14. Ferris, D. R. (1995b). Teaching ESL composition students to become independent self-editors. Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) Journal, 4, 18 22.
15. Ferris, D. R. Hedgcock, J. S. (1998). Teaching ESL composition: purpose, process, and practice.
16. Ferris, D. R. Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: how explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161 184.
17. Ferris, D. R., Chaney, S. J., Komura, K., Robberts, B. J. McKee, S. (2000). Perspectives, problems, and practices in treating written error. Colloquium presented at TESOL Convention, Vancouver, BC.
18. Flynn, E. (1982). Freedom, restraint, and peer group interaction ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 181599).
19. Freedman, W. (1987). Response to student writing.
20. Freedman, W. (1992). Outside-in and inside-out: peer response groups in two ninth-grade classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 26, 71 106.
21. Goldstein, L. M. (2004). Questions and answers about teacher written commentary and student revision: teachers and students working together. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 1, 63 80.
22. Herrington, A. J. Cadman, D. (1991). Peer review and revising in an anthropology course: lessons for learning. College Composition and Communication, 42, 184 199.
23. Hoon, T. B. (2007). Online automated essay assessment: potentials for writing development. Retrieved August 16, 2007, from http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/ aw06/papers/refereed/tan3/paper.html
24. Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9, 3, 321 342.
25. Huang, S. Y. (1995). EFL university students' perceptions of their performance in peer response sessions. Proceedings of the ROC English Composition Teaching Conference.
26. Hutchison, D. (2007). An evaluation of computerized essay marking for national curriculum assessment in the UK for 11-year-olds. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 6, 977 989.
27. Hvitfeldt, C. (1986). Guided peer critique in ESL writing at the college level ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 282 438).
28. Keith, T. Z. (2003). Validity and automated essay scoring systems. In M. D. Shermis J. C. Burstein (Eds Automated essay scoring: a cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 147 167).
29. Komura, K. (1999). Student response to error correction in ESL classrooms (Master's thesis, California State University, Sacramento).
30. Lai, Y. H. Chung, R. F. (2005). Effects of peer revision on Taiwanese senior high school students' English writing. Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 2, 1, 63 96.
31. Li, H. H. (2002). A case study of peer review for university-level undergraduate writing students in Taiwan (Master's thesis, National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan).
32. Lin, S. S. J., Lin, E. Z. F. Yuan, S. M. (2001). Learning effects of web-based peer assessment for students with various thinking styles. Journal of Computer-Assisted Learning, 17, 4, 420 432.
33. Liu, J. Hansen, J. G. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms.
34. Liu, Z. F. Lin, S. S. J. (2007). Relationship between peer feedback, cognitive and metacognitive strategies and achievement in networked peer assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 6, 1122 1125.
35. Long, M. H. (1984). Process and product in ESL programme evaluation. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 3, 409 425.
36. Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: what do the students think? ELT Journal, 46, 3, 274 284.
37. Matsumura, S. Hann, G. (2004). Computer anxiety and students' preferred feedback methods in EFL writing. The Modern Language Journal, 88, 3, 403 415.
38. Mendonca, O. Johnson, E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 4, 745 790.
39. Miao, Y., Badger, R. Zhen, Y. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 2, 179 200.
40. Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students' revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 2, 118 141.
41. Nelson, G. Murphy, J. (1993). Peer response groups: do L2 writers use peer comments in revising their drafts? TESOL Quarterly, 27, 1, 135 142.
42. Nelson, G. L. Carson, J. G. (1998). ESL students' perceptions of effectiveness of peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 113 131.
43. Page, E. B. (2003). Project essay grade: PEG. In M. D. Shermis J. C. Burstein (Eds Automated essay scoring: a cross-disciplinary perspective (pp. 43 54).
44. Paulus, T. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 3, 265 289.
45. Robb, T., Ross, S. Shortreed, I. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83 93.
46. Smith, B. Caputi, P. (2001). Cognitive interference in computer anxiety. Behaviour & Information Technology, 20, 265 273.
47. Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work. Language Learning, 52, 1, 119 158.
48. Storch, N. (2005). Collaborative writing: product, process, and students' reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 3, 153 173.
49. Tsai, C. C. (2004). Adolescents' perceptions toward the Internet: a 4-T framework. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 7, 458 463.
50. Tsai, C. C. (2007). The relationship between internet perceptions and preferences towards internet-based learning environment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 1, 167 170.
51. Tsui, A. B. M. Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 2, 147 170.
52. Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language.
53. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes.
54. Warschauer, M. Ware, P. (2006). Automated writing evaluation: defining the classroom research agenda. Language Teaching Research, 10, 2, 1 24.
55. Williams, J. (2004). Tutoring and revision: second language writers in the writing center. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 3, 173 201.
56. Yaghi, H. M. Abu-Saba, M. B. (1998). Teachers' computer anxiety: an international perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 14, 321 336.
57. Yang, M., Badger, R. Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 2, 179 200.
58. Yang, N. D. (2004). Using MyAccess in EFL writing. Proceedings of the 2004 International Conference and Workshops on TEFL & Applied Linguistics (pp. 550 564).
59. Yeh, Y., Liou, H. C. Yu, Y. T. (2007). The influence of automated essay evaluation and bilingual concordancing on EFL students' writing. English Teaching & Learning, 31, 1, 117 160.
60. Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 209 222.
61. Zhang, S. (1999). Thoughts on some recent evidence concerning the affective advantage of peer feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 3, 321 326.