Exploring e-learners' perceptions of net-based peer-reviewed English writing

International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 75-91

  Ge, Zi gang ^a  

^a BEIJING UNIVERSITY OF POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS   (China)

Author keywords

Distance education; Pedagogical issues; Peer review; Teaching learning strategies

Indexed keywords

EID: 79952190945     PISSN: 15561607     EISSN: 15561615     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11412-010-9103-7     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Amores, M. J. (1997). A new perspective on peer-editing. Foreign Language Annals, 30, 513-522.
2. An, H., Kim, S., & Kim, B. (2008). Teacher perspectives on online collaborative learning: Factors perceived as facilitating and impeding successful online group work. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8(1). Retrieved July 10, 2010 from: http://www. citejournal. org/vol8/iss4/general/article1. cfm.
3. Antil, L., Jenkins, J., Wayne, S., & Vadasy, P. (1998). Cooperative learning: Prevalence, conceptualizations, and the relationship between research and practice. American Educational Research Journal, 35(3), 419-454.
4. Beckman, M. (1990). Collaborative learning: Preparation for the workplace and democracy? College Teaching, 38(4), 128-133.
5. Chaulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student response to written work. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 181-188.
6. Cheng, H. F., & Lin, N. C. (2010). Exploring students' perceptions of self-access English learning. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 2676-2680.
7. Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3-7. Retrieved September 3, 2010 from: http://www. aahea. org/bulletins/articles/sevenprinciples1987. htm.
8. Davis, B. G. (1993). Tools for Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved July 4, 2010 from: http://teaching. berkeley. edu/bgd/collaborative. html.
9. Dembo, M. H., & McAuliffe, T. J. (1987). Effects of perceived ability and grade status on social interaction and influence in cooperative groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 415-423.
10. Dwyer, N., & Suthers, D. D. (2006). Consistent practices in artifact-mediated collaboration. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(4), 481-511.
11. Fei, H. (2006). Students' perceptions of peer response activity in English writing instruction. Teaching English in China, 29(4), 48-52.
12. Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59(1), 31-38.
13. Haythornthwaite, C., & Kazmer, M. M. (2002). Bringing the Internet home: Adult distance learners and their Internet, Home and Work worlds. In B. Wellman & C. Haythornthwaite (Eds.), The internet in everyday life (pp. 431-463). Oxford: Blackwell.
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. Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. J. (1998). Cooperative CBI: The effects of heterogeneous versus homogeneous grouping on the learning of progressively complex concepts. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 4, 413-424.
16. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2004). Cooperation and the use of technology. In D. H. Johanssen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 785-811). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
17. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 4, George Washington University.
18. Keegan, D., Schwenke, E., Fritsch, H., Kenny, G., Kismihók, G., Bíró, M., et al. (2005). Virtual classrooms in educational provision: Synchronous elearning systems for European institutions. Hagen: FernUniversitaet (ZIFF). Retrieved November 20, 2010 from: http://www. fernuni-hagen. de/ZIFF/synchronous. pdf.
19. Kerr, N. L., & Brunn, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 78-94.
20. Kruse, K. (2004), What are "Synchronous" and "Asynchronous" Training? Retrieved January 13, 2011 from: http://www. msmc. la. edu/include/learning_resources/online_course_environment/async_sync. pdf.
21. Lee, I. (2004). Error correction in L2 secondary writing classrooms: The case of Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 285-312.
22. Lee, I. (2008). Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong Secondary classrooms. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 144-164.
23. Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margin: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 57-68). New York: Cambridge University Press.
24. Liu, J. (1998). Peer reviews with the instructor: Seeking alternatives in ESL writing. In J. C. Richards (Ed.), Teaching in action: Case studies from second language classrooms (pp. 236-240). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.
25. Liu, J., & Hansen, J. (2002). Peer Response in Second Language Writing Classrooms. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
26. Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30-43.
27. Mendonça, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 745-769.
28. Mills, C., & Durden, W. G. (1992). Cooperative learning and ability grouping: An issue of choice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 11-16.
29. Mittan, R. (1989). The Peer Review Process: Harnessing Students Communicative Power. In D. M. Johnson & D. H. Roen (Eds.), Richness in Writing: Empowering SLA Students (pp. 207-219). New York: Longman.
30. Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, M. (1992). An L2 writing group: Task and social dimensions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 171-193.
31. O'Dwyer, S. (2006). The English teacher as facilitator and authority. TESL-EJ, 9(4), Retrieved August 23, 2010 from: http://tesl-ej. org/pdf/ej36/a2. pdf.
32. Panitz, T. (1997). Collaborative versus cooperative learning: A comparison of the two concepts which will help us understand the underlying nature of interactive learning. Retrieved July 24, 2010 from: http://www. eric. ed. gov/PDFS/ED448443. pdf.
33. Pfister, H. R. (2005). How to support synchronous net-based learning discourses: Principles and perspectives. In R. Bromme, F. Hesse, & H. Spada (Eds.), Barriers and biases in computer-mediated knowledge communication (pp. 39-57). New York: Springer.
34. Qi, Y. (2004). The effects of teacher versus peer feedback on revision of English majors' argumentative writing. Foreign Language Teaching Abroad, 4, 47-53.
35. Radencich, M., & McKay, L. (Eds.). (1995). Flexible grouping for literacy in the elementary grades. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
36. Robert, L. P., & Dennis, A. R. (2005). Paradox of richness: A cognitive model of media choice. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(1), 10-21.
37. Saito, H., & Fujita, T. (2004). Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writing classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 31-54.
38. Salomon, G. (1992). What does the design of effective CSCL require and how do we study its effects? ACM SIGCUE Outlook, 21(3), 62-68.
39. Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 89-99.
40. Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57(3), 293-336.
41. Smith, B. L., & MacGregor, J. T. (1992). What Is Collaborative Learning? In A. S. Goodsell, M. R. Maher, V. Tinto, B. L. Smith, & J. MacGregor (Eds.), Collaborative learning: A sourcebook for higher education (pp. 9-22). University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment, Pennsylvania State University. Retrieved August 5, 2010 from: http://learningcommons. evergreen. edu/pdf/collab. pdf.
42. Suthers, D. D., & Hundhausen, C. (2003). An experimental study of the effects of representational guidance on collaborative learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 183-219.
43. Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 147-170.
44. 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.
45. Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 491-514.
46. Warschauer, M. (2002). Networking into academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1(1), 45-58.
47. Webb, N. M., Nemer, K., Chizhik, A., & Sugrue, B. (1998). Equity issues in collaborative group assessment: Group composition and performance. American Educational Research Journal, 35(4), 607-651.
48. Xu, Y. (2000). Case study on impact of peer revision on writing. Journal of F. A. C, (4), 86-89.
49. 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(3), 179-200.
50. Yukawa, J. (2006). Co-reflection in online learning: Collaborative critical thinking as narrative. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(2), 203-228.
51. Zamel, V. (1982). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 195-209.
52. Zhang, S. (1995). Re-examining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209-222.
53. Zhang, S. (2008). Assessing the impact of peer revision on English on English writing of tertiary EFL learners. Teaching English in China, 31(2), 47-54.
54. Zhao, H. H. (2010). Investigating learners' use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: A comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 15(1), 3-17.