The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of the combination of teacher-led feedback and peer review (TF + PR) and a single TF method on the writing performance of English as a foreign language (EFL) university students within a collaborative online learning system. The students' perceptions of the writing course were also examined. An experimental PR + TF group and a comparison TF group, with a total of 107 undergraduate students majoring in nursing, participated in this study during the fall semester of 2011. The results revealed that the students in the TF + PR group demonstrated greater improvements than those who received only TF in terms of holistic writing skills and the subscales of content, organization, grammar, mechanics, and style. The PR perceptions of the TF + PR group learners and the manner in which they adopted strategies for coping with peer feedback are discussed.
BitchenerJ.YoungS.CameronD. (2005) The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing14: 191–205.
2.
BreuchL. K. (2004) Virtual peer review: Teaching and learning about writing in online environments, Albany: State University of New York Press.
3.
Brown, J. D., & Bailey, K. M. (1984). A categorical instrument for scoring second language writing skills. Language Learning, 34, 21–42.
4.
ConnorU.AsenavageK. (1994) Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision?Journal of Second Language Writing3(3): 257–276.
5.
CovillA. E. (2010) Comparing peer review and self-review as ways to improve college students' writing. Journal of Literacy Research42(2): 199–226.
6.
CummingsJ.ErdösyU.CummingA. (2006) A study of contrasts: ESL and university instructors' goals for writing improvement. In: CummingA. (ed.) Goals for academic writing: ESL students and their instructors, Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins, pp. 50–69.
7.
EllisR.SheenY.MurakamiM.TakashimaH. (2008) The effects of focused and unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context. System36: 353–371.
8.
ElolaI. (2010) Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning & Technology14(3): 51–71.
9.
FerrisD. R.HedgcockJ. S. (2005) Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process and practice, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
General English Proficiency Test (2007) General English proficiency test (GEPT) statistics report on elementary level test (year 2002–2007), Taipei: The Language Training and Testing Center (LTTC).
11.
GuenetteD. (2007) Is feedback pedagogically correct? Research design issues in studies of feedback on writing. Journal of Second Language Writing16(1): 40–53.
12.
HewettB. L. (2000) Characteristics of interactive oral and computer-mediated peer group talk and its influence on revision. Computers and Composition17: 265–288.
13.
HoM. C.SavignonS. J. (2007) Face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review in EFL writing. CALICO Journal24(2): 269–290.
14.
HoneycuttL. (2001) Comparing e-mail and synchronous conferencing in online peer response. Written Communication18(1): 26–60.
15.
HylandK. (2003) Second language writing, Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
16.
HylandK. (2007) Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction. Journal of Second Language Writing16: 148–164.
17.
LinS. S. J.LiuE. Z. F.YuanS. M. (2001) Web-based peer assessment: Feedback for students with various thinking-styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning17: 420–432.
18.
Lin, W. C. (2008). Culture, ethnicity and English language learning: A socio-cultural study of secondary schools in Taiwan. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Cardiff University, England.
19.
LinW. C.YangS. C. (2011) Exploring students' perceptions of integrating wiki technology and peer feedback into English writing courses. English Teaching: Practice and Critique10(2): 88–103.
20.
LiuJ.HansenJ. G. (2002) Peer response in second language classroom, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
21.
LundstromK.BakerW. (2009) To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing18: 30–43.
22.
MatsudaP. K. (2003) Process and post-process: A discursive history. Journal of Second Language Writing12: 65–83.
23.
MiaoY.BadgerR.ZhenY. (2006) A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing15: 179–200.
24.
MinH. T. (2003) Why peer comments fail. English Teaching & Learning27(3): 85–103.
25.
MinH. T. (2005) Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System33: 293–308.
26.
MinH. T. (2006) The effects of trained peer review on EFL students' revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing15: 118–141.
27.
MinH. T. (2008) Reviewer stances and writer perceptions in EFL peer review training. English for Specific Purposes27: 285–305.
28.
SheenY. (2007) The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners' acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly41: 255–283.
29.
SheenY. (2010a) Differential effects of oral and written corrective feedback in the ESL classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition32(02): 203–234.
30.
SheenY. (2010b) Introduction: The role of oral and written corrective feedback in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition32(2): 169–179. doi:10.1017/S0272263109990489.
31.
SheenY.WrightD.MoldawaA. (2009) Differential effects of focused and unfocused written correction on the accurate use of grammatical forms by adult ESL learners. System37(4): 556–569.
32.
StorchN. (2005) Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students' reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing14(3): 153–173.
33.
ThurstonA.DuranD.CunninghamE.BlanchS.ToppingK. (2009) International on-line reciprocal peer tutoring to promote modern language development in primary schools. Computers & Education53: 462–472.
34.
TruscottJ. (2004) Evidence and conjecture on the effects of correction: A response to Chandler. Journal of Second Language Writing13: 337–343.
35.
TruscottJ. (2007) The effect of error correction on learners' ability to write accurately. Journal of Second Language Writing16: 255–272.
36.
WetteR. (2014) Teachers' practices in EAP writing instruction: Use of models and modeling. System42: 60–69.
37.
WuW.-S. (2006) The effect of blog peer review and teacher feedback on the revisions of EFL writers. Journal of Education and Foreign Languages and Literature3: 125–138.
38.
XiaoY.LuckingR. (2008) The impact of two types of peer assessment on students' performance and satisfaction within a Wiki environment. Internet and Higher Education11: 186–193.
39.
YangM.BadgerR.YuZ. (2006) A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing15(3): 179–200.
40.
YangY. F. (2011) A reciprocal peer review system to support college students' writing. British Journal of Educational Technology42(4): 687–700.
