The effects of facebook based peer comments on non english major students writing quality at hcms university of science ma

The present quasi-experimental study examined 1 the difference if any between the effects of Facebook-based peer comments and paper-and-pen peer comments on students’ writing quality, 2

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY- HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF SOCIAL SCIENCES & HUMANITIES

FACULTY OF ENGLISH LINGUISTICS & LITERATURE

THE EFFECTS OF FACEBOOK-BASED PEER COMMENTS ON NON-ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS’ WRITING QUALITY AT HCMC

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my supervisor Assoc Prof Dr Pham Vu Phi Ho, Vice-President

of Van Hien University, who was always willing to spend his precious time answering

my questions and offering me valuable advice on my thesis His passion and broad knowledge about EFL research are a source of inspiration for me to accomplish my thesis

I am much obliged to Mr Nguyen Dinh Huy, Vice Academic Advisor, for allowing me

to do experiment with the students at HCMC University of Science Also, I would like

to express my sincere gratitude to all the students who participated in the present study; without their effective participation, I could not have finished my thesis

I am grateful to my friend Nguyen Thi Lien for proofreading my writing My thesis would not be as good without her help

Last but not least, I am deeply indebted to my family for their support during the months

I worked on this thesis I owe my deepest thanks to my father, who is always supporting

my studies and watching over me

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY

I certify my authorship of the Master’s Thesis submitted today entitled

THE EFFECTS OF FACBOOK-BASED PEER COMMENTS ON

NON-ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS’ WRITING QUALITY AT HCMC

UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE

in terms of the statement of the requirements for the Theses in Master’s program

issued by the Higher Degree Committee This thesis has not been submitted for the

award of any degree or diploma in any other institutions

Ho Chi Minh City, February 2019

LUONG THI KIM PHUNG

RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS

I hereby state that I, Luong Thi Kim Phung, being the candidate for the degree of Master in TESOL, accept the requirements of the University relating to the retention and use of Master’s theses deposited in the library

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my thesis deposited in the Library should be accessible for purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the Library for the care, loan, or reproduction of the thesis

Ho Chi Minh City, February 2019

LUONG THI KIM PHUNG

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES 5

LIST OF FIGURES 6

ABSTRACT 7

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 8

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY 8

1.1.1 EFL non-English majors’ writing problems 8

1.1.2 Writing teachers’ problems 10

1.1.3 Peer comments in L2 writing teaching 11

1.2 AIMS OF THE STUDY 14

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 14

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 14

1.5 SCOPE OF THE STUDY 15

1.6 OUTLINE OF THE THESIS 15

1.7 DEFINITIONS OF TERMS 16

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 18

2.1 APPROACHES TO TEACHING WRITING 18

2.1.1 Product approach to writing 18

2.1.2 Process approach to writing 19

2.1.3 Genre- approach to writing 20

2.2 OTHER THEORIES UNDERPINNING PEER COMMENT ACTIVITIES 21

2.2.1 Collaborative learning theory 22

2.2.2 Vygotskian Zone of Proximal Development 22

2.2.3 Interactionist theory of L2 acquisition 23

2.3 PEDAGOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF PEER COMMENT ACTIVITIES 24

2.3.1 Traditional peer comment activities 25

2.3.1.1 Benefits of traditional peer comment activities 25

2.3.2.1 Benefits of computer-mediated peer comment activities 28

2.3.2.2 Constraints of computer-mediated peer comment activities 29

2.3.2.3 Studies on computer-mediated peer comment activities (2003-2018) 30 2.4 THE APPLICATION OF FACEBOOK IN EFL WRITING CLASS 38

2.4.1 Pedagogical rationale for utilizing Facebook as a platform in an EFL writing class 38

2.4.2 Previous research about the application of Facebook as a platform for peer comment activities in EFL writing classes 39

2.5 RESEARCH GAPS 44

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 46

3.1 RESEARCH DESIGN 46

3.2 CONTEXT OF THE STUDY 48

3.3 PARTICIPANTS 50

3.4 PROCEDURES OF THE STUDY 53

3.4.1 Teaching materials 53

3.4.2 Teaching method 55

3.4.3 Training in peer commenting activities 56

3.4.3.1 Assigning students to peer commenting groups 56

3.4.3.2 Designing “Guidelines for peer comments” 58

3.4.3.3 Training students to give peer comments based on “guidelines for peer comments” 60

3.4.3.4 The Writing Cycle of the Training 64

3.5 RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS 65

3.5.1 Tests 67

3.5.2 Scoring rubric 68

3.5.3 Inter-rating students’ writing 69

3.5.4 Revision analysis rubric 71

3.5.5 Feature “Compare two versions of a document” of Microsoft Word 72 3.5.6 Questionnaire for the experimental group 73

3.5.7 Semi-structured interview 77

3.6 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE 78

3.6.1 Administering pre-test 78

3.6.2 Collecting students’ drafts and peer comments from three writing assignments 79

3.6.3 Administering Post-test 79

3.6.4 Administering online Questionnaire 79

3.6.5 Conducting semi-structured-interview 80

3.7 DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURE 81

3.7.1 Research question 1: 81

3.7.2 Research question 2: To what extent do the students incorporate Facebook-based peer comments into revision? 82

3.7.3 Research question 3: What are students’ attitudes toward the use of Facebook-based peer comment activities in studying writing? 83

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 84

4.1 RESEARCH QUESTION 1 84

4.1.1 Analysis of data 84

4.1.2 Discussion of results 88

4.2 RESEARCH QUESTION 2 90

4.2.1 Analysis of data 90

4.2.2 Discussion of results 92

4.3 RESEARCH QUESTION 3 94

4.3.1 Analysis of data 94

4.3.2 Discussion of results 104

4.4 SUMMARY OF MAJOR FINDINGS 106

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION 108

5.1 CONCLUSION 108

5.2 PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR EFL WRITING INSTRUCTION 109

5.3 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY 111

5.4 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY 111

REFERENCES 113

APPENDICES 119

APPENDIX A: GUIDELINES FOR PEER COMMENTING 119

APPENDIX B: WRITING TASKS FOR PRACTICE 120

APPENDIX C: WRITING TASKS FOR PRE-TEST AND POST-TEST 123

APPENDIX D: SCORING RUBRIC 126

APPENDIX F: DATA CODING EXPLANATIONS AND EXAMPLES 135

APPENDIX G.1: QUESTIONS OF THE SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS 136

APPENDIX G.2: CÂU HỎI PHỎNG VẤN SINH VIÊN 137

APPENDIX H.1: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT 1 139

APPENDIX H.2: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT 2 143

APPENDIX H.3: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT 3 146

APPENDIX H.4: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT 4 149

APPENDIX H.5: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT 5 152

APPENDIX H.6: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT 6 155

APPENDIX I: THE FACEBOOK GROUP INTERFACE 158

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Demographical Information of Participants 52

Table 3.2 New Cutting-Edge writing skills section Modules 9-15 54

Table 3.3 The link between research questions, instruments, and data analysis methods 66

Table 3.4 Interraters’ Pearson Correlation coefficient 70

Table 3.5 Revision analysis rubric 72

Table 3.6 Description of the questionnaire content 74

Table 3.7 Reliability Statistics 76

Table 4.1 Independent Samples t-test 85

Table 4.2 Paired Samples t-test 86

Table 4.3 Paired Samples t-test 87

Table 4.4 Independent Samples t-test 88

Table 4.5 Revisions from 1st versions to 2nd versions 90

Table 4.6 Descriptive statistics - Students’ attitudes toward Facebook based peer comment activities 95

Table 4.7 Descriptive statistics - Questionnaire for students’ attitudes toward Facebook based peer comment activities 97

ABSTRACT

Electronic peer comments have long been applied by L2 writing teachers to enhance students’ writing skills and researchers have investigated the effects of peer comments via different modes Still, few studies have been conducted to compare the effectiveness of peer comments via the new medium, which is Facebook Group, and paper-and-pen peer comments The present quasi-experimental study examined (1) the difference (if any) between the effects of Facebook-based peer comments and paper-and-pen peer comments on students’ writing quality, (2) the extent to which students incorporated Facebook-based peer comments into revisions, and (3) students’ attitudes toward the use of Facebook-based peer comment activities in studying writing Seventy-two first year non-English majors taking a fifteen-week general English course participated in the study The participants in the experimental group exchanged peer comments via a Facebook group whilst those in the control group exchanged peer comments traditionally using paper and pens Quantitative data was collected from students’ pre-test and post-test scores, and the questionnaire Qualitative data was gathered from the students’ first and second drafts, peer comments, and semi-structured interviews

Three key findings were revealed from the study First, although peer comments via the two modes enhanced students’ writing quality, the effects of Facebook-based peer comments on students’ writing quality surpassed those of paper-and-pen peer comments on students’ writing quality Second, intriguingly, the total revisions made by the student writers themselves apparently outnumbered those triggered by peer comments, 55.1% compared with 44.9% Third, data analysis from the questionnaire and the semi-structured interviews suggested that students held highly favorable attitudes toward Facebook-based peer comment activities The study gives insights to writing instructors who contemplate applying Facebook-based peer comments to their writing classes

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

1.1.1 EFL non-English majors’ writing prob lems

Although effective writing skills are crucial for students both in their current study and in their future career, EFL students, especially EFL non- English majors, face a myriad of difficulties in improving their English writing skills This could be explained by the essence of writing skills, students’ low autonomy and high writing apprehension

First, writing skills are considered the most arduous skills for learners to master (Yah Awang Nik et.al 2010 as cited in Majid, Stapa, & Keong, 2015; Richards, 1990) According to Grabe & Kaplan (1996), writing is challenging because the nature of the writing process is cynical and recursive A majority of EFL students find writing the most challenging among four language skills because of the differences in the linguistic and rhetorical patterns between their first language and English (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996) Richards (1990) attributes learners’ writing difficulties to (1) the difference in the rules between written and spoken discourse, and (2) the complicated process of transferring thoughts and ideas into written text Hyland (2003) posits that students need to acquire essential principles of English writing in order to be able to compose a piece of effective writing From Nguyen, T L., (2018)’s teaching experience, it is evident that students still desperately struggle

to write a very simple sentence in Vietnamese, let alone writing in English

Second, students have low learning autonomy For one thing, few EFL learners feel the immediate need to learn English Since English is a foreign language in Vietnam, the majority of English learners have few basic requirements

to use English (Iwashita & Khoi, M N., 2012) As a teacher of English at Ho Chi Minh City University of Science (HCMC US), the author realizes non-English major students often lack motivation to study English Students’ motivation of English depends on the majors they are studying at university According to a survey conducted by Lin and Warden (1998), students studying different majors maintained

different perspectives about English learning It is observed by the author that students majoring in Information Technology, and Electronics and Telecommunication at HCMC US are more interested in learning English than students from other majors The majority of the students want to completely focus

on the subjects that give them specialized knowledge in their majors rather than investing time in learning English As a result, according to Assoc Prof Tran Anh Tuan, they do not spend enough time learning English For another, English is a compulsory subject in universities in Vietnam, and students tend to learn English in order to pass the exams rather than to communicate (Phuong, L., 2017; Luu, T T., 2011) Assoc Prof Tran Anh Tuan comments that Vietnamese learners lack motivation and are reluctant to interact in English (Phuong, L., 2017) Dang, T T (2010), posits that Vietnamese students are generally described as passive in class and accustomed to rote learning Some students are too passive and shy to participate

in the lessons They cannot teach themselves Some students do not ask when they have questions (Nguyen, T L., 2018)

Third, non-English majors tend to be apprehensive about writing in English

In a survey of 346 college-level English language learners in Taiwan who are English majors, Lin and Warden (1998) found that most of these students experienced either fear or unpleasant feelings about learning English Moreover, most students at HCMC US consider writing in English a daunting task According

non-to a survey innon-to English writing anxiety of students attending English-2 Course at HCMC US conducted by the researcher, there was a moderate level of English writing anxiety (Mean=3.08) among the students (Luong, T K P., 2017) In a private email conversation between the researcher and a student at HCMC US in this project, the student indicated: “Writing in English is always a nerve-racking experience to me although English is my cup of tea I can hardly brainstorm any ideas for my assignment; therefore, I make an outline in Vietnamese before writing

in English” (personal communication, June 4, 2016) This can be explained by the fact that the nature of writing assignments is discouraging itself As stated by Hamp

with a formal writing task intended for the eyes of someone else (as cited in Luu, T T., 2010, p 81) He added that when the "someone else" is the teacher, whose eyes may be critical, and who indeed may assign an individual assessment to the written product, most people feel uncomfortable” (Hamp and Heasley 2006, p.2 as cited in Luu, T T., 2010, p 81) Whereas writing skills are often considered the most difficult skills for EFL students to master, non-English majors do not write very often and they only write when they are required by their teachers of English According to Tran, T L (2001), a majority of Vietnamese students have a tendency

to be more interested in learning other skills such as speaking, reading and listening than writing, and they regard learning writing as “a chore or burden”, since a home writing assignment is always awaiting them after each writing lesson (as cited in Tran, T L., 2007, p 153)

1.1.2 Writing teachers’ problems

Regarding teaching EFL non-English major students, writing teachers find themselves confronted by a number of challenges One of many challenges confronted by writing teachers is heavy workload As the teaching of writing skill shifted from the product approach to the process approach, genre- approach, and process-genre approach successively, writing teachers are required to facilitate different stages of the writing process More importantly, teachers are expected to promptly offer formative feedback on students’ drafts, which is an exhausting and time-consuming task Ferris (2007) states that responding to student writing is challenging and by far the most time-consuming task

This situation is worsened by the large number of students in each writing class Writing teachers have to deal with large class size (Aduwa-Ogiegbaen & Iyamu, 2006; Byun et al., 2010; Chen & Goh, 2011; Ming & Jaya, 2011 as cited in Nguyen, T H., Fehring, & Warren, 2015; Yusof, Manan, Alias, & Pandian, 2012) According to Nguyen, T H et al (2015) and Dang, T T (2010), English class size

in Vietnam in general is quite large According to Prof Nguyen Minh Thuyet, there exists a wide gap between what the govenments and Vietnamese people want to do

and what we can do owning to our high expectation (Minh, G., 2018) He also posits that, in an oversized class, teachers cannot change their teaching methods (Minh, G., 2018) Large-class size coupled with the limited time allocated to each lesson acts a

a deterant to teachers applying supplemantary communicative activities to their classes (Iwashita & Khoi, M N., 2012) Large class size increases teachers’ workload According to Yusof et al (2012), the fact that writing teachers are expected to provide comments to students’ drafts at every stage of their writing process” (p 16) coupled with large class size contributes to writing teachers’ overwhelming workload Because of huge workload and time constraints, writing teachers usually end up leaving students writing assignments either reviewed late or not reviewed (Yusof et al., 2012)

1.1.3 Peer comments in L2 writing teaching

Peer comments can be a workable solution to the above-mentioned problems First, peer comment activities enable students to be more autonomous and less apprehensive about writing Mendoca and Johnson (1994) posit that peer comments offer students more control over their writing process as they allow students to directly participate in giving comments; as a result, they do not have to solely rely

on teacher comments to revise their drafts (as cited in Hyland F & Hyland K., 2006b) On giving comments to their peers, students realize that their peers also encounter similar difficulties as they do, which helps reduce their writing apprehension and increase their autonomy and self-confidence (Chaudron 1984; Curtis 2001; Cotterall & Cohen 2003 as cited in Hyland F & Hyland K., 2006b) Second, peer comments can ease teachers’ workload Employed as an instructional strategy, peer comment activities help lighten writing teachers’ workload without interfering in the students’ learning process (Yusof et al., 2012) Having students read and comment on each other’s drafts means that their successive drafts have fewer mistakes and are more understandable; consequently, their teachers have to spend less time correcting their revised drafts

However, traditional peer comments pose multiple problems that might impair their effectiveness Traditional peer comments provoke anxiety among peer commenting groups (Kelsey & St.Amant, 2012) Moreover, traditional peer comments such as face-to-face oral comments or paper-and-pen peer comments are inconvenient because students need to meet their peers in person to exchange comments It takes a tremendous amount of time for a piece of writing to be read and commented by all group members if peer comments are exchanged in large groups Also, traditional peer comments require the use of paper, which probably leads to paperwork problems such as losing or forgeting paper (Palmquist, 1993; Sullivan, Brown, & Nielson, 1998 as cited in Tuzi, 2004)

The digital age sees the transformation of peer comments into mediated human comments Various researchers claim that the use of Web 2.0 tools can potentially foster collaboration and interaction among users (Wang & Vasquez,

computer-2012 as cited in Yu, 2014), and promote language learners’ autonomy and language skills (Lee, 2011; Lomicka & Lord, 2012; Mak & Coniam, 2008 as cited in Yu, 2014)

Created in 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg as a local social network for students at Harvard University, Facebook (www.facebook.com) is currently the most popular networking site in the world with 1.47 billion daily active users on average for June

2018 (Facebook, 2018) Vietnam ranked 7th in the list of ten leading countries based

on number of Facebook users as of April 2018 (in million) During the period, 59 million people in Vietnam use Facebook (Statista, 2018) Facebook is very popular among young people About 75 percent of Vietnamese Facebook users are from 18

to 34 years old Each Vietnamese user spends about 2.5 hours on Facebook every day, which is twice as much as the time for television (Thanh Nien News, 2015)

Facebook offers young people a friendly environment to create and share ideas and information and therefore changes the way students communicate, interact and learn It is very likely nowadays that students spend more time online in an informal learning environment where they interact with peers and receive feedback

than they do with teachers in a traditional classroom This social network culture makes Facebook an ideal virtual platform for language learning According to Do,

Q H (2014), nowadays there are a lot of learning management systems which are ideal for distance learning and distance group working However, despite qualified support for distance learning and collaboration, these learning management systems are extremely expensive for Vietnamese students, whereas, free learning management systems offer boring user interface and are complicated and difficult

to use (Do, Q H., 2014) In contrast, Facebook is supposed to minimize the probability of technical difficulties because it is popular among students and its features are user-friendly Being free of charge and familiar to students with many other conveniences, Facebook can serve well as a learning platform

Facebook, which is considered the most popular platform for online social networking among university students, offers learners an opportunity to interact with friends in class, exchange comments on each other’s writing synchronously and asynchronously (Majid et al., 2015) Hence, intergrating Facebook into writing class, particularly using Facebook as a platform for students to exchange comments

on each other’s writing can potentially enhance the effectiveness of peer comment activities in a writing class

The above-mentioned issues about the problems faced by EFL non-English majors and writing teachers and the promising effectiveness of Facebook-based peer comments inspired the research to conduct a study examining the effectiveness of Facebook-based peer comments on students’ writing quality

As for research on electronic peer comments, in addition to examining the effectiveness of peer comments on a certain platform on students’ writing quality, researchers have been investigating (1) how peer comments affect writing quality

by studying their impact on revisions and (2) students’ preferences for different peer comment platforms Regarding the former, the literature has showed controversy

Sadler (2003), and Ho (2015) In contrast, Rodriguez (2003), Tuzi (2004), Yusof et

al (2012), and Pham, V P H (2014) found that electronic peer comments did not directly affect revisions Concerning the latter, Pham, V P H (2015) postulates that investigating learners’ attitudes is indispensable for applying any new teaching method since understanding learners’ attitudes toward a teaching method helps educators seek learners’ cooperation and figure out the limitations of their teaching methods so that they can improve it These arguments motivate the author to explore the impact of Facebook-based peer comments on revisions and students’ attitudes toward Facebook-based peer comment activities

1.2 AIMS OF THE STUDY

This study aimed to (1) investigate whether Facebook-based peer comments help improve students’ writing quality, (2) examine the effects of Facebook-based peer comments on students’ revised drafts, and (3) explore students’ attitudes toward

the use of Facebook as a platform for exchanging peer comments

(2) To what extent do the students incorporate Facebook-based peer comments into their revisions?

(3) What are students’ attitudes toward the use of Facebook-based peer comment activities in studying writing?

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Accomplishing the above-mentioned aims, the study acquires significance in two aspects First, the study has practical values The study makes a contribution to

the teaching of English writing at HCMC US It provides EFL writing teachers and researchers with empirical data on the effects of Facebook-based peer comments on writing quality of non-English major students at HCMC US The study draws teachers’ attention to the need to integrate Facebook into their writing classes at HCMC US and provides them with effective instructional strategies Second, the study contributes to the literature on computer-mediated peer comments using Facebook as a platform Teachers can learn from the model of integrating Facebook into teaching English writing to non-English major students in this study and might make appropriate changes to this model in order to create new models that suit their teaching contexts

1.5 SCOPE OF THE STUDY

There are three constraints in this study First, the sample is chosen from the population on a convenient basis; therefore, the generalizability is limited Second, this study just focuses on the use of Facebook Group to create a virtual platform for peer comments in teaching writing, so just the properties of Facebook Group as opposed to all features of Facebook are taken into consideration in this study Third, although Facebook offers synchronous chat function which enables users to instant message, the current study only investigates the practice of giving peer comments via Facebook asynchronously

1.6 OUTLINE OF THE THESIS

This thesis comprises five separate chapters The Introduction chapter provides the background information to the study, the aims together with the scope

of the study The Literature Review chapter presents a review of related literature underpinning peer comments and key findings from previous studies on computer-mediated peer comments in general and Facebook-based peer comments in particular Also, gaps in the literature are pinpointed in this chapter The third chapter, Methodology chapter, describes methodology implemented in the study

with justifications Also included in this chapter is the methods of data analysis The Results and Discussion chapter presents the description and statistical significance

of the findings from quantitative data drawn from tests and questionnaires and qualitative data from content analysis of students’ drafts and peer comments and from theme analysis of the semi-structured interviews In addition, the interpretation

of the results is presented in reference to previous studies on computer-mediated peer comments The final chapter, Conclusion chapter discusses pedagogical implications, limitations of the study, and recommendations for future researchers

1.7 DEFINITIONS OF TERMS

Peer comments can also be referred to as peer response, peer evaluation, peer

review, peer feedback or peer editing Liu and Hansen (2002) defined peer comments as

The use of learners as sources of information and interactants for each other

in such a way that learners assume roles and responsibilities normally taken on by a formally trained teacher, tutor, or editor in commenting on and critiquing each other's drafts in both written and oral formats in the process of writing (p.1)

Simply put, peer comments involve learners giving comments on their peers’ writing and receiving comments on their own writing from their peers

There are many modes of giving peer comments such as spoken peer comments, written peer comments and both As technology develops, spoken comments are transformed into synchronous computer-mediated peer comments and written comments are transformed into asynchronous computer-mediated peer comments

Computer-mediated peer comments

Computer-mediated peer comments refers to the means by which human peer comments are delivered synchronously and asynchronously, provided by electronic

Facebook Group

“A Facebook group is a page created for an organization or business to promote activities Users can join the group and post their thoughts on a wall and interact through discussion threads” (Rouse, 2016) Students can interact with each other in a Facebook group even when they are not Facebook friends When a group member posts something on the wall of the Facebook group, a Facebook notice will

be sent to all other members of the group Group members can view, like, and comment on the posts Additionally, the Facebook group can be set on “closed” or

“open” status When a Facebook group is set on a “closed” status, the content of the group is only available to members of the groups

Facebook-based peer comments

Facebook-based peer comments are a form of computer-mediated peer comments in which peer comments are delivered via Facebook In this study, Facebook-based peer comments refer to activities in which peers give and receive comments via a Facebook group

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

The first and second parts of this chapter present the theoretical background that underpins the current study including approaches to teaching writing and the roles of peer comment activities in each approach, and other theories that support peer comment activities The third part discusses some pedagogical considerations

of computer-mediated peer comment activities including their benefits and constraints The aspects of Facebook enabling it a potential platform for peer comments are discussed in the fourth part More importantly, previous studies on the application of Facebook as a platform for peer comments are reviewed Based

on the existing body of the literature on Facebook-based peer comments in teaching and learning writing, the researcher identifies some research gaps which the current study attempts to fill

2.1 APPROACHES TO TEACHING WRITING

The history of teaching writing theories reflects successive approaches to teaching writing Each period saw the emergence of an approach or orientation that gained dominance over other approaches The three approaches that are often discussed are product, process, and genre In this part, these approaches to teaching

writing, and the role of comments in each approach will be discussed

2.1.1 Product approach to writing

The years 1960s saw the development of product writing in which writing is seen as a product constructed from the writer’s command of grammar and vocabulary, and writing development is considered to be the results of imitating and manipulating models provided by the teachers (Hyland, 2003) According Pincas (1982b), in the product approach to writing, learning to write includes four stages: familiarization, controlled writing, guided writing, and free writing (as cited in Badger & White, 2000) In the product approach to writing, teachers play a role as providers of model language and the error correctors when students’ final drafts are

theory The upsides of this approach to teaching writing are that it acknowledges learners’ needs to be provided with linguistics knowledge about texts, and it highlights the role of imitation in language learning (Badger & White, 2000) However, the severe criticism against the product approach to writing is that it only focuses on accuracy and control of language while writing skills are nearly ignored

2.1.2 Process approach to writing

Instead of paying attention to the complete texts, the process approach to writing, which emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s, focuses on the processes that the learners go through when composing texts This approach to writing does not expect writers to produce final texts at the first time they compose texts, but they come up with the final texts after writing several successive drafts (Nunan, 1991) This approach considers writing as a cognitive process The four typical stages in the process approach to writing are prewriting, drafting, revising, and editing (Tribble, 1996 as cited in Badger & White, 2000) Since the focus of the process approach to writing is on the process of writing and rewriting (Hyland, K & Hyland, F., 2006b), the role of teachers and peers in giving comments in the revising and editing stages is a key element to help students improve the quality of their writing

In this approach to teaching writing, teachers play a role as facilitators of learning while the students have greater freedom performing the writing tasks (Badger & White, 2000)

The upsides of this approach are that it appreciates the significance of the skills involved in writing and discerns that what learners bring to the writing class makes a contribution to the development of their writing ability (Badger & White, 2000) Still, this approach to writing is critisized for ignoring “the context in which writing happens” (Badger & White, 2000, p.196) In the process approach, writing

is considered “simply a cognitive process that is highly private or individualistic” while writing “has been increasingly recognized as a socially and culturally situated

2.1.3 Genre- approach to writing

Genre approach to writing puts an emphasis on the social context in which writing is produced Genre approach to writing is slightly similar to product approach to writing in that both approaches emphasize the role of linguistics knowledge to writing But unlike the product approach to writing, genre approach pays attention to the purpose of writing, which means different kinds of genres are used to serve different purposes (Badger & White, 2000) In this approach to writing, students learn to write through a series of scaffolding developmental steps in which teachers and peers play an important role (Thaine, 2010) This approach to writing provides teachers with an opportunity to design their course based on the texts that students will have to write in their target contexts (Hyland, 2007) The advantages

of this approach are that it recognizes that “writing takes place in a social situation, and it is a reflection of a particular purpose” (Badger & White, 2000, p 159) The disadvantage of genre approach to writing is that it underestimates the skills need to create a piece of writing and considers learners passive (Badger & White, 2000)

Summary the roles of comments in these approaches

Comments play a central role in teaching and learning L2 writing In product approach to L2 writing, comments to students’ writing are summative comments that evaluate students’ writing as a product Still, comments used in the product approach to teaching writing are mainly teachers’ comments

Changes in writing pedagogy and research have converted the way comments are given to students (Hyland, K & Hyland, F., 2006a) from teachers’ comments to teachers’ comments supplemented with peers’ comments, self-comments, writing workshops, and computer-mediated comments Among these forms of comments, peer comments play a substantial role in the process approach

to writing In this approach to writing, comments help students reflect on, make changes and revise their own written texts through multiple drafts in order to improve their future writing In this approach peer comments are considered an

essential component of L2 writing instruction (Kroll 1991; Leki 1990; Mangelsdorf 1989; Mangelsdorf and Schlumberger 1992; Mittan 1989; Zamel 1985 as cited in Liu & Hansen, 2002) since peer comments are the main focus in the drafting and revising stages Peer comments help foster learner autonomy in the process approach

to writing (Ekşi, 2012; Yang, Badger, & Yu, 2006) and enhance writing skills through writing a series of drafts (Diab, 2010; Lundstrom & Baker, 2009 as cited in Nguyen T H, 2016) Liu and Hansen (2002) also posit that peer comment activities make students aware of the audience of their writing, help them “make reading- writing connections, and build content, linguistic, and rhetorical schemata through multiples exposures to a text” (Liu & Hansen, 2002, p.3)

Peer comments also play a key role in the genre approach to teaching writing since it facilitates writing through mutual scaffolding In this approach, teaching is

“always a series of scaffolded developmental step s in which teachers and peers play

a major role” (Hyland, 2007, p.153) It is the idea of scaffolding that highlights the role of peer interaction in taking learners from the current level of performance to the level of potential performance (Hyland, 2007) Peer comments forms a key element of the students’ growing control over writing skills (Hyland, K & Hyland, F., 2006a) Hence, comments to students’ writing not only gives final assessment of the students’ work, but also help and teach

2.2 OTHER THEORIES UNDERPINNING PEER COMMENT

ACTIVITIES

In addition to the process approach and the genre approach to teaching writing that support peer comment activities, other theories underpinning the use of peer comment activities in teaching writing are collaborative learning theory, Vygotskian zone of proximal development, and interactionist theory of L2 acquisition In fact these theories overlap and supplement each other In this part, these three theories will be briefly reviewed

2.2.1 Collaborative learning theory

Collaborative learning theory justifies the use of peer comments in teaching writing Collaborative learning is defined by Bruffee (1984) as a kind of learning happening through peer communication (as cited in Liu & Hansen, 2002) The basic principle of this theory is that learning is socially constructed which means learning happens through communcation with peers (Bruffe, 1984 as cited in Liu & Hansen, 2002) According to Hirvela, collaborative learning theory motivates students to collect learning resource from peers and enables them to complete tasks they could not do on their own (Hyland F & Hyland K., 2006b; Liu & Hansen, 2002) Various studies have indicated that students in writing groups negotiate meaning as they revise each other‘s drafts ( Bruffee, 1984 as cited in Liu & Hansen, 2002) Researchers on both L1 and L2 writing have found that collaborative writing yields

a lot of positive results in learning writing Peer comment activities are a type of collaborative group work that can potentially create more opportunities for students

to negotiate meaning as they collaborate with their peers to improve a draft (Liu & Hansen, 2002)

2.2.2 Vygotskian Zone of Proximal Development

The third theory that strongly supports peer comment activities is cultural theory, which was first developed by a Russian psychologist, Vygotsky in

social-1978 This theory considers learning as a social process activated through the Zone

of Proximal Development and scaffolding This theory approves peer comment activities and revisions as it emphasizes the role of scaffolding and support given by more capable learners to less capable learners to reach a certain learning goal These types of mutual scaffolding and support can be achieved through interaction and collaboration among students

A fundamental concept in the social-cultural theory that is intimately related

to peer comment activities is the the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) Vygotsky defined ZDP as “the distance between the actual development level as

determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development

as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978 , p 86 as cited in Deng, Zhang, & Chen, 2014,

p 14) One implication of ZPD is that students need to get involved in interactions within writing tasks that they can not complete on their own but should complete with peers’ asssistance In this process, peer comment activities create opportunities for students to interact with their peers in the process of accomplishing their writing tasks that they cannot perfom on their own Peer comment activities also promote a variety of communication behaviors during group work in the second language writing classroom, which profits all group members (Villamil and Guerrero, 1996

as cited in Liu & Hansen, 2002)

2.2.3 Interactionist theory of L2 acquisition

Theories of interaction and second language acquisition emphasize the importance of using group work in teaching language Researchers in the field of second language acquisition have contended that interaction among L2 learners in their classroom settings is essential for constant development of communicative competence (e.g., Long & Porter, 1985; Pica, 1984 as cited in Ferris, 2003) In the social process of learning, learners “make and use knowledge together, with other people” (Farrel, 2004, p.481 as cited in Freishtat & Sandlin, 2009) Group work encourages students to engage in the negotiation of meaning which is believed to increase comprehension An increase in comprehension results in faster and better acquisition (Liu & Hansen, 2002) Group work pushes students to produce meaningful output, increases communication, negotiation of meaning, and correction in a group, etc (Long and Porter, 1985 as cited in Liu & Hansen, 2002) Numerous previous studies on interaction and second language acquision have proved that engaging students in group work that involves meaning negotiation, such as peer comment activities, help students acquire additional practice in the target language As a form of group work activities, peer comment activities have

Summary

The above is the pertinent theories that justify the use of peer comment activities in a writing class These theories along with the process and genre approaches to teaching writing shed light on this study First, peer comment activities in the process approach to writing help students to improve their writing through recursive steps including drafting and redrafting Second, in the genre approach to teaching writing, peer comments play a central role in scaffolding developmental steps Third, according to the collaborative theory and Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development, peer comment activities provide learners with opportunities to interact and learn from their peers, and negotiate meaning Finally, interaction and second language acquisition theory highlights the role of peer comment activities as a form of group work activities which motivates students to engage in the negotiation of meaning which is believed to increase comprehension, and thus improve acquisition

2.3 PEDAGOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS OF PEER COMMENT ACTIVITIES

Based on the above-mentioned theories, this part elaborates on the benefits and constraints of the use of peer comment activities in teaching EFL students to write

According Liu & Hansen (2002), the two main modes of peer comments are traditional comments and computer-mediated peer comments Traditional peer comments refer to face-to-face oral comments, pen-and-paper written comments, or the combination of the two Correspondingly, the three forms of computer-mediated peer comments are synchronous peer comments, asynchronous peer comments, and the combination of both

In this part, the benefits and constraints of the use of these two modes of comments are reviewed

2.3.1 Traditional peer comment activities

2.3.1.1 Benefits of traditional peer comment activities

A myriad of significant benefits of peer comment activities for L2 learners have been suggested by numerous authors based on the above-mentioned theories

With respect to cognitive perspective, peer comment activities encourage thinking, enable learners to take an active role in their learning, and help learners demonstrate and reinforce knowledge (Liu & Hansen, 2002) In addition, reading texts from peers on similar writing tasks helps students develop critical thinking skills (Liu & Hansen, 2002; Ferris, 2003) Writing texts for peers to read and give comments helps learners build audience awareness (Liu & Hansen, 2002; Nation, 2008) Students not only write for the teachers but also for their peers to read and give comments, which can be a source of inspiration and motivation for their writing

Concerning social perspective, Liu & Hansen (2002, p 9) assert that peer comment activities “enhance communicative power”, enable students to get authentic comments, and “establish collegial ties and friendship” Ferris (2003) states that receiving comments from various audience brings students multiple perspectives Moreover, peer comment activities enhance students’ confidence (Liu

& Hansen, 2002; Ferris, 2003), and alleviate writing apprehension (Liu & Hansen, 2002) According Ferris (2003, p.70), peer comment activities “build a sense of classroom community” Being effectively implemented, peer comments play a key role in asssisting novice writers in realizing how readers view their writing; additionally, peer comments support acquisition by providing learners with both comprehensible input and real opportunity for practice (Hyland F & Hyland K., 2006b)

In terms of linguistic perspective, peer comment activities enable learners to increase metalinguistic knowledge and explore linguistic knowledge, acquire extra language skill practice and improve discourse (Liu & Hansen, 2002)

In terms of practicability, the use of peer comments helps reduce teachers’ workload It is because in the process approach to writing, teachers are expected to support students through multiple drafts by providing comments and suggesting revisions during the writing process; as a result, teachers, especially those who teach large classes, have a huge workload The use of peer comments supplemented with teacher comment helps lighten teachers’ workload Hyland F (2000) posits that peer comments motivate learners to join the classroom activities and reduce their dependence on their teacher Additionally, peer comment activities are “applicable across student proficiency levels” and “flexible across different stages in the writing process” (Liu & Hansen, 2002, p.9) Thanks to these activities, students receive more comments on their writing than they could from their teacher only (Ferris, 2003) Also, written peer comments provide long-lasting record that teachers and students can use to measure progress and keep as a reminder (Nation, 2008)

2.3.1.2 Constraints of traditional peer comment activities

However, peer comments activities are not without constraints

First, there exists uncertainties about peer comments (Liu & Hansen, 2002) This is because learners sometimes doubt the accuracy of their peers’ comments Consequently, learners may lose enthusiasm about peer comments and they may not incorporate peer comments into revision Hence, it is crucial that teachers supervise peer comment activities so that students can consult them when they need clarification Also, peer comments need to be coupled with teacher comments to ensure students’ certainty about the peer comments they receive

Second, peer comments can be counter-productive when learners become overly critical (Liu & Hansen, 2002) If this is the case, learners may feel uncomfortable with their peers and anxious about exchanging peer comments Once again, the teacher’s role as a facilitator and conciliator is key to keep peer comments activities going

Third, peer comments can be of low quality because of students’ lack of investment, particularly when students tend to focus too much on surface structures (Liu & Hansen, 2002) In addition, time constraint is conducive to superficial comments Some students do not believe in peer comments and they exchange peer comments just because they have to; as a result, they tend to give throwaway comments and disregard comments to their peers To tackle this, teachers need to (1) provide students with a guideline for peer comments and train students how to use the guideline to ensure students takes many aspects of a piece of writing into consideration when giving comments, and (2) give students credits for giving high quality comments by awarding them some bonus scores so as to encourage them to participate eagerly in peer comment activities

Current body of literature on peer comments has elaborately discussed both the upsides and downsides of incorporating peer comment activities into teaching writing However, whether their advantages outweigh their disadvantages remains controversial Although peer comment activities help save teachers’ time spent on giving comments to students’ drafts, it takes teachers’ time spent on organizing peer comment activities, training students to give peer comments, and facilitating the process of peer comment exchange, which takes teachers tremendous time and effort Ferris (2003) states that writing instructors and scholars are still dubious about whether the benefits of peer comments outweigh their drawbacks and whether their benefits are worth the time spent doing the activities

2.3.2 Computer-mediated peer comment activities

Going with the development of technology, research has been focused on the use of computer in mediating comments (Hyland F & Hyland K., 2006b) Computer-mediated comments refer to human comments delivered with the help of electronic devices

2.3.2.1 Benefits of computer-mediated peer comment activities

Besides sharing similar benefits with traditional peer comments, mediated peer comments have been proved to make peer comments more effective First, by making students’ written texts widely available for peers, computer-mediated comment activities encourage more writing practice and promote collaboration and the sense of community in the classroom (Kahmi-Stein, 2000; Plass & Chun, 1996 as cited in Ware & Warschauer, n.d.) Second, computer-mediated peer comments enable students to exchange their drafts more efficiently (Palmquist, 1993 as cited in Ware & Warschauer, n.d.) and allow teachers to monitor and control students’ comments more easily than face-to face peer comments in class (DiGiovanni & Nagaswami, 2001 as cited in Ware and Warschauer, n.d.) Third, computer-mediated peer comment activities offer learners an equal chance to participate in giving comments (Warschauer, 1996); as a result, computer-mediated peer comment activities empower less fluent students and shy students According

computer-to Kelsey and St.Amant (2012), introverted and shy students are more likely computer-to thrive

in online environment than in classroom settings.In fact, those who are quiet in class and unwilling to ask questions or talk about themselves are more eager to do these things in the online environment Fourth, in some cultures including Vietnamese culture where students’ attentive listening and silence are expected, computer-mediated peer comment activities change the traditional way of communication in the classroom and facilitate interaction Fifth, studies have indicated that computer-mediated peer comments are better in terms of quality and longer in terms of quantity compared with face-to-face peer comments (Warschauer, 1996) Sixth, computer-mediated peer comments reduce paperwork problems such as losing or forgetting paper (Palmquist, 1993; Sullivan, Brown, & Nielson, 1998 as cited in Tuzi, 2004) Last, computer-mediated peer comments are supposed to be less anxiety-provoking than face-to-face peer comments (Liu & Hansen, 2002)

2.3.2.2 Constraints of computer-mediated peer comment activities

Although researchers have found numerous benefits of computer-mediated peer comments, there exist some drawbacks of computer-mediated peer comments

in L2 writing classes

There remain some doubts among researchers about the effectiveness of computer-mediated comments such as the inequality of computer-mediated comments to less technologically savvy students, and the confusion caused by overwhelming computer-mediated comments which makes it hard for students to incorporate comments into revison (Warschauer, 1996; Liu & Hansen, 2002) According Liu and Hansen (2002), asynchronous computer-mediated peer comment activities are time-consuming and may provoke anxiety because of indefinite wait for comments Moreover, some peer comments that are incorrect or too critical can

be counter-productive (Liu & Hansen, 2002)

Another problem that concerns researchers is the level of participation in computer-mediated peer comment activities Since students have more freedom on

an online platform, they tend not to fully participate in the activities; as a result, the activities become not as effective as expected Hewitt (2005) states that students are likely to read and comment on the latest post even though that does not help to foster the current useful discussion (as cited in Kelsey & St.Amant, 2012) Some students are reluctant to exchange peer comments just because they have to; consequently, their comments are neither constructive nor useful Previous studies show that students are more eager to participate in computer-mediated peer comment activities

if participation is compulsory or graded (Vonderwell, 2003 as cited in (Kelsey & St.Amant, 2012) The presence of the teacher on a computer-mediated platform including promptly answering students’ questions, giving feedback on assignments, and meaningfully participating in discussion, makes students more satisfied with computer-mediated peer comment activities (Russo & Benson, 2005, Ouzts, 2006

Despite the many drawbacks of computer-mediated peer comments, teachers and researchers in L2 writing still find the ideas of using the use of computer-mediated peer comments feasible and attractive However, important concerns about the incorporation of computer-mediated peer comments into L2 writing classrooms are what virtual platform is a suitable platform for peer comments, how to train students on giving effective peer comments, and how to organize the activities of exchanging computer-mediated peer comments efficiently

2.3.2.3 Studies on computer-mediated peer comment activities

(2003-2018)

Studies on computer-mediated peer comments are numerous Researchers have made use of different technology facilities to make them a platform for peer comments such as word processor and MOOs (e.g Liu & Sadler, 2003), word processor and email (e.g Rodriguez, 2003; Tuzi, 2004; Lightfoot, 2006, Ertmer et al., 2007), Moodle’s forum (e.g Song & Usaha, 2009), and blog (e.g Pham & Usaha, 2009) (as cited in Pham, V P H., 2014) Two aspects usually focused on in most studies are (1) the comparison between traditional peer comments and computer-mediated peer comments, and (2) the effects of computer-mediated peer comments on students’ revision

(1) Comparative studies between traditional peer comments and mediated peer comments in the last fifteen years

Researchers examined the effectiveness of traditional versus mediated peer comments on students’ writing quality to figure out whether the more effective one can replace the other (Pham, V P H., 2014) Several comparative studies between traditional peer comments and computer-mediated peer comments can be found in the literature In this part only relevant parts of the pertinent papers

computer-to this research are discussed

Liu and Sadler (2003) examined the effects of computer-mediated peer comments using Microsoft Word and Multi-user domain Object-oriented (MOO)

and face-to-face peer comments using pens and paper on ESL students’ writing Forty eight students taught by the same instructor at a university in the United Stated participated in this study One group who attended classes in an a computer lab gave peer comments using Microsoft Word’s “Add comment” function and exchanged peer comments by MOO, while the other group met in a traditional class and gave peer comments using paper and pens, and exchanged comments at face-to-face group workshops The students’ essays from three compulsory writing assignments and peer comments were collected for data analysis The findings indicated that giving peer comments using Microsoft Word and exchanging peer comments using MOO were less effective than the traditional mode of exchanging peer comments while the participants exchanging computer-mediated peer comments considered computer-mediated peer comment activities more appealing affectively The two researchers recommended that the computer-mediated mode and the traditional mode should be complementary to each other instead of being mutually exclusive

This study by Liu and Sadler is a thorough comparison of computer-mediated mode and traditional mode of exchanging peer comments However, the use of MOO in a lab to exchange peer comments is out-of-date and inconvenient The fact that they had to work through synchronous communication meant they had to be at

a computer at the same time in the lab Nowadays, with the proliferation of social networking sites which offer more features for posting texts and commenting on texts, and enable users to interact with each other wherever they are, exchanging peer comments via social networking sites such as Facebook can possibly bring more positive impact on students’ writing quality than MOO did

Xu (2007) conducted a qualitative study to compare the effects of asynchronous peer comments using the functions “track changes” and “add comments” of Microsoft Word versus paper-and-pen peer comments Nine ESL students’ peer comments on four drafts were analyzed In the first two writing assignments, these students were asked to give peer comments on each other writing

utilized for asynchronous e-communication (Xu, 2007) In the other two writing assignments, these students were asked to exchange peer comments using paper and pens Results suggested that more peer comments were given when the asynchronous computer-mediated peer comments were first implemented just because of the students’ curiosity about the new medium, but this did not last for a long time The in-text comments and end-of-text comments in both modes were similar in terms of quantity, area, the nature of distribution, and sentence structures, rhetorical styles, organizational strategies It was also revealed from the results that the students expressed no overt preference between the two modes

However, the sample in the above-mentioned study was small, just 9 students, which could affect the generalization of the study In addition, the design

of the study was questionable The participants were not divided into control group and experimental group; instead, they were asked to exchange peer comments using two different modes consecutively Thus, the way they exchanged peer comments via one medium in the first place could have influenced their ways of exchanging peer comments via the other medium

Ho & Savignon (2007), conducted a qualitative study investigating students’ attitudes toward face-to-face and computer-mediated peer comments using email and annotation features in common word-processing programs 37 EFL English majors participated in the study All the students were asked to exchange peer comments via two different modes: face-to-face versus computer-mediated medium using emails and Microsoft Word The data about the students’ attitudes toward the use of the two modes for exchanging peer comments was collected from a questionnaire The results suggest that learners accepted both modes but they preferred face-to-face peer comments to computer-mediated peer comments although they found many features of Microsoft Word such as “Track Changes” and

“spelling and grammar checks” helpful and convenient The author posits that written computer-mediated peer comments should not be used on their own because oral discussion is more efficient than written communication

Generally speaking, extraneous variables were seldom considered, which could have affected the results According to Ho & Savignon (2007), the participants were drawn from two classes taught by two different teachers, who were a native English speaker and a non-native English speaker, so the leaners’ perceptions of both Face-to-face peer comments and computer mediated peer comments were possibly affected by instructional objectives and styles of their teacher In addition, the data collection instrument used in this study was questionnaire, and there was no triangulation of the data, which could have influenced the validity of the data

In a comparative study between face-to-face peer comments versus peer comments via Moodle’s forum carried out by Song & Usaha (2009), the authors investigated the types of comments, the ways peer comments were used in revisions, and the writing quality after revision 20 Chinese EFL university students were randomly assigned to face-to-face peer comment group and Moodle’s forum-based peer comment group After being trained to give peer comments, they were asked to complete an argumentative essay and then exchange peer comments in their group Data was collected from the students’ comments and writing scores of their argumentative essay The findings suggested that the face-to-face peer comment group produced more comments than the Moodle’s forum-based peer comment group, accordingly incorporating more comments into revisions Still, the latter produced more revision-oriented comments The writing quality of essays of the students in the Moodle’s forum-based peer comment group was significantly better than that of the Face-to-face peer comment group because of the difference in the use of peer comments into revisions

There were two shortcomings in this study First, the duration of the experiment was short, which lasted just about four weeks Still, whether the short duration affected the results was still unknown Second, the sample size was small,

20 participants, which limited the generalization of the results

OnlineMeeting, a software specifically designed for peer comment activities, document sharing, and chat room functions The participants were 13 third year EFL students doing a writing course at a university in Taiwan All the students had to write four expository essays on different topics The participants exchanged face-to-face oral peer comments on their first and third writing assignments, whereas on their second and fourth writing assignments they exchanged computer-mediated based- peer comments using Word commenting followed by online talk via OnelineMeeting Data was collected from all the participants’ drafts, written peer comments, transcripts of face-to-face discussions, online chat logs, questionnaire and follow-up interviews The results suggested that more revision-oriented peer comments were produced by the students than non-revision-oriented ones Although the students preferred commenting via Word and online chat via OnlineMeeting to commenting face-to-face, they found face-to-face peer commenting more effective The researcher thus came to the conclusion that there should be a balance in the use

of the two modes in peer comment activities

Two defects of this study were the research design and the sample size Considering the research design, in the first two and the last two writing assignments the participants were asked to write different types of essays The different nature of these types of essays might have influenced the rate peer comments were incorporated into revisions (Ho, 2015) Regarding the sample size, as few as 13 students participated in the study, which limited the generalization to other EFL context

(2) Studies on the effects of computer-mediated peer comments on students’ revision

Rodriguez (2003) conducted a case study to examine the way leveled students provided computer-mediated peer comments and the impact of peer comments on revision Twelve students of Spanish in a public university in the United States participated in the study One of them was a native Portuguese speaker, and the rest were all native English speakers All the participants were

intermediate-trained to give peer comments in advance of the treatment The participants worked

in self-selected pairs First, after being instructed in essay writing, the participants were given writing assignment and they finished their work at home Then they submitted their first drafts through Blackboard, which was “an Internet infrastructure program for online teaching and learning” (Rodriguez, 2003, p.57) After that, they were made to read the work of their partner and write comments on

a computer Next, they posted their comments on Blackboard to the writer and to their instructor Then, students were asked to read and analyze the peer comments they received and to incorporate peer comments into revision if they found the peer comments useful Finally, they posted their revised drafts on Blackboard to the instructor for comments

Qualitative and quantitative data was collected from the students’ first and second drafts of the two writing tasks (evaluative essay and persuasive essay), written peer comments, interview transcripts, learning journals from the participants, and the teacher notes The results showed that peer comments did not directly impact revision In fact, more than fifty percent of the revisions were not triggered by peer comments but originated by the writers themselves The results also suggest that students expressed positive attitudes toward using computer for the class The students also expressed that they felt comfortable working in the computer lab, as well as working independently, and having opportunities asking each other for help on commenting on their peers’ essays It was also suggested from the results that with training and preparation, not only advanced leveled L2 students were able

to participate in the peer comment activities but intermediate leveled students which was the case in this study could also effectively participate in the activities However, the size of peer comment group was as small as two students, which meant each student just read and comment on the drafts of one student This limited the numbers of peer comments each student received and the interactions in peer comment groups, which might have affected the results that peer comments did not directly affect revisions

Tuzi (2004) examined the effects of electronic peer comments on L2 students’ revisions 20 senior college students in Pennsylvania taking an academic writing course participated in the study These students were asked to write essays, exchange comments and revise their drafts on a databased-driven web site which was specifically developed by the researcher for writing and responding Three writing sessions took place in an Internet accessible classroom where they wrote, exchanged comments, and revised their drafts Electronic peer comments were posted on the website and also sent to the emails of the instructors and the student writers The students received oral comments from their friends and their tutors when they met these people in person at school Data was collected from students’ drafts, electronic comments and interviews The study found that the students preferred oral comments to electronic peer comments, but electronic peer comments led to more revisions than oral comments did The results also suggested that receiving numerous comments helped students spend more time rethinking and revising their drafts Thus, the researcher suggested combining oral and electronic peer comments The students in the study were trained extensively for the peer comment activities However, it was likely that the students’ negative attitudes to the platform for electronic peer comments was owing to the inconveniences it caused For one thing, the class webpage designed by the researcher was brand new

to them And for another, they had to sit in the lab when exchanging peer comments

Pham, V P H (2014) investigated the effects of blog-based peer comments

on students’ writing quality and students’ revisions, and their attitudes towards blog-based peer comment activities 32 junior English majors attending an academic course in a university in Ho Chi Minh city participated in the study The study adopted a single group pretest-posttest design After being trained on giving peer comments via Blog, the students were asked to post their drafts and comment on each other drafts on Blog Quantitative data and qualitative data was collected from the students’ drafts, peer comments, students’ writing scores, questionaires, writing journals, and interviews The study found that peer comments on blog helped students improve their writing quality through their revisons after receiving peer