scholarly journals Effects of Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC) Peer Review in an EFL Writing Course

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 417
Author(s):  
Yiwen Lin
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Computer Mediated Communication ◽  
Mediated Communication ◽  
Efl Writing ◽  
Text Revision ◽  
Computer Mediated ◽  
Writing Course ◽  
High Level

This study aims to investigate the effects of the two-step blended computer mediated communication (CMC) peer review process (Word commenting followed by Zoom discussion) in an English writing course for 29 Chinese EFL learners, and their perceptions of this mode. Compared with previous studies, the findings of this study are encouraging: 1) the proportions of revision-oriented comments students gave reached at a high level of above 85% of the total comments; 2) students gave more local comments, but the ratio of revision-oriented comments in global areas to revision-oriented comments in local areas was more balanced (approximately 40% vs 60%); 3) the adoption rates of revision-oriented comments in text revision were also at a high level (63%-73%). What’s more, most students held positive attitudes toward this mode, perceiving it useful in their text revision and development of writing ability. 65% of them expressed their willingness to attend this mode of review activities in the future. This study reveals that the two-step CMC peer review process with Word commenting followed by discussion via online video conferencing system can be used as a useful tool in EFL writing class. This study contributes to the current research on CMC peer review since most previous studies investigated effects of peer review using text-based CMC tools and little research has been done on speech-based tools.

scholarly journals The effects of face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review on EFL writers’ comments and revisions

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mei-ching Ho
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Language ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Chat Room ◽  
Online Chat ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Efl Writing ◽  
Face To Face ◽  
Computer Mediated ◽  
Writing Course

<p>This study investigates the use of face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review in an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing course to examine how different interaction modes affect comment categories, students’ revisions, and their perceptions of peer feedback. The participants were an intact class of 13 students at a Taiwanese university. The computer-mediated peer review involved <em>OnlineMeeting</em>, software specifically designed for peer review activities and featuring a split screen protocol, document sharing, and chat room functions. The results of chi-square tests show that overall students offered more revision-oriented comments than non-revision-oriented ones among different writing tasks in either mode. Also, peer review mode affected some types of peer comments to a certain extent. There were significantly more global alteration comments and fewer local alteration comments in face-to-face than computer-mediated mode. While the participants liked comments via <em>Word</em>’s annotation features over handwritten comments, they felt face-to-face discussions to be more effective than online chat via <em>OnlineMeeting</em> due to the affordance of face-to-face talk (e.g., immediacy and paralinguistic features), that cannot be easily replaced by electronic chat. Pedagogical implications regarding the balanced use of computer-mediated and non-computer-mediated writing activities are discussed, along with suggestions for future research.</p>

Emerging Feedback in Two Asynchronous ESL Writing Forums

2011 ◽  
pp. 342-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stella K. Hadjistassou
Keyword(s):  
Computer Mediated Communication ◽  
Discussion Board ◽  
Esl Writing ◽  
Mediated Communication ◽  
Writing Assignments ◽  
Computer Mediated ◽  
Writing Course ◽  
Personal Experiences ◽  
Writing Genres ◽  
Esl Learners

This study reports on a culturally-transforming group activity using asynchronously-mediated forums on the “discussion board” of Blackboard Academic Suite. Seventeen English as a second language (ESL) learners enrolled in a university-level writing course used the discussion board to engage in asynchronous collaborative forums where they presented and shared their paper topics and personal experiences, offered suggestions to their peers, and raised critical questions that were meant to help their peers think more critically about the assigned writing genres and their selected paper topic. The data suggest that participation in asynchronous computer-mediated communication (ACMC) forums can help students develop a deeper understanding of the writing assignments and encourage them to implement describing and narrating strategies to provide feedback to their peers. Students can also gradually produce feedback that is more complex, constructive, and challenging to their peers and begin improving their writing skills by developing more formal, sophisticated and complex language.

scholarly journals Do You See What I Mean? Computer-Mediated Discourse Analysis

2010 ◽  
pp. 55-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noel Fitzpatrick ◽  
Roisin Donnelly
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Digital Media ◽  
Sequential Analysis ◽  
Online Courses ◽  
Meaning Making ◽  
Computer Mediated Communication ◽  
Mediated Communication ◽  
Computer Mediated ◽  
Mediated Discourse ◽  
High Level

This chapter explores a sociolinguistic approach to computer-mediated communication (CMC), by examining how higher education teachers use digital media to manage interpersonal interaction in their online courses, form impressions, shape and maintain relationships with their students. Previous studies have often focused on the differences between online and offline interactions, though contemporary research is moving towards the view that CMC should be studied as an embedded linguistic form in everyday life.The study of language in these contexts is typically based on text-based forms of CMC, (often referred to as computer-mediated discourse analysis). Within this, focus in the chapter is on the devising and implementation of pragmatic linguistics of online interactions; at a high level this refers to meaning-making, shared belief systems and intercultural differences; at a specific level this includes issues such as turn-taking and the sequential analysis and organisation of virtual ‘interlocution’.

Caution, Empowered Reviewers Ahead

2010 ◽  
pp. 302-318
Author(s):  
Robbin Zeff Warner ◽  
Beth L. Hewett ◽  
Charlotte Robidoux
Keyword(s):  
Web 2.0 ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Writing Process ◽  
Computer Mediated Communication ◽  
Content Management ◽  
Online Information ◽  
Mediated Communication ◽  
Knowing How ◽  
Computer Mediated ◽  
Document Review

One aspect of writing in government, business, and academia that always has been collaborative is the document review process. In this process, all persons with a stake in the final writing product are invited to help shape the piece in terms of content, style, or structure. Their review work has primarily been both serial and parallel. However, problems and perils of document review can strike at any stage in the review process: from the reviewer not knowing how to give useful comments to the writer not knowing how to interpret and use comments constructively. In today’s Web 2.0 world, what once was a more closed and controlled collaboration review process becomes open and organic because digital and online information is accessible to intended and unintended audiences alike for commenting, ranking, and reviewing. Response to this new openness in review has been mixed among and within institutions. And yet, the momentum for open and even unsolicited reviews is not only impossible to stop but also difficult to manage. While computer-mediated communication (CMC) and content management system (CMS) tools have automated the writing process, the review process has lagged in terms of being efficiently collaborative. This chapter explores collaborative review in a user-empowered Web 2.0 world, including how CMC tools can facilitate the review process. Finally, this chapter exemplifies Principles 1, 2, and 4 that ground this book.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document