Face-to-face and Computer-mediated Peer Review in EFL Writing

MEI-CHING HO
The Arizona State University
SANDRA J. SAVIGNON
The Pennsylvania State University

ABSTRACT
This paper examines the use of face-to-face peer review (FFPR) and computermediated
peer review (CMPR) in an Asian English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL)
academic writing context. The participants were 33 English majors from a university
of science and technology in Taiwan, a new type of school offering 2-year
associate degree programs in foreign language studies. Our study contributes to
the research on foreign-language-writing collaboration for Chinese learners in
two important ways. First, many investigations of FFPR have looked at Chinese
learners either in English as a second language (ESL) settings or at 4-year
universities. Few have considered Chinese learners at 2-year colleges in EFL
contexts. Second, there has been very little documentation of CMPR using annotation
features in common word processing software in either ESL or EFL
settings (Honeycutt, 2001). This study investigates the attitudes of 2-year college
students in Taiwan toward the use of FFPR and CMPR in composition classes.
Pedagogical implications are also drawn.
KEYWORDS
Face-to-face Peer Review, Computer-mediated Peer Review, Second Language Writing,
EFL Learners.

INTRODUCTION
Writing instruction in English as a second language (ESL) has seen considerable
change following the influence of the process approach in the 1980s (Leki, 1992;
Raimes, 1991; Reid, 1993; Zamel, 1987). This approach emphasizes writing as a
process in which prewriting, multiple drafting, and revising are considered important
in helping learners develop their skills. During multiple drafting, peer review
is often used to afford learners experience in expression, interpretation, and negotiation
of meaning. Such engagement in authentic communicative events offers
an optimal opportunity for language learning (Savignon, 1983, 1997). Teachers
270 CALICO Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2
typically ask learners to bring drafts of their writing to class where they then
work in groups of two to four to read and comment on one another’s writing. This
exchange of feedback helps writers to clarify and give form to their meaning in
subsequent drafts.
There are several variations of peer review (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Zhu, 1994).
Learners can read one another’s papers silently or aloud. Partners can be assigned
by the teacher or chosen by learners themselves. In some settings, teachers provide
a peer review worksheet with guidelines as to what to look for while reviewing
another’s text (e.g., content, organization, and coherence). Learners are
encouraged to comment not only on the strengths of the text but on its weaknesses
as well. The practice of peer review is seen to offer advantages for learners in a
variety of ways. Peer response groups may raise learners’ audience awareness,
foster collaboration, help learners develop a sense of discourse community, offer
ideas and strategies for revision, and, most important, “expose learners to a variety
of writing styles” (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996, p. 386; see also Nelson & Murphy,
1993; Spear, 1987).
Peer review has become a common activity for learners of different writing
proficiency levels in many first language (L1) and ESL contexts (Grabe & Kaplan,
1996; Nelson & Murphy, 1993; Villamil & Guerrero, 1996). However, very little
is known about the use of process-focused peer review activities in EFL contexts.
This is especially true for Asian contexts in which teacher-centered classrooms are
the norm. In Taiwan, for example, along with relatively large class sizes, teachercentered
grammar-based instruction remains widespread (Wang, 2000). If appropriate
and effective classroom practice is to be implemented, further exploration
is needed of learners’ attitudes toward learner-centered and communication-based
activities such as peer review.
The goal of peer review is to foster an atmosphere of reciprocal teaching between
learners. The theoretical basis for the use of peer review in the development
of writing skills, both in L1 and second language (L2) development, can be traced
to (a) the notion of reciprocal teaching/scaffolding (Donato, 1994; Nystrand,
1986; Spear, 1987) and (b) the communicative approach to language teaching
(CLT) (Elbow, 1981; Savignon, 1983, 1997, 2002). Second language writing pedagogy
has felt the influence of both perspectives (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Reid,
1993). Communication, spoken and written alike, is the central focus of CLT and
involves “a continuous process of expression, interpretation, and negotiation of
meaning.” (Savignon, 1997, p. 14; 2002, p. 1). The nature of peer review activities
highlights this process. The basic insight of reciprocal teaching/scaffolding in the
development of writing skills is that learners learn from one another by giving and
receiving advice on the content, organization, and language use of their writing.
Computer-mediated peer review (CMPR) is a recent innovation in writing instruction.
Along with the increasing availability of networked computers, computer-
mediated communication (CMC) has gained importance in language teaching,
especially in the teaching of composition. This study takes into consideration
therefore both FFPR and CMPR.
Mei-ching Ho and Sandra J. Savignon 271
LITERATURE REVIEW
Peer Review in Language Learning
Numerous reports on the use of peer review in both L1 and ESL settings have
explored aspects of peer review activities. These include learners’ reactions and
negotiation patterns, teachers’ roles in peer review training, the effects of peer
response on learners’ writing, and learners’ attitudes and affective benefits (Berg,
1999; Mangelsdorf, 1992; Mendonca & Johnson, 1994; Nelson & Murphy, 1993;
Paulus, 1999; Villamil & Guerrero, 1996; Zhang, 1995). However, the findings
are generally inconclusive. While some studies report the positive effects of peer
review (Berg, 1999; Mendonca & Johnson, 1994), others show contrary findings
(Carson & Nelson, 1996, 1998; Zhang, 1995).
Mendonca and Johnson (1994) investigated peer negotiation in an ESL writing
class at a major university in the northern United States. To examine the negotiation
patterns of graduate student learners of English working in pairs, they
analyzed audio-taped peer review sessions and learners’ written drafts. In addition,
posttask interviews were conducted to solicit learners’ perceptions toward
the usefulness of the peer review dyads. Five types of peer review negotiations
were identified: asking questions, giving explanations, making restatements, offering
suggestions, and correcting grammar. The analysis showed that during peer
review learners focused on both local and global issues of their writing and that
after negotiation they appeared to have a better understanding of its strengths
and weaknesses. More important, learners developed audience awareness through
peer review activities. The authors concluded that the learners in this study found
peer review to be beneficial. In addition, peer review was found to “enhance students’
communicative power by encouraging learners to express and negotiate
their ideas” (1994, pp. 765-766).
Berg (1999) examined the effect of peer responses from ESL learners who
received peer review training on revision types and writing quality. The results
showed that revised drafts from trained peer response groups contained more
macrolevel changes such as changes in the content and meanings. Learners who
had received training achieved higher scores on their second drafts than did those
who did not. These findings suggest that peer review used with guidance can help
ESL learners to improve their writing.
Other studies have similarly shown peer review to positively influence ESL
learners’ writing (Mangelsdorf, 1992; Nelson & Murphy, 1992; Stanley, 1992).
However, other studies have challenged those findings. Zhang (1995), for example,
explored the “affective advantage” of peer feedback in ESL writing classes,
advantage in terms of being more writer supportive and less text appropriating
than using other means (Clifford, 1981; Elbow, 1973; Purves, 1984). To determine
whether L2 learners felt such affective advantages, Zhang reexamined the
use of peer review in ESL classrooms. The participants in this study were 81 ESL
learners from one private college and one state university in the western United
States. All learners were exposed to teacher-, peer-, and “self-directed” feedback
types (1995, p. 214). ESL learners were found to “unequivocally” have a strong
272 CALICO Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2
preference for teacher feedback as opposed to peer feedback, with learner-centered
self-feedback the least popular option. Zhang concluded that the use of peer
review in ESL classrooms should be carefully examined by teachers since the
affective advantage of peer feedback that has been found in L1 settings does not
necessarily apply to ESL learners. Zhang also advised teachers to take learners’
cultural backgrounds into consideration when adopting the use of peer response
groups in class.
Several reasons have been suggested for ESL learners’ seemingly unfavorable
attitudes toward peer review and the failure of peer feedback in L2 settings to
guide learners toward effective revision. First, since learners have to give comments
on their peer’s writing during peer review, some students might not feel
comfortable doing so face-to-face (Spear, 1987). Second, since they are still developing
their own writing proficiency, ESL learners may not trust their peers’
response (Paulus, 1999). This might explain why some studies have found that
ESL learners prefer teacher feedback to peer response. It may also be the case that
peer review is experienced as a threat to the learners’ concept of positive face or
their positive self-esteem (Brown & Levinson, 1987; Scollon & Scollon, 2000),
and that they therefore may tend to avoid it.
Eighty-six percent of the participants in the Zhang (1995) study described
above were from Asian backgrounds. The suggestion has been made therefore
that the findings may have particular significance for teachers of Asian ESL or
EFL learners. Because of what is sometimes claimed to be a relatively higher
value placed on group over individual achievement in Asian culture, speculation
has been made that Asian learners may feel especially uncomfortable commenting
on one another’s writing They would therefore potentially have unfavorable
attitudes toward peer review. Accordingly, Carson and Nelson (1996) proposed
that learners from what they term “collectivist” cultures, including Taiwan and the
People’s Republic of China (PRC) “are more concerned with effects of their actions
to others” (p. 1); learners from Western countries, on the other hand, are seen
to value individualism and “function more often for the benefit of the individual
writer than for the benefit of the group” (p. 2).
It may well be the case that individualism is advantageous when learners doing
peer review are expected to state their own ideas and opinions. If so, to the extent
that a group of learners may be said to share identifiable attributes, their different
cultural backgrounds may need to be taken into account in judging reactions
to peer review activities and feedback. In a subsequent study, Carson and Nelson
(1998) looked specifically at cross-cultural issues in peer group interaction.
Participants included three speakers of Chinese and eight speakers of Spanish
from an advanced ESL writing class at a large US urban university. They found
that both Spanish and Chinese learners valued the teacher’s comments over those
of their peers and preferred feedback “that identified problems in their drafts”
(p.113). However, learners from different cultural backgrounds were seen to have
very different types of interactions as well as views on peer review activities.
During peer review sessions, Chinese ESL learners “frequently refrained from
speaking because of their reluctance to criticize their peers, disagree with their
Mei-ching Ho and Sandra J. Savignon 273
peers, and claim authority as readers” ( p. 127). While the Spanish learners’ interactions
were “task oriented,” the Chinese focused on “maintain[ing] group harmony”
(p.127). In other words, Carson and Nelson found the Spanish learners to
be more active in pointing out the problems in their peers’ writing for revision.
The Chinese learners on the other hand tended not to criticize others’ work and not
to disagree with them. Accordingly, they concluded that peer response groups in
a classroom in which the majority of learners are from what they considered to be
“collectivist” cultures may not be as effective as those in a setting where learners
are from cultures that value individualism.
Computer-assisted Language Learning
The trend toward computer-assisted language learning (CALL) and computermediated
communication (CMC) in language learning have influenced the teaching
of writing in both L1 and L2 settings. More and more writing teachers have
started conducting classes in networked computer labs or incorporating writing
activities that engage learners with the use of computers (Warschauer, 1996).
Computer-mediated peer review (CMPR), for instance, is one of the activities
used to enhance learners’ L2 writing. With networked computers, learners can
do peer reviews online anywhere at anytime. Learners exchange drafts and feedback
via email and communicate with one another through the use of interactive
software programs. Not only can CMPR offer flexibility for both teachers and
learners, it may also reduce psychological pressure on learners who do not like to
give feedback in face-to-face situations. Depending on the kind of software used,
CMPR could be used synchronously during regular class time or asynchronously
at the convenience of the learners (see DiGiovanni & Nagaswami, 2001; Savignon
& Roithmeier, 2004).
To date, several studies have been conducted to examine CMPR in L1 and ESL
writing classes in which researchers assert the advantages of CMPR. (Brown,
Nielson, & Sullivan, 1998; Dean, 2001; DiGiovanni & Nagaswami, 2001; Skinner
& Austin, 1999). Among them is an increase in learner motivation due to
the new medium of expression. Colomb and Simutis (1996), Kelm (1992), Kern
(1995), and Warschauer (1996) have all reported that the use of computers increases
learners’ motivation in second or foreign language writing.
Skinner and Austin (1999) conducted research on synchronous computer-mediated
peer conferencing. Computer conferencing, designed as a prewriting activity,
involved 22 reportedly East Asian ESL learners using synchronous chat to communicate
in groups on assigned topics. They found that by using online conferencing,
learners formed a virtual community for communication. This not only
offered a new means of communication but also helped learners reduce their anxiety
in speaking and writing in a second language. Kern (1995) similarly reported
the motivational benefits of computer use in foreign language learning, including
increased learner expression, reduced “anxiety related to oral communication,”
and creation of “a collaborative spirit among learners” (p. 461). Of considerable
significance, learners in this study who were often unwilling to participate in face274
CALICO Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2
to-face discussion interacted more “actively” with peers during computer conferencing
sessions (p. 470).
Huang (1998) also suggested that FL writing teachers incorporate computermediated
(CM) activities such as CMPR into their classrooms in order to create
“variety in classroom activities” and to “provide a non-stress environment for
learners who are shy or overly concerned about their oral language proficiency”
(p.2). DiGiovanni and Nagaswami’s (2001) research on synchronous CMPR in
ESL writing classes at a community college in the US led to similar recommendations.
They compared the face-to-face and online interactions of 52 ESL learners
and analyzed those interactions by adapting the negotiation categories presented
in Mendonca and Johnson (1994). For their online interactions, learners in this
study used Norton Textra Connect,1 a software program for split screen electronic
communication. A split screen protocol features character-by-character transmission
rather than whole message transmission, allowing learners to view drafts
‘letter by letter’ as they are being produced in one window while simultaneously
producing feedback to the writer in another window on the computer screen. Di-
Giovanni and Nagaswami found that more than half of the participants who used
the split screen protocol felt that CMPR was more comfortable and interesting
than FFPR and, important, felt that they did better reviewing online.
Although research shows CMPR may have positive effects on learner motivation,
it is worth noting that CMC is very different from face-to-face communication
and could generate different types of interactions which might affect the
effectiveness and quality of feedback. As noted above, CMPR may be conducted
synchronously (for example, chat, ICQ, MUDs, etc.) or asynchronously (email,
listserv discussion list, etc.), depending on the software used. The medium used
for communication could affect language and language use in terms of style, coherence,
etiquette, message length, and other features (Herring, 2002a).
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This study examines the use of face-to-face and asynchronous computer-mediated
peer review in academic writing classes at a university of science and technology
(UST) in Taiwan offering 2-year associate degree programs in intensive language
study.2 In recent years, the number of learners enrolled in this new type of school
has increased dramatically. The goal of the study reported here was to investigate
the perceptions and attitudes of learners in this particular setting toward FFPR and
CMPR and to determine whether CMPR as used in this study might be a good
supplement to FFPR in writing classes. The specific research questions are the
following:
1. How do learners in a UST react to face-to-face and computer-mediated
peer review?
1.1 Do learners in a UST feel they benefit from doing face-to-face peer
review?
1.2 Do learners in a UST have generally favorable attitudes toward computer-
mediated peer review?
Mei-ching Ho and Sandra J. Savignon 275
2. What are the learners’ perceptions concerning the annotation features of
CMPR used in this study?
METHOD
Setting and Participants
The participants were 37 English majors, 12 males and 25 females, at a national
university of science and technology in Taiwan who comprised two intact classes
in academic writing taught by two different teachers in the spring 2002. Learners
who enroll in this kind of program have heterogeneous English learning backgrounds,
but, to be admitted to the program, all must pass a nationally standardized
entrance exam which evaluates their English proficiency. Therefore, although
learners’ English learning backgrounds may differ, the learners in this study had
attained a similar level of language study. While most traditional English departments
at universities in Taiwan focus on English literature, the English department
in this particular setting emphasizes the teaching of English for practical
use. The primary objective of the program is to prepare learners for working in
an environment in which English is the primary means of communication. There
are three major tracks in the program: business and technical English, English
interpretation and translation, and English language teaching. Advanced Writing
I, II, III, and IV are required courses for students in all three tracks. Each level
requires one semester to complete and has different themes in different tracks.
The department incorporated peer review activities as one of the assignments for
all levels of the writing courses.
Of the total of 37 participants, 18 were from a senior writing class (IV) taught
by an English native speaker, and 19 were from a junior writing class (II) taught
by a nonnative speaker of English with a Master’s degree in TESOL from an
American university. Although the focus of instruction for the two classes differed
somewhat, both teachers used peer review to enhance learners’ writing skills. In
the senior writing class, students learned academic writing skills, including paraphrasing,
quoting, and synthesizing outside sources. The students were required
to complete two research papers during the semester. The teacher in the junior
class structured the class based on instruction in different writing modes or genres
(e.g., comparison and contrast, definition, classification, and argumentation). The
students in this class were required to write short essays on assigned or self-selected
topics.
Procedure
The researchers first sought approval for doing this study from the chair of the
English department at the UST. They then informed instructors of junior or senior
academic writing classes via email of the purpose of this research. Two instructors
in the department were willing to help by seeking volunteers in their classes.
Neither instructor had ever used computer-mediated peer review in their instruction
and were interested in trying it for a semester. During regular class hours, the
teachers told the EFL learners of the purpose of the study, requesting voluntary
276 CALICO Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2
participation. All of the learners in both classes agreed to participate and were
assured that their expression of personal preferences for any type of peer review
mode in the survey would in no way affect their grades.
Face-to-face peer review
Since both instructors had had learners do face-to-face peer review (FFPR) before
the time this study was conducted, the researchers interviewed both instructors
via email to better understand the overall context and how FFPR sessions had
been conducted. In both classes, learners were required to write three drafts for
each writing assignment. Most often, teachers asked learners to bring in their
first draft and paired learners for the exchange and review of each other’s drafts.
In reviewing the first two drafts, learners were asked to focus on global features
of their peer’s text (e.g., content, organization, and coherence). Afterwards, the
learners themselves checked the local features of their own text before submitting
a final draft. In the junior class, learners selected their own partner. However, the
teacher encouraged learners to work with a different person for each peer review
session during the semester. Learners in the senior class, on the other hand, were
assigned to a partner. According to the instructor, learners’ ability level was the
most important criterion for selecting a partner for each learner. As Instructor two
(T2)3 said,
I pair them by ability level. Sometimes good with good, poor with poor, but
usually good with poor, or good with mediocre ability. Rarely good with
good, because there aren’t enough good ability students to go around, but
then again it isn’t fair to always put someone who has good writing ability
with someone who isn’t as good. It’s hard. I will also consider their personalities
and their gender to some degree-making sure they can get along and the
males won’t dominate the females-but their ability level is always the first
consideration.
Even though both classes had experience with peer review dyads in which
learners focused on the global issues of writing, the procedures for conducting
peer review sessions were somewhat different. In the senior writing class, due to
time constraints and the length of written assignments, most peer review sessions
were conducted by learners outside of class. The learners reviewed an assigned
peer’s draft by following the instructions on the peer review worksheet provided
by the teacher. In addition to pointing out the strengths and the weaknesses of their
peer’s writing, learners were required to give suggestions for revision. To track
the activity and to facilitate learners’ future revision, the instructor also required
learners to provide written feedback, which was typically reviewed by the instructor
before being given to the peer. In the junior writing class, since most written
assignments were no more than two to three pages long, learners conducted all
peer review sessions in class. The teacher also provided peer review guidelines
(worksheets) and expected learners to give written feedback.
Initial email correspondence with the instructors suggested that they had similar
concepts of face-to-face peer review activity. The following excerpts from the
Mei-ching Ho and Sandra J. Savignon 277
email exchanges between the researchers and the two instructors are indicative of
the teachers’ rationale:
peer review helps learners to realize some common errors which might happen
to their classmates and to themselves as well. Also, by correcting others’
papers, learners will have better ideas about essay organization … . Learners
learn to trust their peers’ correction, instead of relying heavily on teachers’
feedback. (QUE01/T1)
I want them to internalize the peer review process so they can use it with their
own papers when no peer is available … when it [peer review dyad] works
out right because when a learner has the right peer feedback at the right time
a breakthrough in improving his/her writing can occur. (T2)
Computer-mediated peer review
Since none of the learners had had prior experience with computer-mediated peer
review (CMPR), researchers cooperated with instructors to set up the activity. In
the senior class, most regular class hours were used for one-on-one teacher-learner
conferences in the instructor’s office; learners did not typically work together in
class. Therefore, the instructor suggested having learners do CMPR outside of the
class as an assignment. Since CMPR in this study involved only email and simple
annotation features in common word-processing programs, learners could easily
complete their tasks asynchronously at home or in the computer lab at school. To
guide them initially, the instructor asked learners to email their drafts as an attachment
and provide their feedback directly on their peer’s computer draft using
“Track Changes” in Word as shown in the examples below. Learners then emailed
the draft with feedback to the peer. In the junior-level class, the teacher agreed
to adopt CMPR during regular class sessions, scheduling them in a networked
computer lab. The procedures of CMPR were the same as those used in the senior
class. Both classes adopted CMPR during the second half of the semester. During
CMPR, the learners read the drafts and typed the feedback on the computer. There
was no exchange of printouts or paper-based feedback.
The major feature of “Track Changes” is to document every change made in a
text, including questions, comments, insertions, and deletions. By using “Track
Changes,” learners were able to insert feedback adjacent to a problematic sentence
or paragraph. These changes automatically appeared in a different font color
along with a text box. As can be seen in the following examples, feedback can be
interwoven in the texts or shown in text boxes in the margin. (Colored font has
been replaced here with italics). Depending on the version of Word, the feedback
may appear in a different place. For example, in Word XP, the comments and deleted
words are highlighted in a small textbox in the margin.
Example 1
In 2001, according to the estimate of the economic prosperity center of National
Statistics Bureau, the average income of each rural farmer in 2000 is two thousand
four hundred and thirty four renminbi. In addition, provinces like Qui-Zhou,
278 CALICO Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2
Xi-Cang, Gan-Su, Quing-Hai, Yun-Nan, Some readers might not know where the
places are, please add more information to make it clearer to your readers. the
average income is lower; especially in Qui-Zhou province, the average farmer’s
earning is only one thousand one hundred and thirty six renminbi.
Example 2
(It would be better to start with your T.S. , and also reveal your main idea first, so
reader can probably know what you gonna talk about in your paper, and continue
to read it) Many elementary schools’ English teachers in Taiwan face a serious
problem: students do not like to read. A survey (investigating Taiwan’s children’s
reading interests) conducted by Lin shows children’s favorite extracurricular activities
are: watching TV (73.4%), playing games / chatting (63.1%), reading informal
readers (49.5%), and playing video games (49.3%).
Example 3
Teachers should take reading picture books as an interest, rather than a purpose
of test, otherwise will eliminate students’ reading motivation. Arousing children’s
desire of reading will prepare them to read more in their lifelong time. (could
you explain more why teachers “should” take reading picture books as…) Seems
like you don’t have a strong conclusion. You can add one or two more sentences
restated about “picture book”(which is your main idea) and the three characteristics
to conclude the paragraph and this paper.
p.s. the information and examples in the paper are very good. I suggest you can
add more examples and explain how the three characteristics work together when
you extend this paper from 5 to 8 pages.
Example 4
Teachers can go through the cover page and the first page first without revealing
the points and the outcome of the story. Then students will become very curious
to find out what is happening next and start to read (2001). You can add one more
sentence to conclude (summarize) this paragraph. Ex, “so the first characteristics
of picture book, “picture”, can…..The second characteristic that picture books
functions to arouse children’s interest is the ‘pattern’. You can explain what “pattern”
means here first. To give an easy and clear explanation will make readers
understand what you say in this paragraph. Picture books are patterned with repeated
phrases, rhythms, and refrains that can appeal students to start reading.
Example 5
In this character of this story, Guloong is a painstaking, intelligent, responsible
and paying deep love for his lover and family. Therefore, there is a special holiday
is called “Qixi” ( ) to commemorate their love. Does Qixi relate to this topic?
According to these three descriptions, “Cowboy” could be commented with different
meanings because different countries, culture or nations. cowboy
Mei-ching Ho and Sandra J. Savignon 279
Suggestion: 1. There’s no exact relation between the English
word “Cowboy” and the Chinese expression . 2. Therefore, I suggest that
you focus only on the Chinese one. 3. Try to give definition for its original meaning,
then relate to its current usage.
Data Collection and Analysis
To investigate the EFL learners’ perceptions of both FFPR and CMPR, a questionnaire
was developed that included three parts: a biographical section, 30 items
using a 5-point Likert scale (5 indicating strongly agree and 1 strongly disagree),
and 5 open-ended questions. The biographical section asked for learners’ previous
major and English learning experience. The 30 Likert-scale items were designed
to measure learners’ attitudes toward both peer review modes as well as specific
features of CMPR, including “Track Changes,” and “reading drafts and offering
feedback on the computer.”
The two EFL instructors distributed the questionnaires to the participants together
with an informed consent form. All 37 participants remained anonymous.
Since both instructors allowed learners to fill out the questionnaire during the regular
class hours or teacher-student writing conferences, there was a 100% return
rate. However, four questionnaires had incomplete responses and were excluded
from data analysis.
The 30 Likert-scale items were tested for reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s
alpha). Responses to the 30 items were then coded and imported into SPSS for
descriptive statistics analysis. For the purpose of analysis, responses to items that
were phrased negatively were transposed. To determine whether learners’ answers
to an item significantly differed from the mid-point of the scale (3), all responses
were submitted a one-sample t test with the hypothetical mean score of 3 and a
confidence interval of 95%.
In addition to the Likert-scale items, five open-ended questions were developed.
The purpose of these questions was to elicit reasons for an expressed preference
for a certain peer review mode that may not have been captured by the Likertscale
items as well as to identify the benefits and problems learners experienced.
Learners’ responses to each open-ended question were read, major topics identified,
and similar topics or opinions grouped together to form categories. The first
four open-ended questions were designed to elicit detailed information about the
problems and benefits learners experienced during both FFPR and CMPR. In the
final question, three ways of doing peer review (i.e., FFPR, CMPR, and a combination
of the two) were juxtaposed. In their responses, learners were directed to
indicate their preference and give reasons for it. The rationale for including the
option of a combination of the two peer review modes was to better understand
learners’ perceptions of how peer review activities should be conducted. In this
study, CMPR was based mostly on written communication; few verbal exchanges
were involved. Ong (1977) convincingly argued that a person’s visual and vocal
senses complement each other to foster superior intellectual development. To
promote such an advantage, Schultz (2000) suggested that “the verbal character280
CALICO Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2
istics” of FFPR such as oral discussion and “the visual characteristics” of CMPR
such as typed comments be used in combination to benefit foreign language learners
the most (p. 141). Given that the learners in this study had already experienced
both FFPR and CMPR, the option of “the combination of the two modes” was
included. In the discussion that follows, learners’ responses to the open-ended
questions are organized according to the advantages and disadvantages of both
FFPR and CMPR.
RESULTS
The reliability coefficients for the 30 Likert-scale items are presented in Table 1.
According to Sax (1989), a reliability coefficient of more than .6 is required for a
self-designed text or survey. The CMPR and features (including Track Changes,
font color, and spelling and grammar checks) of CMPR scales achieved alphas of
.69 and .71, respectively. The alpha for the FFPR scale was a less than satisfactory
.50. The FFPR was the scale with the fewest number of items. The coefficient
could perhaps have been improved if the number of items in this scale had been
increased (Henning, 1987).
Table 1
Reliability Estimation for the Questionnaire Items
Categories Item numbers Cronbach’s Alpha
Face-to-face peer review 7 (1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25) .50
Computer-mediated peer review 10 (2, 6, 10, 11, 14, 18,
22, 26, 24, 28)
.69
Reaction to features in CMPR 13 (3, 4, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16,
19, 20, 23, 27, 29, 30)
.71
Cronbach’s alpha for the total of 30 items = 0.80
Learners’ Perceptions of Peer Review
The descriptive statistics in Table 2 show learners had favorable attitudes toward
face-to-face peer review (M = 3.95, SD = 0.41, t = 13.29, p < 0.01). Items 1, 9,
and 25 had a mean score higher than 4, indicating a high agreement among learners.
More than 82% of learners agreed that peer review helped them improve their
writing and should be used in writing classes. In addition, as many as 92% of
the learners agreed that they benefited from reviewing their peer’s writing. This
last finding may reflect what Grabe and Kaplan (1996), Reid (1993), and Spear
(1987) have argued, namely, that peer review can boost learners’ confidence as a
second language writer because they can see other learners also make mistakes
and struggle with the writing.
As Table 3 shows, when asked if they liked to do computer-mediated peer review,
learners did not express very strong agreement (M = 3.52, SD = 0.41, t =
7.25, p < 0.01). The mean score (3.12) of item 24 was not significant. Although as
many as 67% of the learners liked to use “Track Changes” when providing feedback
on the document (Item 26: M =3.81, SD = 0.76), only 46% said they wanted
Mei-ching Ho and Sandra J. Savignon 281
to continue doing CMPR in the writing class. The same percentage of learners
(46%) chose not to agree or disagree (Item 11: M = 3.33, SD = 0.77). Overall,
learners had less favorable attitudes toward CMPR than toward FFPR.
Table 2
Learners’ Perception of FFPR (N = 33)
Scale one M SD t
I benefited from doing face-to-face peer review in writing
classes.
3.95 .41 13.29*
Individual items
1. Face-to- face peer review (FFPR) helps me improve my
writing.
4.15 .71 9.29*
5. In general, FFPR is a waste of time. 1.90 .68 9.24*
9. I benefit from reviewing the writing of my classmates. 4.06 .75 8.15*
13. I would rather have only the teacher review my writing, no
peer review.
2.27 .91 4.59*
17. The feedback from my partner is not useful for revising my
subsequent drafts.
2.33 .92 4.14*
21. Reviewing my classmates’ drafts gives me a different
insight on the topic of the writing assignment.
3.79 .93 4.88*
25. I think FFPR should be used in writing classes. 4.15 .79 8.31*
*p < .01
Table 3
Learners’ Perceptions of Computer-mediated Peer Review (N = 33)
Scale two M SD t
I like to do computer-mediated peer review in writing classes. 3.52 .41 7.25*
Individual items
2. I like to do computer-mediated peer review (CMPR). 3.45 .71 3.67*
6. Computer-mediated peer feedback is not useful for revising
subsequent drafts.
2.36 .89 4.08*
10. I like to give feedback on my partner’s draft in Word
document.
3.60 .86 4.03*
11. I want to continue doing CMPR in writing classes. 3.33 .77 2.46**
14. I feel relaxed and comfortable when giving feedback on the
computer.
3.42 .66 3.67*
18. Giving feedback on the document is easy. 3.63 .96 3.79*
22. I feel that feedback on the document is confusing. 2.45 .61 5.07*
24. I do not like to do CMPR in writing class because I cannot
talk to my partner in person while giving feedback.
2.87 .82 0.84
26. I like to use “Track Changes”/ “Font Color” when providing
feedback on the document.
3.81 .76 6.11*
28. Feedback on the document is easy to understand. 3.57 .75 4.40*
*p <.01, **p < 0.05
282 CALICO Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2
Learners’ Reaction to Features of CMPR
The features of CMPR examined in this study include: exchanging drafts via
email, Track Changes, font colors, spelling and grammar checks, the nature of
typed feedback on the drafts, and reading drafts on the computer. Thirteen items
were designed to investigate what features learners found helpful when doing
CMPR and what features they found difficult to use (see Table 4).
Table 4
Reactions to Features of CMPR (N = 33)
Item M SD t
3. The spelling and grammar checking feature in Word are
useful in CMPR.
3.70 .68 5.85*
7. “Track Changes” in Word is very convenient for giving
feedback
3.94 .65 8.19*
15. “Font Color” in Word is an efficient tool for giving
feedback..
3.67 .92 4.14*
19. Having two different colors in drafts makes the feedback
difficult to read.
2.08 .63 10.68*
23. In CMPR, giving comments right after/next to the
problematic sentences/paragraph is helpful.
3.72 .67 6.19*
27. Typing feedback by using different “Font Color” is not
helpful.
2.36 .85 4.25*
29. Sending drafts to my partner by email is efficient. 4.00 .93 6.14*
4. Providing feedback on the computer is difficult. 2.36 1.01 2.77*
8. Reading my partner’s draft on a computer screen is difficult. 3.15 1.09 -0.79
12. It is difficult to access a computer when I want to do CMPR. 2.55 1.00 2.60**
16. Computer-mediated peer review is difficult because I have
to learn how to use “Track Changes.”
2.33 .95 4.00*
20. Comments right after/next to the problematic sentences/
paragraphs are difficult to read.
2.52 .97 2.68**
30. Providing feedback right after/next to the problematic
sentences/paragraphs is difficult to do on the document.
2.66 .77 2.46**
*p < 0.01, **p < 0.05
Table 4 shows most learners felt that “Track Changes” was very convenient for
giving feedback (Item 17: M = 3.94, SD = .65, t = 8.19, p <.01) and that exchanging
drafts via email was efficient (Item 29: M = 4, SD = .93, t = 6.14, p < .01).
In addition, learners generally think the spelling and grammar checks are useful,
and typing feedback right after/next to problematic sentences and paragraphs is
helpful and easy to read. However, when asked if reading drafts on the computer
is difficult, most learners chose to remain neutral (Item 8: M = 3.15, SD = 1.09, t
= -0.79, not significant).
Mei-ching Ho and Sandra J. Savignon 283
Responses to Open-ended Questions
Face-to-face peer review
The major advantage learners associated with FFPR was that they were able to
talk with peers during the review session, which enabled them to seek clarification
and negotiate meanings to avoid misunderstanding. Most learners found that
this not only eased the peer review process but that it also made the peer review
more effective because many found speaking more efficient than writing. One
learner wrote, “I can discuss my problems with my peers in detail. Through this
face-to-face process, I always get useful suggestions from my peer.” In addition,
some learners mentioned that when encountering complicated ideas or disagreement,
they liked to discuss in their native language. A senior learner wrote, “My
partners and I can directly point out each other’s weak points in our writings. Oral
feedback is more efficient to me than written feedback. When I felt it’s difficult to
talk in English. We preferred to speak Chinese … .”
Learners also reported several problems in these sessions. They often did not
have enough time to read and comment on each other’s writing. They typically
rushed through a review without fully explaining the problems they found or the
questions they had. Some also found it difficult to come up with specific suggestions
in a limited time. One learner wrote, “I could not immediately provide a
suggestion to the problem of my partner’s paper … if time is limited, could not
explain all the problems I found in the limited time.” In addition, many learners
felt uncomfortable pointing out their peer’s problems face to face. Some indicated
that they would avoid identifying problems in other’s writing and try to encourage
their peers in order to maintain a harmonious relationship. Sometimes, instead
of specifically pointing out problems, they would suggest adding more details:
“while I do face-to-face peer review, I wouldn’t really criticize my peer’s writing.
I would rather encourage him/her to get more detailed information. This attitude
would sometimes harm the writing progress of my peer. In short, the Chinese
people’s attitude-harmony might hinder writers from progress.”
Computer-mediated peer review
Learners reported two major advantages of CMPR. First, CMPR offered more
flexibility than FFPR. Many indicated that since they and their partner did not
need to be logged on to the computer at the same time, they could read and comment
when convenient and at their own pace. Learners were able to take time to
reflect on their ideas and rehearse responses to their partner. The use of “Track
Changes” also made the reviewing process easier. Learners could edit and revise
their feedback easily, and most learners found typing more convenient than handwriting.
One learner wrote: “I think the benefits are as follows: it’s easy to change
any points I think not appropriate. It’s easy to add whatever I want to express. It’s
clear to see my point to my peer’s paper.” It seems that being able to edit feedback
on the computer was a real benefit for learners since typed feedback could be
changed anytime before being forwarded to the author.
In addition, most learners reported that they felt more comfortable and less
284 CALICO Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2
pressure giving feedback on the computer. In CMPR, they did not have to face
their peers, and, consequently, many seemed to worry less about their peers’ reactions.
One learner wrote, “We can say what we want and express our thoughts
directly.” Another stated, “while giving feedback [on the computer], I feel free to
say anything I wanted to say without worrying about my peer’s reaction.”
CMPR is not without disadvantages. As explained above, the opportunity for
oral discussion was considered a major benefit of FFPR. Accordingly, the lack of
verbal communication in CMPR was seen to be one of its drawbacks. One learner
stated, “Some problems you face [during peer review] may be very complicated
and you cannot explain very clearly [without talking to your peers].” Other problems
cited relate to the use of email. A number of learners complained about the
uncertainty of email transactions. A leaner from the senior class wrote, “my peer
once mistyped my email address, and of course, I did not get my feedback;” another
commented, “The mail might be lost while sending it to my partner, and it
could be due to mail to the wrong address … .”
The time delay in email also presented a problem for some. Some learners reported
that their peers took advantage of this and failed to provide timely feedback:
“my partners have excuses to give my feedback late” and “I waited a long
time for the feedback but no one sent anything to me.” In addition, some learners
found reading drafts on the computer uncomfortable: “difficult to read drafts on
the screen. Feel my eyes with fatigue,” and “it was too hard to read things from
the computer screen directly. My eyes would be extremely sore … .”
In response to the final open-ended question, 24 out of the total 33 (72%) said
they preferred a combination of face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review.
They felt that the two review modes could be used to complement each other. Of
those learners who favored a combination of both peer review modes, many suggested
that CMPR should be followed by face-to-face discussion. By so doing,
they would be able to comment on each other’s drafts on the computer at their
own convenience and also have a chance to negotiate meanings and ask questions
about the feedback they received. One junior learner wrote, “I prefer a combination
of the two because I can read the feedback from CMPR first and then ask my
peer about some questions in my paper face-to-face.” Another stated, “A combination
would be great. Doing online peer review first, then discuss [with peers]
face-to-face. While doing FFPR, we could talk in our native tongue. This would
make the whole communication process easier and clearer.”
DISCUSSION
Responses to the Likert-scale items suggested that although learners accepted both
peer review modes, they had more favorable attitudes toward FFPR than CMPR.
There was strong agreement with statements such as “Face-to-face peer review
(FFPR) helps me improve my writing,” “I benefit from reviewing the writing
of my classmates,” and “I think peer review should be used in writing classes;”
whereas statements on CMPR such as “I like to do CMPR” and “I want to continue
doing CMPR in writing classes” showed only moderate agreement. Responses
Mei-ching Ho and Sandra J. Savignon 285
to open-ended questions suggested some of the reasons for learners’ preference
for one mode over the other. Being able to discuss with peers was the most generally
acknowledged benefit of FFPR. In contrast, lack of oral discussion was
the most common drawback mentioned for CMPR. Although the learners found
CMPR to offer several advantages such as flexibility in scheduling for review and
a new means for editing feedback in the document, learners still considered oral
discussion during peer review sessions to be critical. Given that peer review is a
highly interactive activity in which learners constantly interpret and negotiate the
meanings of one another’s writing, speaking appears a more efficient mode and
one that in many instances can prevent misunderstanding. In FFPR, learners not
only provided written feedback, but they also had chances to clarify ideas and
exchange opinions with peers. On the other hand, in CMPR, learners had to rely
only on feedback on the document itself, something they considered a serious
drawback.
These findings should not be interpreted to mean that CMPR is not useful
and should not be used in writing classes. Many special features such as “Track
Changes” and “spelling and grammar checks” were found to be helpful and convenient.
Moreover, many learners indicated that they preferred typing instead of
writing while providing feedback. This finding is contrary to that of Huang (1998)
who found typing skill to be an obstacle in CMPR for Chinese learners. These
learners at a university of science and technology even found typing to be more
efficient and convenient than handwriting.
Although learners’ attitudes were more favorable toward FFPR than toward
CMPR, many found it somewhat stressful to review others’ work face to face.
They were afraid that in pointing out their peer’s problems they might hurt the
other’s feelings or even damage their friendship. Some said that they would not
critique and identify problems directly in order to maintain a friendly relationship.
These findings corroborate those of Carson and Nelson (1996, 1998) that Chinese
learners often avoid discussing problems and disagreeing with peers in order to
maintain harmony. However, more research is needed to know whether this is a
uniquely Chinese trait or whether learners from Western cultures behave in the
same way. The second author of this research report has gathered substantial anecdotal
evidence of peer pressure to maintain harmony and consensus among 18-
to 20-year-old university students in the US, whether in full class, small group,
or one-on-one discussion of each other’s writing. In addition, it should be noted
that proper training is important before having learners do peer review. Teachers
should explain the purpose of peer review and let learners know that their
responsibility is to offer honest feedback in an effort to help their peers. In this
way, learners may feel less pressure while pointing out problems in their peers’
writing.
The fact that most learners in this study found FFPR helpful suggests that a
concern for harmony did not prevent the activity from being productive. Most
learners had positive attitudes toward peer review in general and acknowledged
its value in helping them to revise subsequent drafts. Many suggested that they
would like to do CMPR first and then have face-to-face discussion with a peer. By
286 CALICO Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2
doing so, they could read and comment on each other’s draft at their own pace and
also have a chance to ask questions and clarify ideas. They saw a combination of
the two modes as a way to make peer review activities more efficient and effective.
Several pedagogical implications can be drawn for EFL writing instructors in
Taiwan, especially for those teaching at universities of science and technology.
CMPR should not be used alone in the writing class due to its main limitation:
lack of oral communication. Since peer review is a highly interactive activity, oral
discussion is more efficient than written communication. Its advantage is clear
even if such discussion should take place in the learners’ L1. However, in light of
comments from the learners as to their preference for speaking Chinese in class—
a finding that appears to reflect a more general tendency of Taiwanese learners to
favor the use of Chinese in English classes (Wang, 2002)—classroom research
is needed to understand the reasons for and the extent of Chinese language use
and to identify ways in which more advanced-level learners, in particular, can be
encouraged to speak English. Teachers might consider combining both FFPR and
CMPR to make peer review sessions more productive. For example, since time
constraints are an issue common to many classes, teachers could have learners do
CMPR outside of classroom and then allow time for face-to-face sessions during
regular class hours.
This study is not without limitations. First, all the participants were from the
same national university of science and technology. The small sample size does
not allow generalizations to EFL learners in universities throughout Taiwan. Research
with a larger sample drawn from different universities is needed to confirm
our findings. Second, learners’ responses elicited from a questionnaire with
Likert-type items and open-ended questions may or may not be as accurate or
complete as those gathered by means of in-depth face-to-face interviews. Third,
since the participants were recruited from two classes taught by different teachers,
there is a possibility that learners’ perceptions of both FFPR and CMPR were
influenced by the instructional objectives and styles of their teacher.
Future research on peer review in EFL settings could well examine how learners’
perceptions toward both face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review are
affected by such variables as teaching style, assignment types, learners’ age, and
English learning experience. In order to reap the benefits of a process approach to
writing, can they learn to focus on the global features of a text, things like content,
organization, and coherence, as well as on the more familiar sentence-level grammatical
structure? In addition, since the findings of the present study suggest that
both FFPR and CMPR are best used together, future research could investigate the
advantages of various combinations of the two modes. Given the communicative
nature of peer review, by documenting learner interactions in both face-to-face
and computer-mediated sessions, future research could also explore how students
negotiate meaning.
The present study yields encouraging results. It shows peer review to be a highly
communicative language activity that can be used successfully in an EFL context
in Taiwan. The learners in this study not only had favorable attitudes toward the
Mei-ching Ho and Sandra J. Savignon 287
experience, they found peer review helped them with their writing. These findings
do not support the suggestion that peer review may not work well for learners
with a Chinese cultural background (Carson & Nelson 1996; 1998). Moreover,
research findings related to learners in ESL contexts might not be an accurate
representation of peer review in EFL contexts. Although the learners in this study
reported experiencing pressure in pointing out problems in one another’s writing,
the advantages offered by peer review activity in general seemed to outweigh the
drawbacks. Peer review appears to be a means of increasing learner communication
in writing classes, offering ideas and strategies for revision, and promoting a
sense of discourse community (Grabe & Kaplan, 1996; Nelson & Murphy, 1992;
Spear, 1987). Most important, peer review may reduce learners’ apprehension of
writing in a foreign language and increase their confidence as EFL writers.
NOTES
1 The Norton Textra Connect software supports file sharing, discussion, editing of wordprocessed
documents inside learners’ word processor. It has both real-time and asynchronous
discussion features, private messaging, and group talk.
2 These 2-year programs follow a 5-year junior college program (a combination of high
school and the first 2 years of college). A detailed description of these 2-year programs and
of their English language goals is provided in the discussion of the research design that follows.
The appendix to this article outlines the formal education system in Taiwan.
3 Email exchanges between the researchers and the teachers are identified by teacher.
REFERENCES
Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and
writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8 (3), 215-241.
Brown, P., & Levinson, P. (1987). Politeness: Some universals of language usage. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Brown, C. E., Nielson, N. L., & Sullivan, D. (1998). Computer-mediated peer review of
student papers. Journal of Education of Business, 74 (2), 117-121.
Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response
group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5 (1), 1-19.
Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer
response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7 (2), 113-131.
Clifford, J. (1981). Composing in stages: Effects of feedback on revision. Research in the
Teaching of English, 15 (1), 37-53.
Colomb, G. C., & Simutis, J. A. (1996). Visible conversation and academic inquiry: CMC
in a culturally diverse classroom. In S. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication:
Linguistic, social and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 203-222).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dean, C. W. (2001). Layering literacies: Computers and peer response in the 21st century.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of New Hampshire.
288 CALICO Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2
DiGiovanni, E., & Nagaswami, G. (2001). Online peer review: An alternative to face-toface?
ELT Journal, 55 (3), 263-272.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G.
Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Elbow, P. (1973). The pedagogy of the bamboozled. Soundings, 56 (2), 247-258.
Elbow, P. (1981). Writing with power. New York: Oxford University Press.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. B. (1996). Theory & practice of writing. London and New York:
Longman.
Henning, G. (1987). A guide to language testing. New York: Newbury.
Herring, S. C. (2002a). Communication in electronic environment: Computer-mediated
communication. Retrieved December 1, 2002, from http://www.slis.indiana.edu/
Faculty/herring/1574_no.html
Herring, S. C. (2002b). Computer-mediated communication on the Internet. In B. Cronin
(Ed.), Annual Review of Information and Science Technology (pp. 109-168).
Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc.
Honeycutt, L. (2001). Comparing email and synchronous conferencing in online peer response.
Written Communication, 18 (1), 26-60.
Huang, S. (1998). A comparison between Chinese EFL students’ peer response sessions
held on networked computers and those held in a face-to-face setting. Bielefeld:
The Annual Meeting of the International NELLE Conference. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 423685)
Kelm, O. R. (1992). The use of synchronous computer networks in second language instruction:
A preliminary report. Foreign Language Annuals, 25 (5), 441-454.
Kern, R. G. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: effects
on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language
Journal, 79 (4), 457-476.
Leki, C. B. (1992). Understanding ESL writers: A guide for teachers. London and Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer review in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students
think? ELT Journal, 46 (3), 274-284.
Mendonca, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in
ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28 (4), 745-769.
Nelson, G. L., & Murphy, J. M. (1993). Writing groups and the less proficient ESL student.
TESOL Journal, 2 (2), 23-26.
Nystrand, M. (1986). The structure of written communication: Studies in reciprocity between
writers and readers. New York: Academic Press.
Ong, W. J. (1977). Beyond objective: The reader-writer transaction as an altered state of
consciousness. CEA Critic, 40 (1), 6-13.
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal
of Second Language Writing, 8 (3), 265-289.
Purves, A. (1984). The teacher as reader: An anatomy. College English, 46 (3), 259-265.
Mei-ching Ho and Sandra J. Savignon 289
Raimes, A. (1991). Out of the woods: Emerging traditions in the teaching of writing. Teaching
Quarterly, 25 (4), 407-430.
Reid, J. M. (1993). Teaching ESL Writing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Savignon, S. J. (1983, 1997). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice.
New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies.
Savignon, S. J. (Ed.). (2002). Interpreting communicative language teaching. New Haven
and London: Yale University Press.
Savignon, S. J., & Roithmeier, W. (2004). Computer-mediated communication: Texts and
strategies. CALICO Journal, 21 (2), 265-290.
Sax, G. (1989). Principles of educational and psychological measurement and evaluation
(3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Schultz, J. (2000). Computers and collaborative writing in the foreign language curriculum.
In M. Warschauer & R. Kern (Eds.), Network-based language teaching:
Concepts and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Scollon, R., & Scollon S. W. (2000). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach.
Boston: Blackwell.
Skinner, B., & Austin, R. (1999). Computer conferencing—Does it motivate EFL students?
ELT Journal, 53 (4), 270-279.
Spear, K. (1987). Sharing writing: Peer response groups in English classes. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann Educational Books, Inc.
Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 1 (3), 217-233.
Villamil, O., & Guerrero, M. C. M. (1996). Peer Revision in the L2 Classroom: Social-cognitive
activities, mediating strategies, and aspects of social behavior. The Journal
of Second Language Writing, 5 (1), 51-75.
Wang, B. (1999). English grammar instruction in Taiwan: Student and teacher attitudes.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.
Wang, C. (2000). A sociolinguistic profile of English in Taiwan: Social context and learner
needs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.
Wang, C. (2002). Innovative teaching in foreign language contexts: The case of Taiwan.
In S. J. Savignon (Ed.) , Interpreting communicative language teaching. New
Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Motivational aspects of using computers for writing and communication.
In M. Warschauer (Ed.), Telecollaboration in foreign language learning:
Proceedings of the Hawaii Symposium (pp. 29-46). Honolulu, Hawaii: University
of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching and Curriculum Center.
Zamel, V. (1987). Recent research on writing pedagogy. TESOL Quarterly, 21 (4), 697-
715.
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing
class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4 (3), 209-222.
Zhu, W. (1994). Effects of training for peer revision in college freshman composition classes.
Unpublished doctoral Dissertation, Northern Arizona University.
290 CALICO Journal, Vol. 24, No. 2
APPENDIX
The formal education system of Taiwan (adapted from Wang, 1999, p. 7)
AUTHORS’ BIODATA
Mei-ching Ho is a doctoral student in Rhetoric/Composition and Linguistics Ph.D.
program at the Arizona State University. Her areas of research interest include
second language writing, computer-assisted language learning, sociolinguistics,
contrastive rhetoric, and critical discourse analysis.
Sandra Savignon is Professor of Applied Linguistics at the Pennsylvania State
University where she teaches graduate courses in second language acquisition
and language teaching methodology. Her most recent book is Interpreting Communicative
Language Teaching: Contexts and Concerns in Teacher Education
(Yale University Press).
AUTHORS’ ADDRESSES
Mei-ching Ho
Department of English
The Arizona State University
P.O. Box 870302,
Phoenix AZ 85287-0302
Phone: 480 965 3853
Email: mei-ching.ho@asu.edu, mch0532@hotmail.com
Sandra J. Savignon
The Pennsylvania State University
305 Sparks Building
University Park, PA 16802
Phone: 814 865 7365
Email: sjsavignon@psu.edu
2-Year University of
Science and Technology
Elementary School
K1~K6
Junior High School
K7~K9
Senior High School
K10~K12
3-Year Vocational
School
5-Year Junior
College
4-Year University
Graduate School
4-Year University of
Science and Technology
2-Year Junior
College