Effect of online peer review versus face-to-Face peer review on argumentative writing achievement of EFL learners

References

• Alsop, S., & Bencze, L. (2020). Reimagining science and technology education in the COVID-19 portal. Journal for Activist Science and Technology Education, 11(2). doi:10.33137/jaste.v11i2.34537
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, L. W., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Awada, G., Burston, J., & Ghannage, R. (2020). Effect of student team achievement division through WebQuest on EFL students’ argumentative writing skills and their instructors’ perceptions. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(3), 275–300. doi:10.1080/09588221.2018.1558254
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brandl, K. (2005). Review of are you ready to "Moodle”?Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 16–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breuch, L.-A. K. (2004). Virtual peer review: Teaching and learning about writing in online environments. New York: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, J. D. (1996). Testing in language programs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• De Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffolding in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51–68. doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00052
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diab, N. M. (2016). A comparison of peer, teacher and self-feedback on the reduction of language errors in student essays. System, 57, 55–65. doi:10.1016/j.system.2015.12.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiGiovanni, E., & Nagaswami, G. (2001). Online peer review: An alternative to face-to-face. ELT Journal, 55(3), 263–272. doi:10.1093/elt/55.3.263
   Google Scholar
• Dina, A. T., & Ciornei, S. I. (2013). The advantages and disadvantages of computer assisted language learning and teaching for foreign languages. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 76, 248–252. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.107
   Google Scholar
• Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.
   Google Scholar
• Emig, J. (1983). The web of meaning: Essays on writing, teaching, learning, and thinking. London: Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Ghufron, M. A., & Nurdianingsih, F. (2019). Flipped teaching with CALL in EFL writing class: How does it work and affect learner autonomy?European Journal of Educational Research, 8(4), 983–997. doi:10.12973/eu-jer.8.4.983
   Google Scholar
• Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014). Technologies for foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70–105. doi:10.1080/09588221.2012.700315
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hairston, M. (1982). The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in the teaching of writing. College Composition and Communication, 33(1), 76–88. doi:10.2307/357846
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkins, M. R. (2004). Language learning and teacher education. Clevedon:Multilingual Matters.
   Google Scholar
• Hine, L. A. (2017). The Impact of face-to-face versus online peer review on students’ writing achievement. ProQuest LLC.
   Google Scholar
• Ho, M., & Savignon, S. (2007). Face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review in EFL writing. CALICO Journal, 24(2), 269–290. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24147912
   Google Scholar
• Hsieh, Y. (2020). Learner interactions in face-to-face collaborative writing with the support of online resources. ReCALL, 32(1), 85–105. doi:10.1017/S0958344019000120
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Khoury, P., Azar, E., & Hitti, E. (2020). COVID-19 response in Lebanon: Current experience and challenges in a low-resource setting. JAMA, 324(6), 548–549. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.12695
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai, C., Yeung, Y., & Hu, J. (2016). University student and teacher perceptions of teacher roles in promoting autonomous language learning with technology outside the classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 703–723. doi:10.1080/09588221.2015.1016441.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law, J., Barny, D., & Poulin, R. (2020). Patterns of peer interaction in multimodal L2 digital social reading. Language Learning & Technology, 24(2), 70–85. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/44726.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30–43. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcum, J., & Kim, Y. (2020). Oral language proficiency in distance English-language learning. CALICO Journal, 37(2), 148–168. doi:10.1558/cj.37788
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moloudi, M. (2011). Online and face-to-face peer review: Measures of implementation in ESL writing classes. Asian EFL Journal, 52, 4–22.
   Google Scholar
• Mulder, R. A., Pearce, J. M., & Baik, C. (2014). Peer review in higher education: Student perceptions before and after participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(2), 157–171. doi:10.1177/1469787414527391
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122. doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.795518
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLS: Developmentally appropriate assistance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51–78). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pham, H. T. P. (2021). Computer-mediated and face-to-face peer feedback: Student feedback and revision in EFL writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34, 1–36. doi:10.1080/09588221.2020.1868530
   Google Scholar
• Pritchard, R. J., & Morrow, D. (2017). Comparison of online and face-to-face peer review of writing. Computers and Composition, 46, 87–103. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2017.09.006
   Google Scholar
• Purchase, H., & Hamer, J. (2018). Perspectives on peer-review: Eight years of Aropä. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 43(3), 473–487. doi:10.1080/02602938.2017.1359819
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouadi, N. E., & Anouti, M. F. (2020). The online learning experiment in the intermediate and secondary schools in Lebanon during the coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis. Online Learning, 7(7), 14466–14485.
   Google Scholar
• Ruegg, R. (2015). The relative effects of peer and teacher feedback on improvement in EFL students’ writing ability. Linguistics and Education, 29, 73–82. doi:10.1016/j.linged.2014.12.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2000). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach. Language in Society, 29(2), 262–266.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learner’s acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spear, K. (1987). Sharing writing. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook/Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303–334. doi:10.1017/S0272263109990532
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taghizadeh, M., & Hasani Yourdshahi, Z. (2020). Integrating technology into young learners’ classes: Language teachers’ perceptions. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33 (8), 982–1006. doi:10.1080/09588221.2019.1618876
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tai, H.-C. (2016). Effects of collaborative online learning on EFL learners’ writing performance and self-efficacy. English Language Teaching, 9(5), 119–133. doi:10.5539/elt.v9n5p119
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, S., Ryan, M., & Pearce, J, (2015). Enhanced student learning in accounting utilizing web-based technology, peer-review feedback, and reflective practices: A learning community approach to assessment. Higher Education Research, 34(6), 1251–1269.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, N. F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van den Bos, A. H., & Tan, E. (2019). Effects of anonymity on online peer review in second language writing. Computers & Education, 142, 103638. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103638
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of Children, 23(3), 34–41.
   Google Scholar
• Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer assisted language learning: An introduction. In Fotos S. (Ed.), Multimedia language teaching (pp. 3–20). Tokyo: Logos International.
   Google Scholar
• Wu, W. C. V., Yang, J. C., Scott Chen Hsieh, J., & Yamamoto, T. (2020). Free from demotivation in EFL writing: The use of online flipped writing instruction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(4), 353–387. doi:10.1080/09588221.2019.1567556
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang, S. (2011). Exploring the effectiveness of using peer evaluation and teacher feedback in college students’ writing. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 20(1), 144–150.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaghlool, Z. D. (2020). The impact of using CALL online writing activities on EFL university students’ writing achievement. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 10(2), 141–148. doi:10.17507/tpls.1002.01.
   Google Scholar