International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 2834-7919   |  e-ISSN: 1554-5210
International Journal of Progressive Education
International Association of Educators

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2019, Vol. 15(5) 103-118

A Study of the Quality of Feedback Via the Google Classroom-mediated-Anonymous Online Peer Feedback Activity in a Thai EFL Writing Classroom

Ken Chuaphalakit, Bhornsawan Inpin & Prarthana Coffin

pp. 103 - 118   |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2019.212.8   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1904-01-0001

Published online: October 16, 2019  |   Number of Views: 331  |  Number of Download: 899

Save PDF

Abstract

The current study investigated the quality of feedback produced via anonymous online peer feedback activity in a Thai EFL writing classroom. It also explored how the students perceived the anonymous online peer feedback activity. Peer feedback tasks, questionnaires, and an interview were used to collect the information. The results from the peer feedback tasks showed that the quality of peer feedback significantly improved. The results from the questionnaires showed that the students agreed that the online peer feedback activity helped them to improve their writing although there were some problems that should be improved. The follow-up interview revealed that the anonymity of the writers or the feedback givers would not affect how most students would react to the writings or feedbacks. It could be noted from the study that sufficient training must be provided before implementing the anonymous online peer feedback activity. The findings provide new evidence for scholars and instructors who are interested in implementing an anonymous online peer feedback in a Thai classroom.

Keywords: peer feedback, EFL writing

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Chuaphalakit, K., Inpin, B. & Coffin, P. (2019). A Study of the Quality of Feedback Via the Google Classroom-mediated-Anonymous Online Peer Feedback Activity in a Thai EFL Writing Classroom . International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(5), 103-118. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2019.212.8

Harvard
Chuaphalakit, K., Inpin, B. and Coffin, P. (2019). A Study of the Quality of Feedback Via the Google Classroom-mediated-Anonymous Online Peer Feedback Activity in a Thai EFL Writing Classroom . International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(5), pp. 103-118.

Chicago 16th edition
Chuaphalakit, Ken, Bhornsawan Inpin and Prarthana Coffin (2019). "A Study of the Quality of Feedback Via the Google Classroom-mediated-Anonymous Online Peer Feedback Activity in a Thai EFL Writing Classroom ". International Journal of Progressive Education 15 (5):103-118. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2019.212.8.
References
  1. 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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80115-5 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  2.  Bhalerao, A., & Ward, A. (2000). Towards electronically assisted peer assessment: A case study. Retrieved from https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/dcs/people/ [Google Scholar]
  3. abhir_bhalerao/publications/altj_bhalerao_ward.pdf [Google Scholar]
  4. Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer applications in second language acquisition: Foundations for teaching, testing, and research. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  5. Chrisman, F.P., Crandall, J. (2007). Passing the Torch: Strategies for Innovation in Community College ESL. New York, NY: Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy.  [Google Scholar]
  6. Chuenchaichon, Y. (2014). A review of EFL writing research studies in Thailand in the past 10 years. Journal of Humanities Naresuan University, 11(1), (13-30). Retrieved from http://www.human.nu.ac.th/jhnu/file/journal/2015_02_13_10_30_57-04%20%E0%B8%94%E0%B8%A3.%E0%B8%A2%E0%B8%B8%E0%B8%97%E0%B8%98%E0%B8%A8%E0%B8%B1%E0%B8%81%E0%B8%94%E0%B8%B4%E0%B9%8C.pdf [Google Scholar]
  7. Ciekanski, M. (2007). Fostering learner autonomy: power and reciprocity in the relationship between language learner and language learning adviser, Cambridge Journal of Education, 37(2), 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640601179442 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  8. Coffin, C., Curry, M. J., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lillis, T., & Swann, J. (2003). Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education. London, England: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  9. Dueraman, B. (2012). Teaching EFL writing: understanding and re-thinking the Thai experience. Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, 4(1), 255-275. Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/4513345/Teaching_EFL_writing_ [Google Scholar]
  10. Understanding_and_Re-thinking_the_Thai_Experience [Google Scholar]
  11. Ellis, L. (2008). Writing instruction and learning strategies in a hybrid EAP course: A case study with college-bound ESL students. (3330384), Walden University, Ann Arbor. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304403863?accountid=50161 ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global: Social Sciences database.  [Google Scholar]
  12. Feller, T., & Apple, M. (2006). Developing writing fluency and lexical complexity with blogs. The JALT CALL Journal, 2(1), 15-26. Retrieved from: http://journal.jaltcall.org/articles/2_1_Fellner.pdf [Google Scholar]
  13. Hansen, J. G., Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59(1), 31-38. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  14. Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teacing Research, 9(3), 321-342. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr169oa [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  15. Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ito, M., Horst, H. A., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Herr-Stephenson, B., Lange, P. G., et al. (2008). Living and learning with new media: Summary of findings from the Digital Youth Project. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Reports on Digital Media and Learning. Retrieved from: http://digitalyouth.ischool.berkeley.edu/files/report/digitalyouth-WhitePaper.pdf [Google Scholar]
  17. Keppell, M., Au, E., Ma, A., & Chan, C. (2006). Peer learning and learning-oriented assessment in technology-enhanced environments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 453-464. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930600679159 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  18. Kibler, R. L. (2015). Using computer mediation, peer review, and a writing process in a Japanese second language writing class. (3720604), Colorado State University, Ann Arbor. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1719537380?accountid=50161 ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database.  [Google Scholar]
  19. Lam, R. (2010). A Peer Review Training Workshop: Coaching Students to Give and Evaluate Peer Feedback. TESL Canada Journal, 27(2), 114-127. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v27i2.1052  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  20.  Lan, Y.-T., Wang, J.-H., Hsu, S.-H., Chan, T.-W. (2011) Peer Feedback in Online Writing System. In: Chang, M., Hwang, W.-Y., Chen, M.-P., Müller, W. (Eds.), Edutainment Technologies. Educational Games and Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality Applications. Conference proceedings of 6th International Conference on E-learning and Games, Edutainment 2011 (pp. 126-129). Taipei, Taiwan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23456-9_23 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  21. Liaw, S. S., Chen, G. D., & Huang, H. M. (2008). Users' attitudes toward web-based collaborative learning systems for knowledge management. Computers and Education, 50, 950-961. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.09.007 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  22. Lin, G.-Y. (2018). Anonymous versus identifiable peer assessment via a Facebook-based learning application: Effects on quality of peer feedback, perceived learning, perceived fairness, and attitude toward the system. Computers & Education, 116, 86-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.010 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  23. Lin, H. (2014). Establishing an empirical link between computer-mediated communication (CMC) and SLA: A meta-analysis of the research. Language Learning & Technology, 18(3), 120-147. http://dx.doi.org/10125/44387 [Google Scholar]
  24. Lin, S. J., Liu, Z. F., & Yuan, S. M. (2001). Web based peer assessment: attitude and achievement. IEEE Transactions on Education, 44(2), 13 pp. doi:10.1109/13.925865 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  25. Liu, N-F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279-290. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680582 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  26. Lu, R. (2005). A comparison of anonymous e-peer review versus identifiable e -peer review on college student writing performance and learning satisfaction (Order No. 3176692). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (305378351). Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/305378351?accountid=50161 [Google Scholar]
  27. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  28. Macleod, L. (2009). Computer-aided peer review of writing. Business Communication Quarterly, 62 (3), 87-95. https://doi.org/10.1177/108056999906200309 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  29. Manglesdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think? ELT Journal, 46(3), 275-285. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/46.3.274 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  30. Min, H.-T. (2006) the effects of trained peer review on EFL students' revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 11-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  31. Nicol, D. J., Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218. doi: 10.1080/03075070600572090 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  32. Nilson, L. B. (2003). Improving student peer feedback. College Teaching, 51(1), 34-39. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567550309596408 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  33. Razagifard, P., & Razzaghifard, V. (2011). Corrective feedback in a computer-mediated context and the development of second language grammar. Teaching English with Technology, 11(2), 1-17. Retrieved from: http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.desklight-9a758c3e-8f18-4945-8e7b-d7a8cecf16d7 [Google Scholar]
  34. Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal: English Language Teaching Journal, 59(1), 23-30. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci003 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  35. Rosalia, C. (2010). EFL students as peer advisors in an online writing center. (3404550), New York University, Ann Arbor. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/527799789?accountid=50161 ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global database.  [Google Scholar]
  36. Rosalia, C., Llosa, L. (2009). Assessing the Quality of Online Peer Feedback in L2 Writing. In R. de Cassia Veiga Marriott, P. L. Torres (Eds.), Handbook of Research on E-learning methodologies for language acquisition (pp.322-338). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. [Google Scholar]
  37. Scott, C. R. (2004). Benefits and drawbacks of anonymous online communication: Legal challenges and communicative recommendations. In S. Drucker (Ed.), Free speech yearbook (Vol. 41, pp. 127-141). Washington: National Communication Association. [Google Scholar]
  38. Scott, C. R., Rains, S. A., & Haseki, M. (2011). Anonymous communication: Unmasking findings across fields. In C. Salmon (Ed.), Vol. 35. Communication yearbook (pp. 299-342). New York, NY: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  39. Srinon, U. (2011). A longitudinal study of developments in the academic writing of Thai university students in the context of a genre based pedagogy. University of Adelaide, Adelaide. Retrieved from https://digital.library.adelaide.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/2440/70282/8/02whole.pdf [Google Scholar]
  40. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. [Google Scholar]
  41. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  [Google Scholar]
  42. Yu, F. Y. (2009). Scaffolding student-generated questions: Design and development of a customizable online learning system. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 1129-1138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.05.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  43. Yu, F. Y. (2012). Any effects of different levels of online user identity revelation? Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 15(1), 64-77. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=72954722&site=ehost-live  [Google Scholar]
  44. Yu, F. Y., & Liu, Y. H. (2009). Creating a psychologically safe online space for a student-generated questions learning activity via different identity revelation modes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(6), 1109-1123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00905.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
Download
Metric
History
Related

Volume 15 Issue 5

October 2019

All Articles

International Journal of Progressive Education

International Association of Educators.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public License.
Privacy policy     |     Terms of Use     |     Use of Cookies
Creative Commons Lisansı
© 2012 - 2024 - THDSoft e-Journal Management System.