Online peer feedback in second language Chinese writing
From feedback, uptake, to perception
Online peer feedback is advocated but not sufficiently used or researched in language classrooms, especially in
Chinese as a foreign language (CFL) context. There is not sufficient evidence on the relationship of peer feedback type and
revision, and controversies remain regarding learners’ perceptions of peer feedback, especially in terms of its trustworthiness.
This study examines the typology, uptake, and learner perceptions of online peer feedback in an advanced level CFL classroom.
Participants’ first drafts, feedback, and revisions in four writing assignments were analyzed and interviews were conducted.
Feedback was mostly given on vocabulary, grammar, and character. 70.9% of the corrective feedback led to successful revision, and
direct change, suggestion, and clarification most frequently led to
revision. Participants generally trusted peer feedback, while they were also autonomous in giving feedback and deciding on
uptakes. Learners’ positive perceptions include the comprehensibility of peer feedback and a sense of supportive community.
Keywords: Chinese as a foreign language, peer feedback, perception, revision, second language writing
Article outline
- Introduction
- Literature review
- Feedback typology
- Uptake and revision
- Perceptions of online peer feedback
- SLW of Chinese in online platforms
- Methodology
- Participants
- Writing assignments
- Procedure and data collection
- Data analysis
- Feedback coding
- Uptake coding
- Results
- Feedback types and levels
- Uptake and self-initiated revision
- Perception
- Writer’s perspective
- Reviewer’s perspective
- Overall experience
- Discussion
- Feedback typology and percentage of uptake
- Uptake from different types of feedback
- Agency and autonomy
- Comprehensibility and supportive community
- Conclusion and limitations
- Notes
-
References
Published online: 28 August 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/csl.19012.zhu
https://doi.org/10.1075/csl.19012.zhu
References
AbuSeileek, A.
AbuSeileek, A., & Abualsha’r, A.
ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines
Berg, E. C.
Bitchener, J., & Knoch, U.
Chandler, J.
Chang, C. F.
Cheng, P. C.
Cho, K., & MacArthur, C.
Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K.
Choi, J. W.
Ciftci, H., & Kocoglu, Z.
Connor, U., & Asenavage, K.
Cotterall, S., & Cohen, R.
Curtis, A.
Diab, N. M.
Donato, R.
Elola, I., & Oskoz, A.
Ene, E., & Upton, T. A.
Ferris, D. R.
Ferris, D.
Ferris, D. R., Brown, J., Liu, H. S., & Arnaudo Stine, M. E.
Ferris, D. R., Pezone, S., Tade, C. R., & Tinti, S.
Ferris, D. R., & Roberts, B.
Godwin-Jones, R.
Guardado, M., & Shi, L.
Hu, G., & Lam, S. T. E.
Hyland, F.
Hyland, K., & Hyland, F.
Jiang, W.
Keh, C.
King, B. W.
Kurihara, N.
Lantolf, J. P.
Lee, M. K., & Evans, M.
Liao, J. L.
Lin, W. C., & Yang, S. C.
Liu, J., & J. Hansen
Liu, J., & Sadler, R. W.
Liu, Q., & Brown, D.
Long, M. H.
Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A.
Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W.
Manchón, R. M.
Mendonca, C. O., & Johnson, K. E.
Martin-Beltrán, M., & Chen, P. J.
McGroarty, M., & Zhu, W.
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A.
Ruegg, R.
Santos, M., Serrano, S. L., & Manchón, R. M.
Sheen, Y.
Storch, N.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G.
Swain, M.
Tai, H. C., Lin, W. C., & Yang, S. C.
Truscott, J. & Hsu, A. Y. P.
Tuzi, F.
Villamil, O. S., & Guerrero, M. C.
Vygotsky, L. S.
Wang, W.
Warschauer, M., Turbee, L., & Roberts, B.
Xiao-Desai, Y.
Xu, Y.
Yang, L. & Zhao, Z.
Yu, S., & Lee, I.
Zhang, D.
Zhang, H., Song, W., Shen, S., & Huang, R.
Zhao, H.