Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Computers and Composition 29 (2012) 280–291

Blog-Based Peer Reviewing in EFL Writing Classrooms forChinese Speakers

Kate Tzu-Ching Chen ∗Department of Applied Foreign Languages, Chaoyang University of Technology, 168 Jifong E. Rd.,

Wufong district, Taichung City, 41349, Taiwan (R.O.C.)

1. Introduction

Instructors frequently give students in conventional product-oriented writing classrooms composition topics andskill activities/exercises that students submit for course evaluation.

Accordingly, students gradually come to view English writing as little more than a series of grammar, spelling,and vocabulary exercises (Corona, Spangenberger, & Venet, 1998; You, 2004a), and to view feedback as a grade, abrief comment, or correction with no explanation. English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students are often negativelyaffected by such writing instruction, struggling from a lack of writing skill acquisition and feelings of incompetence,frustration, and limited abilities to express themselves. As an alternative to such approaches, web-based peer reviewprocesses are thought to support the creation and maintenance of relationships that go beyond functional writingpractice, to encourage active responses and reflections, and to support the development of creative and critical thinking(DiGiovanni & Nagaswami, 2001; Guardado & Shi, 2007; Liu & Sadler, 2003; Tuzi, 2004).

Chinese EFL learners are mostly taught in conventional product-oriented writing classrooms and thus often developa negative attitude toward learning. Considering that Chinese EFL learners comprise a fast growing population, explor-ing alternative writing approaches in Chinese EFL classes is needed. In addition, few studies have been conducted ononline or weblog peer review (also called “peer editing”) teaching approaches for language learners (Zhang, 2009).This paper begins with a review of studies of EFL writing and blog-based peer review processes, followed by an inves-tigation of a group of Taiwanese EFL learners’ opinions about their blog-based peer review activities and EFL writingachievements. The study setting was an undergraduate Academic English Writing 101 course taught at a technologicaluniversity in central Taiwan. The instructional approach utilized a learning management system (LMS) weblog createdby the university’s technical group. Students were required to submit their writing assignments, exchange peer-reviewcomments, and revise their writing projects based on the feedback they received.

In Taiwan, high school seniors spend a great deal of time preparing for the English writing portion of the nationaluniversity entrance examination (Liu, 2008). For EFL college students, English writing is required for more narrowlydefined communication and academic purposes, but often they do not have access to the required support for advancedwriting projects. Many Taiwanese English students fully understand the need to master writing skills to improve their

chances of winning high-paying jobs (Liu, 2008; You, 2004b), but regardless of motivation, a surprisingly large numberof graduates have only rudimentary skills. Possible reasons include reliance on outdated curriculums, lack of practice,insufficient feedback, inadequate teaching methods, and insufficient writing knowledge.

∗ Tel.: +886 955999176; fax: +886 4 23742355.E-mail addresses: katechen@cyut.edu.tw, katechen@hotmail.com

8755-4615/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2012.09.004

rtpt

2

f2fio

1

2

3

fLDPtHo1nfemeow

3

3

sabs

K.T.-C. Chen / Computers and Composition 29 (2012) 280–291 281

For this project, I analyzed student responses from a survey designed to measure reactions to a blog-based peereview approach to teaching English writing. Additional data include writing samples collected at different times duringhe semester, classroom observations, and guided reflective essays. The results revealed the effectiveness of blog-basedeer reviewing activities, students’ perceptions toward this type of activity, and the influence of their perceptions onheir EFL writing.

. Background

Starting in the late 1990’s, educators began using blogs as a teaching tool for a range of academic subjects, especiallyor first (L1) and second language (L2) teaching (Campbell, 2003; Huffaker, 2005; Kim, 2008; Weller, Pegler, & Mason,005; Williams & Jacobs, 2004). In the aspect of L1 writing, Blood (2000) created two blog categories: journal andlter-style. As the name implies, journal blogs serve as diaries for personal expression and descriptions of experiences,pinions, and reflections. Filter-style blogs consist of links to other Internet sources, usually with added commentary.

In the specific area of L2 learning, Campbell (2003) has established three blog categories:

. Tutor, which teachers use to disseminate ideas to encourage online or in-class discussion. In some instances,students are limited to responding to an instructor’s posts. For an example, see <http://e-poche.net/2006/05/19/internet-english-2006/>.

. Class, which teachers generally use in support of collaborative discussions and lesson extensions. Students areencouraged to reflect on and write about themes that are introduced in class. For an example, see <http://beeonline.blogspot.com/>. This type of blog was used in the present study.

. Learner, which is generally maintained by students as personal online spaces. Learner blogs require more instructortime and effort, but they also tend to be the most rewarding of Campbell’s three types. Some writing students aremotivated by their blogs, while others still require teacher encouragement to write entries.

Peer review activities for L2 or ESL/EFL (English as a foreign language) students have been shown to be effectiveor the teaching of writing skills (Berger, 1990; Connor & Asenavage, 1994; Jacobs, Curtis, Braine, & Huang, 1998;iu & Hansen, 2002a, 2002b). Specific examples of successful online peer review activities have been described byiGiovanni and Nagaswami (2001), Guardado and Shi (2007), Jones, et al, (2006), Liu and Sadler (2003), Sullivan andratt (1996), and Tuzi (2004). The most frequently mentioned advantages of online peer review activities are interactive

ext exchanges and increased student participation (Braine, 2001; Hewett, 2000; Liu & Sadler, 2003; Matsumura &ann, 2004; Sullivan & Pratt, 1996; Tuzi, 2004). They have been shown to increase student awareness of their own andthers’ writing characteristics, and to encourage ESL/EFL learners to write more (Mittan, 1989; Ferris & Hedgcock,998). Among online writing class tools (e.g., chat systems, communication applications such as e-mail, and socialetwork systems such as wikis and discussion boards), weblogs represent an important tool specifically designedor writing purposes (Godwin-Jones, 2003). However, their effectiveness for Taiwanese EFL learners has yet to bexamined. In response to this need, the present study was performed in a setting of two writing courses for Englishajor first-year students at the Chaoyang University of Technology in Taiwan. Based on analysis of students’ reflective

ssays, students’ online reviews, comparisons of students’ initial and revised drafts, classroom observations, and endf semester questionnaires, this study aims to investigate the effects of blog-based peer review activities in Englishriting courses for EFL instructors and learners, and what EFL students’ perceptions of peer review on weblog are.

. Method

.1. Setting and participants

The participants, 67 first-year English majors at the Chaoyang University of Technology, were enrolled in two

ections of a spring 2009 Academic English Writing 101 course. All of the participants spoke Mandarin Chinese, with

few using the Taiwanese or Hakka dialects at home. Based on their university entrance examination scores, students inoth class sections were similar in terms of English proficiency. Of the 64 students who completed an end-of-semesterurvey, 51 were female. In terms of age, 58 were 21 years old or younger, with 90.6% between the ages of 16 and 20.

282 K.T.-C. Chen / Computers and Composition 29 (2012) 280–291

All of the participants had been exposed to a minimum of six years of formal EFL instruction. I was the instructor ofthese classes, and I was committed to participating fully in the process.

3.2. Online peer review process

The students were told that the course goal was to help them improve their academic English writing skills, andthat collaborative peer-review activities were meant to trigger communication and discussion regarding their writingassignments. In this manner, they were encouraged to focus on interactive exchanges of feedback and opinions insteadof on completing individual assignments. I made every effort to display consistent teaching behaviors based on lessonsfrom Oshima and Hogues’ (2007) Introduction to Academic Writing, third edition. The same lessons were used in bothclass sections. Each lesson began with an introduction of a specific paragraph type (narrative, descriptive, logical ideadivision, and process), followed by writing sample presentations, grammar explanations, and writing exercises.

For purposes of this research, “peer review” is defined as an activity in which pairs of students create first draftsof academic paragraphs and review their partners’ efforts (see also Lockhart & Ng, 1995). One of the most commonproblems with peer response activities is a lack of proper training at the beginning of a semester (Liu & Hansen,2002a). The training before peer review would develop EFL writers to be effective reviewers (Min, 2006). For thisreason, I purposefully emphasized review training during the first week, mostly in terms of how to give appropriatefeedback. Participants were taught to offer comments to their partners according to a writing rubric, and to use thefeedback they received to revise their own efforts. An example is given in Appendix D. During each session, studentswere encouraged to discuss and interact with their partners to explain their thinking when offering feedback or whencomposing their paragraphs.

3.3. Instruments

At the end of the course, students were asked to reflect on the effectiveness of the web-based peer-review activities,to complete a survey, and to write reflective essays regarding their class experiences. The end-of-semester questionnaireconsisted of 35 items, with answers given along a 5-point scale (inspired by the Likert scale), ranging from 1 (“stronglydisagree”) to 5 (“strongly agree”). The overall alpha reliability of the questionnaire was computed at r =.911 (p<.001),N = 64), and a significance level of p<.001 was set for correlations between all items. The seven questions used to guidethe reflective essays are shown as Appendix A. The goals for both instruments were the same: to build an understandingof the students’ positive or negative opinions regarding the use of a web-based blog for peer-review activities, and tomeasure self-perceptions of whether or not the approach helped them improve their English writing skills. Secondarygoals were to find out whether the students perceived the blog-based peer review approach as an effective way oflearning EFL writing, and to examine how they generally viewed their own writing abilities.

A rubric for papers in English composition from the Graduate English Association of Georgia State University wasrevised, as shown in Appendix B, for validity and suitability to evaluate the study population. The word “paper” inthe rubrics was revised to “paragraph” to ensure as much consistency as possible in scoring the student’s paragraphassignments. In addition to reflecting gains in student performance more precisely, the rubric also supported com-parisons between learners. The rubric emphasizes five areas: ideas, development, organization, style/mechanics, andformat. In each area, I assigned scores as follows: 0–6, poor or no proficiency; 7–12, minimal proficiency; 13–19, goodproficiency; 20, high proficiency.

Last, I recorded personal observations in an effort to better understand what was taking place in the classroomas the students wrote and reviewed the work of their peers. These observations also provided insight into how theonline blogs were used to support the students’ development of academic writing skills. The observation checklist,shown in Appendix C, emphasized six student behaviors: interaction with partner, staying on task, verbally expressinginformation, thinking/reflecting, showing interest, and having confidence in the current activity.

3.4. Data analysis

Qualitative data in the form of responses to the reflective essay questions were examined using content analysistechniques. These techniques were used to determine the presence of certain concepts, themes, or expressions withinresponse texts and to quantify this presence in an objective manner. Results were then compared with classroom

K.T.-C. Chen / Computers and Composition 29 (2012) 280–291 283

Table 1Descriptive Statistics for Responses to Survey Items regarding Level of Writing Achievement Self-perceptions (n=64).

Item Text M SD Rank

Through weblog peer-review activities,I realize I still have a lot of room for improvement in English writing. 4.33 .592 1I started to pay more attention to how I can write better English. 4.05 .575 3I learned how to better express myself in written English. 4.02 .604 5I have come to enjoy English writing. 3.41 .729 14I feel more confident about my written English. 3.33 .757 16I am more fluent and descriptive in my written English. 3.55 .665 9I can better organize my ideas/thoughts. 3.52 .591 12I am more organized in English writing. 3.53 .563 11I am more interested in English writing. 3.55 .834 9I have started to like English writing. 3.39 .657 15I am not afraid of writing in English. 3.45 .665 13I have improved in terms of initiating writing. 3.86 .560 7The LMS/blog approach was useful in this course. 4.08 .625 2In general, I have made improvements in my English writing. 3.70 .609 8If my writing has improved, to some degree it is because I wanted to pass the class or

get a high grade.3.16 .648 17

I

orp

4

4

4

taLthsg

4

ps(wftitpto

will continue using the skills I learned in this class to improve my written English. 4.00 .535 6

bservations, end of semester questionnaire results, student writing samples, and peer evaluation samples. Questionnaireesults were analyzed using SPSS (v.17). Specifically, mean and SD data were used to analyze the participants’erceptions of the online peer review approach and its effects on writing achievement.

. Findings

.1. End of semester questionnaire results

.1.1. Writing achievement perceptionsThe survey results indicated that most of the students believed that they improved their English writing skills during

he semester (M = 3.70). As shown in Table 2, they perceived a need to improve those skills to be successful in school,nd awareness of that need made them give more focused attention to their writing tasks. They also perceived theMS/blog approach as a useful tool for achieving their writing goals during the course. The majority believed that by

he end of the semester, they had a better understanding of topic, supporting, and conclusion sentences, and that theyad made improvements in terms of expressing their ideas in writing. The lowest mean score (3.16) was for item 35,uggesting that the participants had a range of motivations for improving their writing, not simply passing the class oretting a high grade.

.1.2. Perceptions of the blog-based peer review processStudents were asked to respond to 19 statements regarding the blog-based peer review activity according to the

reviously-mentioned scale of 1 (“strongly agree”) to 5 (“strongly disagree”). As shown in Table 1, the majority oftudents responded positively to all of the statements (M =3.67). The item receiving the highest positive mean score4.02) was “I prefer reading from computers during the activities.” The item receiving the lowest mean score (2.45)as “My classmates’ comments on the web blog were unpleasant,” indicating that not all the comments they perceived

rom their peers were positive, and they may not have liked the feedback. However, they generally trusted the feedbackhey received, since they also believed that their classmates’ suggestions/comments were helpful (3.97). The resultsndicated an overall belief that the process made it easier for them to comment on their classmates’ assignments, thatheir classmates’ suggestions were helpful for revising their own writing, and that they benefited from working in

airs. The responses also indicated that the students felt comfortable letting others have online access to their writingo receive feedback, enjoyed reading their classmates’ writing, and would like to use an online peer review process inther classes.

284 K.T.-C. Chen / Computers and Composition 29 (2012) 280–291

Table 2Descriptive Statistics for Responses to End-of-Semester Questionnaire (n=64).

Item Text M SD Rank

In the blog-based peer review activities,I prefer peer reviews with a partner. 3.78 1.031 10I benefited from the paired peer review process. 3.95 .898 4The blog made it easy to comment on my classmates’ writing. 3.98 .845 2I liked reviewing my classmates’ writing on the web blog. 3.61 .809 14I welcomed anyone reading my writing on the web blog. 3.92 .783 5I enjoyed reading my classmates’ comments on the web blog. 3.87 .826 7I was eager to get my peers’ opinions. 3.92 .747 5My classmates’ suggestions/comments were helpful. 3.97 .734 3I improved my English writing by reviewing my classmates’ writing on the web blog. 3.66 .695 13I trusted my classmates’ comments on the web blog. 3.36 .764 18My classmates’ comments on the web blog were unpleasant. 2.45 .754 19My classmates followed procedures appropriately. 3.48 .713 17My classmates generally did a good job using the web blog. 3.52 .591 16The rubric was a useful tool that helped me understand how to review my peers’ papers. 3.78 .745 10The explanations and evaluations I received helped me become aware of my own writing

strengths and weaknesses.3.80 .694 9

Using the web blog to share my writing and to give comments was beneficial. 3.67 .691 12The web blog peer review process helped me improve my writing ability. 3.59 .660 15I preferred reading from computers during peer review activities. 4.02 .701 1I would like to use a web blog-based peer review process again if I am given the

opportunity.3.86 .732 8

4.2. Reflective essay results

This section provides a richer description and analysis of students’ reflective responses as well as specific examplesof student interactions and feedback on seven prompts when using a blog-based peer-review approach to learn academicEnglish writing skills. Most of the essays confirmed the participants’ survey responses—for example, 74% stated thatthe peer review activities on the blog supported improvement or otherwise positively influenced their writing skills.A majority also expressed reduced frustration and fear of English writing tasks compared to their pre-course efforts.Specific comments included:

• “Because of the blog-based peer-review activities, I learned to face my weaknesses in writing, and that has helpedme tremendously in improving my writing skills.”

• “The web-based peer review activity facilitates my revising process.”• “I am less fearful of writing English when I do it with a partner during the blog-based peer-review activities.”• “The blog-based peer-review activities worked for me, and I am not afraid of writing [in] English anymore.”• “This particular course design helped me understand how I can improve my writing ability.”

When asked about the personal impacts of the blog-based peer review process, a large percentage of students saidthat because they were allowed to read all the writings and reviews online, they benefited from seeing and understandingtheir classmates’ writing strengths and weaknesses. Their essays confirmed their questionnaire responses when statingthat the most useful peer partner comments were positive suggestions and encouragement, and the least useful wereincorrect suggestions and criticisms. Of the students, 33 stated that, by the end of the course, their paragraphs weremuch better organized and they felt more confident in terms of expressing their ideas; 17 stated that English writingdid not seem as difficult as they once believed. Overall, 61 students described the online peer review experience as

positive, and 24 expressed a strong desire to take other courses that used the same approach.

4

castidcriitommdp

bwtoiodotp

5

stsbttahfa(osbn

aw

K.T.-C. Chen / Computers and Composition 29 (2012) 280–291 285

.3. Classroom observations

Observed changes during the semester included students following the activity rules and evaluation rubric morelosely, and some students beginning to take the initiative to improve the writing atmosphere in the classroomnd online. However, the instructor initiated most changes in student writing behaviors—for example, by con-tantly encouraging students to write without thinking about negative consequences such as low grades or failinghe course. Many changes could be ascribed to increased student awareness of what makes a good English writer,n addition to increased confidence in self-analyzing writing strengths and weaknesses. Discussions with the stu-ents during the activity confirmed that they had developed an increased awareness of the elements of fluent andlear writing. As the example in Appendix D indicates, judging from the improvements between the initial andevised writing examples, students benefited from increased awareness of the composition process. I also noticedncreases in the interactions and support between students and their writing partners. They took turns suggest-ng different perspectives and provided valuable feedback on what was convincing and what was problematic inhe writing during the reviewing process. During the activities, students’ writing performances improved becausef the purposes being set, writing samples being reviewed, and their writing being assessed. Students becameore involved in their writing assignments and accepted more responsibility for their own learning. Accordingly,y task changed to one of helping students understand the importance of the course material. I found that stu-

ents were more attentive and confident when course goals were clearly established, resulting in improved writingerformance.

During the classroom observation, I felt that the observation checklist was especially helpful for recording students’ehaviors in the classroom throughout the session. According to my checklist records (Appendix C), most students wereilling to interact with their partners and were not afraid to express their thoughts during class discussions. Regardless of

heir confidence in specific activities, most students remained on-task. Some students took considerably longer amountsf time than others to discuss their peers’ assignments before making comments and deciding on scores. In addition to thencreased awareness of the writing process described before, many students demonstrated conscious reflections of theirwn efforts as part of the peer-review process. In addition, 18 participants expressed a much stronger interest in writinguring the second half of the semester. However, I would like to suggest that the checklist be used for small classes only,r the quality of the observation of the entire class at one time could be rather difficult to manage. In general, I believehat the integration of web-based peer review was a positive experience, and both the students and I benefited from therocess.

. Conclusion and discussion

Based on the results of the data analysis on adopting weblog peer review activities to improve writing skills,tudents demonstrated a marked improvement in effective writing behaviors. This study suggests a promising direc-ion for research on the potential for explicit web-based peer review to be used in EFL writing classrooms to helptudents improve their academic writing abilities. The weblog peer review process can be a positive experience foroth the students and the instructor. In this study, overall, the students met the expectations and goals expressed athe beginning of the course. Student reflective essays and responses to an end-of-semester questionnaire suggestedhat the online peer review process supported the students’ efforts to improve their writing skills, relieved stressssociated with English writing activities, and gave the students more confidence. Because of the convenience andigh accessibility of weblog peer review, the interactions among the students significantly increased. By sharing theireedback and reading others’ feedback, the students gradually developed a more positive attitude toward writingnd finally improved their writing abilities. This is in stark contrast to the conclusion made by Guardado and Shi2007) in their study with Japanese students, where they argued that students seemed to have less interaction usingnline peer feedback compared to conventional face-to-face interaction. Also, the use of a checklist works best withmaller classes during classroom observation, and a class of no more than 25 students is suggested. The trainingefore blog-based peer review activities is crucial to assist students in avoiding being overly positive or extremely

egative.

Four pedagogical implications are drawn based on the findings of the present study. First, blog-based peer reviewctivities may serve as an activity to be used in writing courses to encourage students to re-think and revise theirritings. In pair discussion and class activities, students tend to practice English writing more, stay focused on the

286 K.T.-C. Chen / Computers and Composition 29 (2012) 280–291

task, and demonstrate stronger interest. The current research provides novice writing instructors with a procedure bywhich to conduct a blog-based peer review activity in an EFL writing class. Second, it is concluded that a lack ofsuccess in applying peer response in the second language writing classroom usually can be ascribed to a lack of propertraining of the peers (Liu & Hansen, 2002a; Min, 2008). The current study highlights the necessity of training studentsto provide appropriate feedback to avoid unnecessary confusion and conflict among students. Without proper training,students might receive repetitive or similar suggestions or comments, and, sometimes, negative or incorrect feedbackfrom their peers. To avoid the damaging effects of such feedback, teachers should encourage students to share the sortsof feedback they received with the whole class. The open expression of such flawed feedback can help students torecognize their weaknesses in assessing their own writing and spur them on to greater efforts. Ultimately, students stillbenefit from interactions with their partners and online feedback.

Third, blog-based peer review activities provide positive experiences for both the instructor and the students inthe EFL writing classroom. For the instructors, technologically enhanced peer-review feedback can greatly supple-ment their comments and provide successful experiences to facilitate their teaching (Liu & Sadler, 2003). However,many other researchers have also successfully implemented peer-review feedback activities in the traditional writ-ing classroom (e.g., Berg, 1999; Hu, 2005; Stanley, 1992). Instructors of EFL writing may consider combining bothtechnological and traditional modes to attain the most effective peer review. If students receive sufficient training inpeer review, they can give and receive useful feedback to provide different perspectives, thereby promoting reflectivethinking skills. Finally, the use of blog-based peer-review activities in the classroom depends heavily on computerand Internet connectivity. Therefore, instructors should make sure that students have Internet access in the classroom.However, in the present study, students were also encouraged to access the class blog to complete or revise theirpeer review after class—from any computer, at any time—which allowed students enough time to complete their peerreview, free of class-meeting limitations. Therefore, if students have access to the blog after class, EFL teachers inclassrooms without computers and Internet access can still implement blog-based peer review activities as homeworkassignments.

All of the previously-described implications indicate that the findings of this study contribute to the fields of TESOL,computers, and literacy. Because of its focus on the writing process, blog-based peer review activities are effectivein encouraging students to review their peers’ work, encourage thoughtful analysis, and strengthen their own writingskills.

The results suggest a need for more research on the potential for the widespread use of online blog-based peerreview activities in Taiwanese undergraduate EFL writing courses. Questionnaire responses also indicated positivestudent perceptions of the online peer review process and learning outcomes, and greater awareness of individ-ual needs for becoming better English writers. My classroom observations and the content of the reflective essaysconfirm that, by the end of the course, students had greater awareness of what they needed to do to improvetheir writing skills. The weblog peer review also reduced the instructor’s burden of checking and synthesizing thereviews, since they had already been evaluated and revised multiple times by the students. Also, the instructor couldquickly track all the reviews and compare the student reviews with what they actually revised online. This studyprovides variable insight for EFL/ESL students and instructors to improve the teaching and learning of Englishwriting.

The primary limitation of this study is the small sample size. Future researchers may be interested in expandingthis research to include more class sections and multiple instructors. Researchers may also be interested in comparinggroups of students with different demographic backgrounds. Specific factors to consider include (a) the relationshipbetween online blog-based peer review activities and writing achievement; (b) optimal implementation of web-basedblogs for writing and teaching activities; (c) establishing, testing, and comparing standardized lesson plans involvingthe use of online blog-based peer review activities; (d) testing the use of online blog-based activities for other aspects oflanguage instruction such as listening, speaking, and reading; and (e) comparing groups of students in online blog-basedpeer review classes in terms of proficiency, gender, and other variables.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to express her sincere gratitude and appreciation to the students for their participation andcooperation in this study and the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their helpful comments.

A

1

234567

A

E

I

D

O

S

K.T.-C. Chen / Computers and Composition 29 (2012) 280–291 287

ppendix A. Reflective Essay Guiding Questions

. Did the online blog-based peer review activity improve or otherwise influence your writing skill? If so, in whatway?

. Please explain the impacts or benefits of the peer review process on your English writing.

. What kinds of comments from your classmates were most/least useful to you?

. What benefits did you gain from letting your classmates review your writing?

. Have you noticed any differences in your writing from attending this course? If so, what are they?

. Overall, how would you rate the online blog-based peer review experience?

. Do you have any other comments or suggestions regarding online blog-based peer reviews?

ppendix B. English Paragraph Writing Rubric

valuation Item Suggested Scoring

High Proficiency (20) Good Proficiency(13-19)

Minimal Proficiency(7-12)

Non-proficiency (0-6)

deas (20%)Including topic, thesis,central idea, focus,purpose, audience.

Ideas are clear, insightful,thought provoking, andfocused, and consistentlysupport the topic for theparagraph.

Ideas are clear andfocused, support thetopic, and present aclearly stated centralidea, but are notconsistently insightfulor thought provoking.

Ideas are clear butconventional orgeneral. They supportthe topic of theparagraph.

Ideas are unclear,clichéd, anddemonstrate a lack offocus in support of thetopic or central idea,which may be vagueor missing.

evelopment (20%)Including detailedevidence, examples,logic, and arguments.

Development is fresh,with abundant details andexamples that arouseinterest. The writerprovides relevant,concrete, specific, andinsightful evidence insupport of sound logic.

Development isadequate but lacksdepth, with details andexamples that arouseaudience interest. Thewriter providesrelevant, concrete, andspecific evidence insupport of soundlogic.

Development issufficient but general.The writer providesadequate but onlymoderately interestingdetails, examples, andevidence, with nological fallacies orunsupported claims.

Development isinsufficient. Thewriter provides few orinappropriate details,evidence, andexamples, some ofwhich entail logicalfallacies orunsupported claims.

rganization (20%)Including structure,coherence, unity, andtransitions.

Organization is coherent,unified, and effective insupport of the paragraph’spurpose or plan. Thewriter consistentlydemonstrates effectiveand appropriate rhetoricaltransitions within eachparagraph.

Organization iscoherent, unified, andeffective in support ofthe paragraph’spurpose or plan. Thewriter occasionallydemonstrates effectiveand appropriaterhetorical transitionswithin eachparagraph.

Organization iscoherent andgenerally unified insupport of theparagraph’spurpose/plan, but isineffective at times,and occasionallydemonstrates abruptor weak transitions.

Organization isconfused andfragmented. Theparagraph lacksstructure orcoherence, whichnegatively affectsreadability.

tyle and Mechanics(20%)Including sentence

Style is confident,readable, and rhetoricallyeffective in tone. The

Style is readable andrhetorically effectivein tone. The writer

structure, word choice,tone, grammar,spelling, andpunctuation.

writer incorporates variedsentence structure, preciseword choice, and correctgrammar, spelling andpunctuation (i.e., showsmastery of style).

incorporates variedsentence structure,effective word choice,and correct grammar,spelling andpunctuation. (i.e.,shows effective style).

288 K.T.-C. Chen / Computers and Composition 29 (2012) 280–291

Appendix B (Continued )

Evaluation Item Suggested Scoring

High Proficiency (20) Good Proficiency(13-19)

Minimal Proficiency(7-12)

Non-proficiency (0-6)

Style is readable butunremarkable in tone,sometimes lacking interms of sentencevariety and/oreffective word choice.Writer makes somedistracting but notserious errors ingrammar, spelling,and punctuation (i.e.,readable butinconsistent style).

Style is incoherent orinappropriate in tone,including a lack ofsentence variety andineffective orinappropriate wordchoice. The writermakes serious errorsin grammar, spelling,and punctuation (i.e.,ineffective style).

Format (20%)Including presentationsources anddocumentation.

Format is correct,meets all assignmentdirections, andsupports theparagraph’spurpose/plan.

Format is correct,meets all assignmentdirections, andgenerally supports theparagraph’spurpose/plan.

Format is mostlycorrect, meets criticalaspects of thedirections for theassignment, andgenerally works insupport of the

Format is faulty, doesnot meet sufficientaspects of theassignment, and doesnot support theparagraph’s purposeor plan.

paragraph’s purposeor plan.

Rubric for papers in English composition (November 18, 2004).

A

K.T.-C. Chen / Computers and Composition 29 (2012) 280–291 289

ppendix C. Classroom Observation Checklist

Date of obs erv ation:

Inte

ract

s w

ith

Sta

ys

on-t

ask

Expre

sses

inte

rest

Thin

ks/

refl

ects

Co

nfi

den

t in

act

ivit

y Com ment s

Group Name

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

290 K.T.-C. Chen / Computers and Composition 29 (2012) 280–291

Appendix D. Peer Review Sample

Maggie & DoraA Memorable Event in My LifeEveryone all has a memorable event in his life; my memorable event was happened at the beginning of the college

life. There was a chorus contest that every department all had to join it.At the practice time, we had to practice every night and other departments were also practiced hard. All of our

members practiced hard, and our upper classmen were, too. For our director, this contest was very important so helooked upon seriously. Though, we had been ever gave up, we still finished it. Before the contest start, we got togetherto practice once again, our director, professors all came to encourage us and our classmates did, too. Finally, we gotthe third prize, each of us was happy, everyone all said that our performance was perfect and we did our best. Becauseof this contest, our friendships became close together and trusted in each other. Although the practice process was sotired, the ending was satisfied.

We are very appreciate our director, professors, upper classmen, and classmates, if we had not have the encourage-ment they gave us, we may not finish this contest so perfect. We think this experience was special to us, and we willtreasure this memory on our mind.

Evaluation items Suggested Point Values

High Proficiency (20) Good Proficiency (13-19) Minimal Proficiency (7-12) Non-proficiency (0-6)

Ideas 20% 19Development 20% 15Organization 20% 15Style & Mechanics 20% 13Format 20% 8Total scores 70Comments: You should correct your grammar and the connection of the sentences.

Evaluators: Stacey & Irene

Kate Tzu-Ching Chen has an Ed.D. in Curriculum and Instruction (Specialized in TESOL) from the University of South Dakota, USA. She iscurrently engaging in researches on the study strategy for developing English learning materials, educational technology, and children’s Englishteaching issues. She also received several government and school sponsored researches on TESOL related topics. She presently resides in Taichung,Taiwan and teaches as an associate professor at Chaoyang University of Technology, the Department of Applied Foreign Languages.

References

Berg, Catherine E. (1999). Preparing ESL students for peer response. TESOL Journal, 8, 20–25.Berger, Virginia B. (1990). The effects of peer and self-feedback. The CATESOL Journal, 3(1), 21–35.Blood, Rebecca. (2000). Weblogs: A history and perspective, Rebecca’s pocket. Retrieved from http://www.rebeccablood.net/essays/

weblog history.htmlBraine, George. (2001). A study of English as a foreign language (EFL) writers on a local-area network (LAN) and in traditional classes. Computers

and Composition, 18, 275–292.Campbell, Aaron P. (2003). Weblogs for use with ESL classes. The Internet TESL Journal, 9(2), 33–35.Connor, Ulla, & Asenavage, Karen. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision? Journal of Second Language

Writing, 3(3), 257–276.Corona, Cathy; Spangenberger, Sandra. & Venet, Iris, (1998). Improving student writing through a language rich environment. M.A. Action Research

Project, St. Xavier University, Chicago, IL and IRI/Skylight.DiGiovanni, Elaine, & Nagaswami, Girija. (2001). Online peer review: An alternative to face-to-face? ELT Journal, 55(3), 263–272.Ferris, Dana, & Hedgcock, John S. (1998). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Hewett, Beth L. (2000). Characteristics of interactive oral and computer-mediated peer group talk and its influence on revision. Computers and

Composition, 17, 265–288.Hu, Guangwei. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 321–342.Huffaker, David. (2005). The educated blogger: Using weblogs to promote literacy in the classroom. AACE Journal, 13, 91–98.

Godwin-Jones, Robert. (2003). Blogs and wikis: Environment for on-line collaboration. Language Learning and Technology, 7(2), 12-16.Guardado, Martin, & Shi, Ling. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 24(4), 443–461.Jacobs, George M., Curtis, Andy, Braine, George, & Huang, Su-Yueh. (1998). Feedback on student writing: Taking the middle path. Journal of

Second Language Writing, 7(3), 307–317.

J

K

L

LLL

L

M

M

MM

ORSS

T

W

W

Y

YZ

K.T.-C. Chen / Computers and Composition 29 (2012) 280–291 291

ones, Rodney H., Garralda, Angel, Li, David C. S., & Lock, Graham. (2006). Interactional dynamics in online and face-to-face peer-tutoringsessions for second language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 1–23.

im, Hyung Nam. (2008). The phenomenon of blogs and theoretical model of blog use in educational contexts. Computers and Education, 51,1342–1352.

iu, Jun, & Sadler, Randall W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of Englishfor Academic Purposes, 2, 193–227.

iu, Jun, & Hansen, Jette G. (2002a). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.iu, Jun, & Hansen, Jette G. (2002b). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59(1), 31–38.iu, Yichun. (2008). Taiwanese students’ negotiations with academic writing: Becoming “playwright and film directors”. Journal of Second Language

Writing, 17, 86–101.ockhart, Charles, & Ng, Peggt. (1995). Analyzing talk in ESL peer response groups: Stances, functions, and content. Language Learning, 45,

605–655.atsumura, Shoichi, & Hann, George. (2004). Computer anxiety and students’ preferred feedback methods in EFL writing. Modern Language

Journal, 88(3), 403–415.in, Hui-Tzu. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ review types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing,

15, 118–141.in, Hui-Tzu. (2008). Reviewer stances and writer perceptions in EFL peer review training. English for Specific Purposes, 27, 285–305.ittan, Robert. (1989). The peer review process: Harnessing students’ communicative power. In M. J. Donna, & H. R. Duane (Eds.), Richness in

writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 207–219). New York: Longman.shima, Alice, & Hogue, Ann. (2007). Introduction to academic writing (3rd ed.). NY: Pearson Education.ubric for papers in English composition, (2004, November 18). Retrieved from http://www2.gsu.edu/∼wwwgea/Teaching Resources/pdf/rubric.pdftanley, Jane. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1, 217–233.ullivan, Nancy, & Pratt, Ellen. (1996). A comparative study of two ESL writing environments: A computer-assisted classroom and a traditional

oral classroom. System, 24, 491–501.uzi, Frank. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21(2),

217–235.eller, Martin, Pegler, Chris, & Mason, Robin. (2005). Use of innovative technologies on an e-learning course. The Internet and High Education,

8, 61–71.illiams, Jeremy B., & Jacobs, Joanne. (2004). Exploring the use of blogs as learning spaces in the higher education sector. Australasian Journal

of Educational Technology, 20, 232–247.

ou, Xiaoye. (2004a). The choice made from no choice: English writing instruction in a Chinese University. Journal of Second Language Writing,

13, 97–110.ou, Xiaoye. (2004b). New directions in EFL writing: A Report from China. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 253–256.hang, Di. (2009). The application of blog in English writing. Journal of Cambridge Studies, 4(1), 64–72.