Introduction
With the introduction of computer-mediated communication (CMC) in foreign language instruction, peer review, and teacher feedback is no longer just for the traditional face-to-face interactions in the brick-and-mortar classrooms. With simple interfaces and interactive response settings that allow for self-reflection and interactive learning, many L2(second language) teachers have implemented blogs into face-to-face, hybrid and online language classes. Blogs allow writers to reach a wider audience than just the instructor or tutor and enable the student's work to be reviewed and even evaluated by peers. In addition, blogs foster critical thinking in both first and target languages since the learner needs to reflect on possible reactions to their postings (Williams & Jacobs, 2004; Ovarec, 2003; Ducate & Lomicka, 2005). The problem is that students often do not take their peer's comments seriously and prefer to rely on their instructor's input. This paper examines the influence of peer reviews on L2 learner's writing drafts in CMC and the extent to which peer feedback is a valuable tool in the L2writing process.
Literature Review
Research results on the effects of peer feedback for L2 writers have been mixed. The term feedback is used to describe both instructor and student peer comments on L2 writing. The focus of this feedback should focus on identifying a students' strengths and weaknesses. The goal may be to improve their performance for future formative assessments and overall language proficiency. Peer feedback can be defined as a communication process, in which two learners enter a dialogue about their language production and language standards (Liu & Carless, 2006).
The literature has shown different uses for blogs in language teaching. Blogs are defined as online journals and their content is normally personal. They can be updated at any time and require little technical knowledge to create, design and maintain ( Pinkman, 2005). Often cited benefits for peer review are that it offers a non-judgemental environment for authentic communication (Hyland, 2003) and a sense of community to the often isolated atmosphere of the writing classroom. Peer feedback can facilitate a two-way interaction that is less formal and more accessible than teacher feedback. It is not only beneficial for student's that receive it, but also the feedback provider since it allows students to evaluate peer work objectively, an ability which can be transferred to their own work.
There are very few studies about asynchronous online peer review. Compared to face-to-face oral or written comments, online feedback has the advantage of being time and place independent, lack the pressure of a quick response and allow others to monitor the conversation (Tuzi, 2004). Instructor feedback has been often criticized for usurping the student's voice and making them passive observers of the feedback and correction process. Yet, this is the most common way of providing feedback in the higher and secondary education language L2 classroom. Zamel (1985) found that teacher feedback is often "confusing, arbitrary and inaccessible"(p. 79) and overemphasize the smallest language errors to the detriment of the overall message. Despite their language instructor training, L2 teachers often lack the ability to make the necessary corrections to improve L2 oral or written proficiency.
There are many advantages to peer feedback, but L2 students need to be trained in how to give objective responses in the native and target language. The peer reviewer does not want to overemphasize the positive but gives constructive feedback that can be utilized by the writer. Well structured and modeled peer response training can significantly improve the efficiency of peer review, especially on the writer's revised drafts (Berg, 1999). This training could include exercises with sample errors and a list of possible responses including both positive comments and constructive criticisms. Time should be invested in training students to identify common mistakes to look for and how to comment on them (Hyland, 2003).
Peer feedback is not only useful for those who receive it, but it allows those who provide it the opportunity to judge work objectively and critically by following clear standards. This skill can be transferred to the reviewers own work. According to Cassidy (2006), students work harder on submissions when they know that their peers are going to review their work. He also states that critical thinking and objective judging are two skills that employers require from employees.
Research has also shown that peer feedback has disadvantages. Surveys have shown that students prefer and value teacher feedback more than peer feedback (Hyland, 2006). Students often consider their L1 and L2 knowledge insufficient to provide peer feedback and they consider this the teacher's role.
Electronic feedback has additional advantages. As stated by Ware and Warschauer (2006: 110), student papers can be made widely available and foster the classroom community. This electronic discussion provides an audience outside of the classroom. It also speeds up the process compared to non-CMC environments, and the time it takes to redistribute of student work and provide feedback is shortened considerably. Sadler & Liu (2003) found in the first experiment of their study that students commented in more detail on grammar corrections and overall in electronic feedback. In the second experiment, they found that face-to-face communication led to a larger number of comments. These comments tended to be more conversational which lowered the quality of the peer feedback.
Students would be required (with grade or points) to submit a peer response.