CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 130

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Technology-supported peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing classes: a research synthesis

Chen, Tsuiping·2016·Computer Assisted Language Learning
DOI 10.1080/09588221.2014.960942
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Some studies on technology-supported peer feedback in the writing classroom claim that it reduces the threatening atmosphere caused by face-to-face interaction and that the discourse patterns and language use in the electronic feedback are more flexible than in spoken discourse. Others present a negative view that the comments generated from technology-supported interaction tend to be superficial and that technical problems reduce participant motivation in peer interaction. These contradictory results call for a systematic literature review of this topic. An exhaustive literature search in a variety of academic sources identified 95 studies from 1990 to 2010 dealing with peer feedback in English as a second or foreign language (ESL/EFL) writing classrooms. Of these, 54 contained qualitative data, 20 of which were specifically on computer-mediated peer feedback. Concentrating on these 20 articles, the researcher conducted comparative reviews of the characteristics, the pros and cons, and the differences between synchronous and asynchronous interaction for this mode of peer feedback, using Glaser and Strauss’ Grounded Theory (1967) Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. [Google Scholar] constant comparison method. Based on the findings, several main themes are identified and three implications involving pedagogy, group dynamics, and training for future research on this mode o…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09588221.2014.960942

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Research works printed but not linked: 65

  1. 10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80115-5 · DOI
  2. 10.1016/S8755-4615(97)90037-2 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/S8755-4615(01)00056-1 · DOI
  4. Cheng M.C., 2007, Taiwan Journal of TESOL, 4, 65
  5. *Chien, C. (2005). Effects of online peer response on EFL college writing (Unpublished master thesis). National Tsing-Hua University, Taiwan.
  6. 10.5539/elt.v1n1p34 · DOI
  7. 10.1093/elt/55.3.263 · DOI
  8. Donato R., 1994, Vygotskian approaches to second language research, 33
  9. Fellner T., 2006, The JALT CALL Journal, 2, 15, 10.29140/jaltcall.v2n1.19 · DOI
  10. Fitz M, 2006, Language Learning & Technology, 10, 67
  11. Glaser B.G., 1978, Theoretical sensitivity
  12. Glaser B.G., 1992, Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs. forcing
  13. Hirvela A., 1999, TESOL Quarterly, 8, 7, 10.1002/j.1949-3533.1999.tb00169.x · DOI
  14. Ho M., 2007, CALICO Journal, 24, 269, 10.1558/cj.v24i2.269-290 · DOI
  15. Hossler D., 1989, Review of Higher Education, 13, 1, 10.1353/rhe.1989.0000 · DOI
  16. *Huang, M. (2004). The use of process writing and internet technology in a Taiwanese college English writing class: A focus on peer reviews (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University Park: The Pennsylvania State University.
  17. Hyland K., 2006, Cambridge Journal, 39, 83
  18. 10.1093/elt/44.4.294 · DOI
  19. Kessler G., 2009, Language Learning & Technology, 13, 79
  20. 10.1080/09588220903467335 · DOI
  21. 10.1017/CBO9781139524735.003 · DOI
  22. 10.1076/0958-8221(200004)13:2;1-D;FT143 · DOI
  23. 10.11139/cj.27.2.260-276 · DOI
  24. 10.1080/09588221.2011.631142 · DOI
  25. Liang M.-Y., 2010, Language Learning & Technology, 14, 45
  26. Light R., 1984, Summing up: The science of reviewing research, 10.4159/9780674040243 · DOI
  27. Lin J.Y., 2005, Dissertation Abstracts International, 66, 2548
  28. 10.1016/j.system.2009.01.005 · DOI
  29. Liu J., 2005, Peer response in second language writing classroom
  30. 10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00025-0 · DOI
  31. 10.2307/3587558 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003 · DOI
  33. Min H.T., 2006, Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265
  34. Mittan R., 1989, Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students, 207
  35. 10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90010-8 · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.1016/1060-3743(92)90002-7 · DOI
  37. 10.4135/9781412985000 · DOI · Paper page
  38. 10.1007/BF01830068 · DOI
  39. 10.1080/09588220903184690 · DOI
  40. 10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.1177/003368829802900107 · DOI
  42. Sengupta S, 2001, Language Learning & Technology, 15, 103
  43. 10.1016/1060-3743(92)90004-9 · DOI
  44. Strauss A., 1990, Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedure and techniques
  45. Sullivan N., 1993, TESOL Journal, 3, 34
  46. 10.1016/S0346-251X(96)00044-9 · DOI
  47. Swaffar J., 1998, Language learning online: Theory and practice in ESL and L2 computer classroom
  48. 10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.x · DOI
  49. 10.1075/lllt.13.12tel · DOI
  50. 10.1016/j.compcom.2004.02.003 · DOI
  51. van Lier L, 1996, Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authenticity
  52. 10.1016/S1060-3743(96)90015-6 · DOI
  53. 10.1093/applin/19.4.491 · DOI
  54. Vygotsky L., 1978, Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes
  55. Wang M, 2004, English Teaching & Learning, 29, 63
  56. 10.1016/j.compcom.2004.08.004 · DOI
  57. 10.1017/CBO9781139524742.008 · DOI
  58. Warschauer M, 1996, CALICO Journal, 13, 7
  59. 10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00005-X · DOI
  60. Warschauer M., 2010, Language Learning & Technology, 14, 3
  61. 10.3138/cmlr.64.4.605 · DOI
  62. Wu W, 2006, Journal of Education and Foreign Language and Literature, 3, 125
  63. 10.2307/3586792 · DOI
  64. 10.2307/3586773 · DOI · Paper page
  65. 10.1177/0741088395012004004 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 130

Metadata

Authors
Chen, T.
Venue
Computer Assisted Language Learning
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2014-09-24
Volume
29
Issue
2
Pages
365-397
ISSN
  • 0958-8221
  • 1744-3210
DOI
10.1080/09588221.2014.960942
Cited by
130
References
9
Language
en

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Technology-supported peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing classes: a research synthesis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/09588221.2014.960942
The paper
Chen, T. (2016). Technology-supported peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing classes: a research synthesis. Computer Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.960942