Creating an online community of inquiry: learner practice and perceptions of community-based feedback giving in academic writing
Abstract
While the importance of the peer feedback in second or foreign language (L2 or FL) classrooms in higher education has been increasingly recognized, empirical research on discussing peer feedback literacy from the perspective of community-based academic writing is very much in its infancy. Informed by the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework, this qualitative study aims to explore learners’ feedback practice and their perceptions of providing peer feedback in an online community-based academic writing task. The analysis was based on multiple sources of data (pre-task surveys, online community-based feedback entries, post-task stimulated recalls, in-depth group interviews, and follow-up WeChat interviews) from 31 Chinese undergraduates. The results indicated that although students provided feedback with different focuses, they valued online community peer feedback over traditional peer feedback for seeking affective appropriateness, facilitating social interaction, and seeking better practice. Additionally, students considered online community peer feedback practice could help with finding the reviewers’ own voices through different stages of reflective knowledge building processes, and transferring to subsequent revisions. This study provides pedagogical implications for how a community-based approach to online peer feedback can enhance students’ academic writing practice.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Public multi-peer feedback is superior in fostering critical and analytical skills, as diverse perspectives help students identify overlooked aspects in their own feedback practices.
“Notably, four articles have underscored the superiority of public multi-peer feedback in fostering these essential skills. Specifically, these studies reveal that the diverse perspectives accessible to individual students within the framework of public multi-peer feedback facilitate the identification of overlooked aspects in their own feedback practices, thereby facilitating the refinement and h”
From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Chen and Gao, 2024
Cites
Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective
Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.795518 · Cited by 966 · see citing works
To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing
Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002 · Cited by 843 · see citing works
Focusing on form: student engagement with teacher feedback?
Hyland, F. (2003) · System · doi:10.1016/s0346-251x(03)00021-6 · Cited by 411 · see citing works
Classroom Writing Assessment and Feedback in L2 School Contexts
Lee, I. (2017) · doi:10.1007/978-981-10-3924-9 · Cited by 386 · see citing works
Peer reviewers learn from giving comments
Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2011) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-010-9146-1 · Cited by 294 · see citing works
Nicol, D. (2009) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602930802255139 · Cited by 272 · see citing works
Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider
van Popta, E., Kral, M., Camp, G., Martens, R. L., & Simons, P. R.-J. (2017) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2016.10.003 · Cited by 269 · see citing works
Patchan, M. M., Schunn, C. D., & Correnti, R. J. (2016) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/edu0000103 · Cited by 165 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…to give sentence-to-sentence feedback comments to the writing sample either in English or in Chinese, in order to facilitate their localized comments to specific problems (Patchan et al., 2016) and engagement in open communication despite their limited English proficiency (Yu & Lee, 2016).”
BackgroundGao, Y., Schunn, C. D. D., & Yu, Q. (2019) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1499075 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Man, D., Xu, Y., & O’Toole, J. M. (2018) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2017.1376310 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A systematic review of the key components of online peer feedback practices in higher education
Gao, X., Noroozi, O., Gulikers, J., Biemans, H. J. A., & Banihashem, S. K. (2024) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100588 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges
Wei, Y., & Liu, D. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1506725 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
- Authors
- Chen, W., & Gao, J.
- Affiliations
- Capital Normal University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Gao, Jianwu
- Venue
- Computer Assisted Language Learning
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2022-03-19
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 493-520
- ISSN
- 0958-8221 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-3210
- OpenAlex
- W4220827540
- Cited by
- 28
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4
- FWCI
- 17.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Computer Assisted Language Learning (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Social Science Fund
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › English Language Learning and Teaching
- Keywords
- peer feedback, online peer feedback, community of inquiry, academic writing, second language writing, learner perceptions, feedback literacy, online writing communities, Chinese undergraduates, university writing instruction
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