Cited by 28EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningStudent Assessment and FeedbackEnglish Language Learning and Teaching

Creating an online community of inquiry: learner practice and perceptions of community-based feedback giving in academic writing

Chen, Wenting, Gao, Jianwu·2024·Computer Assisted Language Learning

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

Crossref · 10.1080/09588221.2022.2043381

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • 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”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, W., & Gao, J.
Affiliations
Capital Normal University (CN)
Corresponding author
Gao, Jianwu
Venue
Computer Assisted Language Learning
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