CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 68

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of Peer E-Feedback on Turkish EFL Students' Writing Performance

Ciftci, Hatime, Kocoglu, Zeynep·2012·Journal of Educational Computing Research
DOI 10.2190/ec.46.1.c
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The present study investigated the effect of online peer feedback through blogs on Turkish EFL students' writing performance and their perceptions. Data were collected by using: a) Turkish EFL Students' Background Survey, b) interviews at the beginning and end of the term, c) first and revised drafts, and d) end-of-semester Questionnaire. The control group (15 students, classroom-based) attended in-class writing activities and utilized face-to-face oral discussions for peer feedback. The experimental group (15 students, blog-based) attended classes in the computer laboratory and integrated blog peer feedback into their process oriented writing classes. The results of mixed factorial analysis of variances (ANOVA) revealed that the students in both the control and experimental group improved their writing in their revised drafts. However, those in the experimental group showed higher performance in revised drafts. Finally, the analysis of interviews and end-of-semester questionnaires indicated positive perceptions on the use of blogs in their writing classes.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2190/ec.46.1.c

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 54

  1. 10.1080/09588221.2010.486575 · DOI
  2. Bloch J., 2007, Language Learning and Technology, 11, 128
  3. 10.1016/S8755-4615(01)00056-1 · DOI
  4. 10.1017/S095834400900010X · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.2167/la413.0 · DOI
  6. 10.1111/j.1944-9720.2005.tb02227.x · DOI
  7. 10.1080/09588220701865474 · DOI
  8. 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00331.x · DOI
  9. Fotos S., 2004, New perspectives on CALL for second language classrooms, 3
  10. 10.1016/j.compcom.2007.03.002 · DOI
  11. 10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.04.001 · DOI
  12. Hansen J. G., 2005, STETS Language & Communication Review, 4, 9
  13. 10.1093/elt/cci004 · DOI
  14. 10.1558/cj.v24i2.269-290 · DOI
  15. 10.14742/ajet.1091 · DOI
  16. 10.1080/09588220801943775 · DOI
  17. 10.1017/CBO9780511667251 · DOI
  18. 10.1017/S0261444806003399 · DOI
  19. 10.1016/j.jslw.2005.12.001 · DOI
  20. Jones S. J., 2006, Blogging and ESL writing: A case study of how students responded to the use of weblogs as a pedagogical tool for the writing process approach in a community college ESL writing class
  21. 10.1017/S0958344009000160 · DOI
  22. Kizil A. S., 2007, A quasi-experimental study on the effect of weblog integrated process approach on EFL students' writing performance, autonomous learning, and perceptions
  23. Lenhart A., 2006, Bloggers: A portrait of the internet's new storytellers
  24. Leverett T., 2006, Teaching English with Technology, 6
  25. Lin H., 2009, Journal of Applied Foreign Languages Fortune Institute of Technology, 3, 79
  26. 10.1016/j.system.2009.01.005 · DOI
  27. 10.1016/S1475-1585(03)00025-0 · DOI
  28. 10.3998/mpub.8952 · DOI
  29. 10.1080/00461520.2010.493470 · DOI
  30. 10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.00237.x · DOI
  31. McGee P., 2007, EDUCAUSE Review, 42
  32. 10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003 · DOI · Paper page
  33. 10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003 · DOI
  34. Namvar Y., 2009, iJET, 4, 33
  35. 10.1007/BF02940937 · DOI
  36. O'Reilly T. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Retrieved from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
  37. Porter J. E., 1998, Rhetorical ethics and internetworked writing
  38. 10.4018/978-1-60566-190-2.ch015 · DOI
  39. 10.1504/IJLT.2007.012368 · DOI
  40. 10.1093/elt/cci003 · DOI · Paper page
  41. Rourke A., Mendelssohn J., Coleman K., Allen B. (2008). Did I mention it's anonymous? The triumphs and pitfalls of online peer review. In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings of the Ascilite 2008 Conference, Institute of Teaching and Learning, Deakin University (pp. 830–840). Australia: Melbourne. Retrieved from: http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/rourke.pdf
  42. Selwyn N., 2007, Web 2.0 applications as alternative environments for informal learning—A critical review
  43. Sollars V., 2007, Blogs: Web journal in language education, 15
  44. Sun Y., 2009, Language Learning & Technology, 13, 88
  45. 10.4018/978-1-60566-190-2 · DOI
  46. Tribble C., 1996, Writing
  47. 10.1016/j.compcom.2004.02.003 · DOI
  48. Vygotsky L. S., 1978, Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes
  49. 10.29140/jaltcall.v5n2.78 · DOI
  50. Ward J., 2004, TEFL Web Journal, 3, 1
  51. 10.1017/CBO9781139524742.008 · DOI
  52. Ware P. D., 2008, Language Learning and Technology, 12, 43
  53. 10.1017/S0267190508070013 · DOI
  54. Wu C., 2006, US-China Education Review, 3, 69

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Ciftci, H., & Kocoglu, Z.
Affiliations
  • University of South Florida
  • Yeditepe University
Venue
Journal of Educational Computing Research
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2012-01
Volume
46
Issue
1
Pages
61-84
ISSN
  • 0735-6331
  • 1541-4140
DOI
10.2190/ec.46.1.c
Cited by
68
References
2
Language
en
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

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