Abstract:

In the teaching of writing, certain aspects of peer feedback on writing remain controversial; in particular, in the context of second language (L2) writing, there remain questions about how peer feedback supports the L2 writing process. (Liu & Sadler, 2003).

Peer feedback can have a positive effect on second language writing (Lundstrom & Baker, 2009). Additionally, technology related research fields increasingly testify that learning to write benefits from peers communicating in a web-based environment for language learning (Matsuda et al., 2003; Hyland & Hyland, 2006). These studies report how computer mediated communication itself provides a rich learning experience for second language learners, but also highlight that different web-based platforms provide different results.

This study investigates the effectiveness of one such web-based platform: SWoRD, a web-based peer review system. The basic principles behind the development of web-based peer review systems are as follows:
1) writing in higher education plays a significant role to develop content knowledge;
2) it assists in organising writing assignments and reduces the workload of instructors;
3) it provides students with an authentic audience to whom they give and from who they receive feedback; and
4) it enables students to practice writing through constant revision for the purpose of learning how to write (Cho & Schunn, 2004).

The aim of this study is to better understand how L2 learner-writers conduct peer feedback activities by looking at the types of feedback they provide and the factors that lead to the implementation of this feedback. A machine learning approach was used to predict how eight features, related to the peer feedback comments, performed on an L2 writing task amongst a group of first, second, and third year Bachelor students (N=43) from the department of Chemistry at the University of Tartu, Estonia. The results of this study indicate that peer feedback is effective amongst L2 writers using SWoRD web-based peer review system, if feedback instances propose specific alterations and if more than one peer makes a reference to a similar aspect in the text that needs changing.

References:
[1] Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2004). The SWoRD is mightier than the pen: Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline. Advanced Learning Technologies, 2004. Proceedings. IEEE International Conference on, 545–549.
[2] Crossley, S. A. (2013). Advancing research in second language writing through computational tools and machine learning techniques: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 46(02), 256-271.
[3] Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83–101.
[4] Liu, J., & Sadler, R. W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 193–227.
[5] Matsuda, P. K., Canagarajah, A. S., Harklau, L., Hyland, K., & Warschauer, M. (2003). Changing currents in second language writing research: A colloquium. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12(2), 151–179.

Keywords:

Web-based peer review systems, Machine Learning.