Email this article 
Hide
Show all
Peer Evaluation in CMC Learning Environment and Writing Skill
Abstract
Peer evaluation and technology-based instruction as the various domains of language teaching perspectives might affect language development. Group work in a technology-based environment might be more successful when learners are involved in developing the assessment process particularly peer assessment. This study investigated the effectiveness of peer evaluation in technology-based language environment and its effects on English writing ability. To reach this goal, 70 Iranian learners were participated in English language writing context. They were divided into two groups, one group assigned to CMC (Computer-Mediated Communication) language learning context and the other assigned to a traditional learning environment. Both groups were encouraged to evaluate their classmates’ writing tasks. In addition, interviews were conducted with two learners. Comparing these two groups provides comprehensive guidelines for teachers as well as curriculum designers to set adjusted writing language environment for more effective and creative language teaching and learning. E-collaboration classroom tasks have high intrinsic motivation as well as significant effects on learners’ outcomes. Cooperative tasks specifically in technology-based environment lead learners to group working and consequently group learning. Computer-Mediated Communication is meaningful, especially in contexts in which teachers stimulate group work activities.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Abraham, L. B. (2008). Computer-mediated glosses in second language reading comprehension and vocabulary learning: A meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21, 199–226.
Balaban, I., Mu, E., & Divjak, B. (2013). Development of an electronic Portfolio system success model: An information systems approach. Computers & Education, 60, 396–411, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.06.013
Barker, T. T., & Kemp, F. O. (1990). Network theory: A postmodern pedagogy for the writing classroom. In C. Handa (Ed.), Computers and community: Teaching composition in the twenty-first century. Portsmouth, NH: Bonyton/Cook Publishers.
Baturay, M. H., Daloglu, A., & Yildirim, S. (2010). Language practice with multimedia supported webbased grammar revision material. ReCALL, 22(3), 313 331, DOI: 10.1017/S0958344010000182
Beaufort, A. (2007). College writing and beyond: A new framework for university writing instruction. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.
Börner, D., Kalz, M., & Specht, M. (2013). Beyond the channel: A literature review on ambient displays for learning. Computers & Education, 60, 426–435, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.06.010
Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (n.d.). Peer learning and assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 413-426.
Brudermann, C. (2010). From action research to the implementation of ICT pedagogical tools: Taking into account students’ needs to propose adjusted online tutorial practice. ReCALL, 22(2): 172–190.
Burke, M. (2011). Reading, writing, relationships: The impact of social network sites on relationships and well-being. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Camnalbur, M. (2008).A meta-analysis for the effectiveness of computer based education. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Marmara University, Institute of Educational Sciences, Turkey.
Celik, V., & Yesilyurt, E. (2013). Attitudes to technology, perceived computer self- efficacy and computer anxiety as predictors of computer supported education. Computers & Education, 60, 148–158, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.06.008
Chamberlin-Quinlisk, C. (2012). TESOL and media education: Navigating our screen-saturated worlds. TESOL QUARTERLY, 46(1), 152-164, Doi: 10.1002/tesq.7
Chang, CH., Liang, CH., & Chen, Y. (2013). Is learner self-assessment reliable and valid in a Web-based portfolio environment for high school students?.Computers & Education, 60, 325–334, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.05.012
Cooper, M. M., &Selfe, C. L. (1990). Computer conferences and learning: Authority, resistance, and internally persuasive discourse. College English, 52(8), 847-873.
Cress, U., Held, CH., & Kimmerle, J. (2013). The collective knowledge of social tags: Direct and indirect influence on navigation, learning, and information processing. Computers & Education, 60, 59–73, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.06.015
Dehghanian, A. & Azizi, M. (2011). English language acquisition and intercultural learning in computer mediated communication. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 1(4), 309-314.
Dix, S., & Cawkwell, G. (2011). The influence of peer group response: Building a teacher and student expertise in the writing classroom. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(4), 41-57 On-line available at: http://education.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/files/2011v10n4art3.pdf
Dunn, J. S., Luke, C., & Nassar, D. (2013). Valuing the resources of infrastructure: Beyond from-scratch and off-the-shelf technology options for electronic portfolio assessment in first-year writing. Computers and Composition, 30, 61–73, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2012.12.001
Gee, J. P. (2008). Are videogames good for knowledge acquisition?.Kulturens Studia Generalia. Svens kakultur fonden.Oy Nord Print. 8-23.
Gillam, K., & Wooden, Sh. R. (2013).Re-embodying online composition: Ecologies of writing in unreal time and space.Computers and Composition, 30, 24–36, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2012.11.001
Gleason, J., & Suvorov, R. (2011).Learner perceptions of asynchronous oral computer-mediated communication tasks using Wimba Voice for developing their L2 oral proficiency. In S. Huffman & V. Hegelheimer (Eds.), the role of CALL in hybrid and online language courses. Ames, IA: Iowa State University.
Greenfield, R. (2003). Collaborative e-mail exchange for teaching secondary ESL: a case study in Hong Kong. Language Learning & Technology, 7(1), 46-70.
Grosbois, M. (2011). CMC-based projects and L2 learning: Confirming the importance of nativisation. ReCALL 23(3): 294–310. doi:10.1017/S095834401100019X
Guichon, N. (2009). Training future language teachers to develop online tutors’ competence through reflective analysis.ReCALL, 21(2): 166–185.
Hackman, M. Z., & Walker, K. B. (1990). Instructional communication in the televised classroom: The effects of system design and teacher immediacy on student learning and satisfaction. Communication Education, 39 (3), 196-209.
Hamalainen, R., & Hakkinen, P. (2010). Teachers' instructional planning for computer-supported collaborative learning: Macro-scripts as a pedagogical method to facilitate collaborative learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 871-877, doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.025
Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005).Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59(1), 31-38.
Hodkinson, P., Biesta, G., & James, D. (2007).Understanding learning cultures. Educational Review, 59 (4), 415–427. doi:10.1080/00131910701619316
Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (1978). The Network Nation. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Hsu, H. Y.,Wang, S. K., & Comac, L. (2008). Using audioblogs to assist English-language learning: An investigation into student perception.Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21, 181–198.
Kaufman, D. B., Felder, R. M., and Fuller, H. (2000).Accounting for individual effort in cooperative learning teams. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(2), 133–140.
Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. Modern Language Journal, 79, 457-476.
Kerr, E. B., & Hiltz, S. R. (1982).Computer-mediated Communication Systems: Status and Evaluation. New York: Academic Press.
Killoran, J. B. (2013). Reel-to-Reel tapes, cassettes, and digital audio media: Reverberations from a half-century of recorded-audio response to student writing. Computers and Composition, 30, 37–49, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2013.01.001
Leh, A. S. C. (2000). Computer-mediated communication and foreign language learning via electronic mail. Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning, Retrieved on June 10, 2012 from http://www.imej.wfu.edu/articles/1999/2/08/printver.asp
Li, J. (2006). The mediation of technology in ESL writing and its implications for writing assessment. Assessing Writing, 11, 5-21, doi:10.1016/j.asw.2005.09.001
Lin, W. C., & Yang, S. C. (2011).Exploring students’ perceptions of integrating Wiki technology and peer feedback into English writing courses. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(2). 88-103, on- line available at: http://education.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/files/2011v10n2dial1.pdf
Loll, F., & Pinkwart, N. (2013). LASAD: Flexible representations for computer-based collaborative argumentation. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, 71, 91–109, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.04.002
Marie Johnson, G. (2008). Synchronous and asynchronous text-based CMC in educational contexts: A review of recent research. TechTrends, 50(4), 46-53.
Miller-Cochran, S., & Gierdowski, D. (2013). Making peace with the rising costs of writing technologies: Flexible classroom design as a sustainable solution. Computers and Composition, 30, 50–60, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2012.12.002
Mullamaa, K. (2010). ICT in language learning - benefits and methodological implications.International Education Studies, 3(1), 38-44.
Norton, L., Aiyegbayo, O., Harrington, K., Elander, J., & Reddy, P. (2012). New lecturers' beliefs about learning, teaching, and assessment in higher education: The role of the PGCLTHE programme. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 47(4), 345-356, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2010.518426
Östman, & Öhman. (2010). A transactional approach to learning. Paper presented at the AERA Annual Meeting, April–May, Denver.
Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19 (2), 139–158. doi:10.1080/10573560308222
Pauleen, D. J., & Yoong, P. (2001). Facilitating virtual team relation-ships via internet and conventional communication channels.Internet Research: Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 11(3), 190–202.
Pratt, E., & Sullivan, N. (1994, March). Comparison of ESL writers in networked and regular classrooms. Paper presented at the 28th Annual TESOL Convention, Baltimore, MD.
Rice, R. E. (1984). Mediated group communication. In R. E. Rice & Associates (Eds.), The New Media: Communication, Research, and Technology, 129-156, Beverly Hill, CA: Sage.
Roberts, T. S. (2006). Self, peer, and group assessment in e-Learning. Information Science Publishing, Hershey, PA, Internet and Higher Education, 317–320, doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.06.009
Romeo, K. (2008). A web-based listening methodology for studying relative clause acquisition. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21, 51–66.
Rupley, W. H., Blair, T. R. & Nichols, W. D. (2009). Effective reading instruction for struggling readers: The role of direct/explicit teaching. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 25(2-3), 125-138, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10573560802683523
Savoie, M. (2010).A Guidebook for Peer Evaluation. Valdosta State University, College of the Arts.
Slomp, D. H. (2012). Challenges in assessing the development of writing ability: Theories, constructs and methods. Assessing Writing, 17, 81–91, doi:10.1016/j.asw.2012.02.001
Theobald, M. (2006).Increasing Student Motivation. Strategies for Middle and High School Teachers. Corwin Press. A SAGE Publications Company, Thousand Oaks, California.
Tsai, S. C. (2011). Courseware integration into taskbased learning: a case study of multimedia coursewaresupported oral presentations for nonEnglish major students. ReCALL, 23(2), 117134, doi:10.1017/S0958344011000048
Uribe, D., Klein, J. D., & Sullivan, H. (2003).The effect of computer-mediated collaborative learning on solving III-defined problems.E1T&D, 51(1), 5-19.
Vries, E. D., & Masclet, C. D. (2013).A framework for the study of external representations in collaborative design settings. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, 71, 46–58, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2012.07.005
Warschauer, M. (1996a). Motivational aspects of using computers for writing and communication. Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Second Language Teaching & Curriculum Center.
Warschauer, M. (2007). Technology and writing. In C. Davison & J. Cummins (Eds.), The International Handbook of English Language Teaching. Norwell, MA: Springer.
Whyte, Sh. (2011). Learning to teach with videoconferencing in primary foreign language classrooms.ReCALL, 23(3), 271293 doi:10.1017/S0958344011000188
Wong, C. K. (2001). Attitudes and achievement: comparing computer based and traditional homework assignments in mathematics. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(5), 159–176.
Wu, S., Witten, I. H., Edwards, A., Nichols, D. & Aquino, R. (2007). A digital library of language learning exercises. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 2(1).
Yang, S. C. & Chen, Y. J. (2007). Technology-enhanced language learning: A case study. Computers in Human Behavior, 23: 860–879.
Zhou, L., Burgoon, J. K., Twitchell, D. P., Qin, T., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2004).A comparison of classification methods for predicting deception in computer-mediated communication. Journal of Management Information Systems, 20(4), 139–165.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.3n.5p.220
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
2012-2023 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature
To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.