Volume 8, Issue 1 (3-2023)                   IJREE 2023, 8(1): 105-122 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Farahian M, Noori T. The Effectiveness of Peer Feedback through Google Docs for Improving EFL Students’ Classroom Engagement and Writing Achievement. IJREE 2023; 8 (1)
URL: http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-666-en.html
Department of ELT, Kermanshah Branch, Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah, Iran.
Abstract:   (1944 Views)
The present study sets to explore whether using peer feedback through Google Docs improves English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students’ classroom engagement. It also investigated the extent to which peer feedback through Google Docs improves EFL students’ writing achievement. Three groups of EFL students were involved in the study, namely control (N=23), experimental 1(N= 24), and experimental 2 (N=22). The control group received the treatment through the conventional writing course and the teacher read the writing task and provided feedback regarding the content, grammar, vocabulary, or punctuations. In addition to their regular in-class writing instruction, each student in the first experimental group was asked to choose a partner and email their drafts to them and the peers were required to provide feedback. In the second experimental group, the pairs provided the feedback through the Google Docs. One Way ANOVA was run to find any possible differences between the groups. Based on the findings, the second experimental group outperformed the other groups in their classroom engagement and writing achievement. The findings have implications for pedagogy as well as further research.
 
Full-Text [PDF 982 kb]   (462 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special

References
1. Admiraal, W., Wubbels, T., & Pilot, A. (1999). College teaching in legal education: Teaching method, students' time-on-task, and achievement. Research in Higher Education, 40(6), 687-704. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40196899 [DOI:10.1023/A:1018712914619]
2. Afzali, Z., & Izadpanah, S. (2021). The effect of the flipped classroom model on Iranian English foreign language learners: Engagement and motivation in English language grammar. Cogent Education, 8(1), 1-37. [DOI:10.1080/2331186X.2020.1870801]
3. Alharbi, M. A. (2020). Exploring the potential of Google Docs in facilitating innovative teaching and learning practices in an EFL writing course. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 14(3), 227-242. [DOI:10.1080/17501229.2019.1572157]
4. Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 465-483. [DOI:10.2307/328585]
5. Allen, D. (2004). Oxford placement test 2: Test pack. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6. Amorose, A. J., & Weiss, M. R. (1998). Coaching feedback as a source of information about perceptions of ability: A developmental examination. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 20(4), 395-420. [DOI:10.1123/jsep.20.4.395]
7. Andrade, H. L. (2010). Students as the definitive source of formative assessment. In H. Andrade & G. J. Cizek (Eds.), Handbook of formative assessment (pp. 90-105). Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9780203874851]
8. Astin, A. (1984). Student involvement: a developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 40, 518-529. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220017441_Student_Involvement_A_Development_Theory_for_Higher_Education
9. Ayçiçek, B., & Yelken, T. Y. (2018). The effect of flipped classroom model on students' classroom engagement in teaching English. International Journal of Instruction, 11(2), 385-398. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324112023_The_Effect_of_Flipped_Classroom_Model_on_Students%27_Classroom_Engagement_in_Teaching_English [DOI:10.12973/iji.2018.11226a]
10. Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K., & Mylonas, A. (2002). Developing procedures for implementing peer assessment in large classes using an action research process. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 427-441. [DOI:10.1080/0260293022000009302]
11. Beiki, M., Gharagozloo, N., & Raissi, R. (2020). The effect of structured versus unstructured collaborative pre-writing task on writing skills of the Iranian EFL students. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 5(1), 1-29. https://sfleducation.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40862-020-00092-0 [DOI:10.1186/s40862-020-00092-0]
12. Bolourchi, A., & Soleimani, M. (2021).The impact of peer feedback on EFL learners' writing performance and writing anxiety. International Journal of Research in English Education. 6(1), 1-15. http://ijreeonline.com/article-1-425-en.html [DOI:10.52547/ijree.6.1.1]
13. Bond, M., Buntins, K., Bedenlier, S., Zawacki-Richter, O., & Kerres, M. (2020). Mapping research in student engagement and educational technology in higher education: A systematic evidence map. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 17(1), 2-14. https://educationaltechnologyjournal.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8 [DOI:10.1186/s41239-019-0176-8]
14. Bradley, L., & Thouësny, S. (2017). Students' collaborative peer reviewing in an online writing environment. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 10(2), 69-83. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1165627.pdf
15. Brinko, K. T. (1993). The practice of giving feedback to improve teaching: What is effective? Journal of Higher Education, 64, 574-593. http://www.uky.edu/~gmswan3/575/brinko_1993.pdf [DOI:10.1080/00221546.1993.11778449]
16. British Council. (2018). IELTS task 2 writing band descriptors: Public Version.
17. Brodahl, C., Hadjerrouit, S., & Hansen, N. K. (2011). Collaborative writing with web 2.0 technologies: Education students' perceptions. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 10, 73-103. https://www.jite.org/documents/Vol10/JITEv10IIPp073-103Brodahl948.pdf [DOI:10.28945/1384]
18. Brown, D. (2016). The type and linguistic foci of oral corrective feedback in the L2 classroom: a meta-analysis. Lang. Teach. Res. 20(4), 436-458. [DOI:10.1177/1362168814563200]
19. Burbules, N., & Callister, T. (2000). Universities in transition: The promise and the challenge of new technologies. Teachers College Record, 102(2), 271-293. [DOI:10.1111/0161-4681.00056]
20. Burden, K. J. (2012). Crossing the transformation horizon: Conceptualizing teachers' learning and transformations with the affordances of Web 2.0. Doctoral dissertation, University of Hull.
21. Chaudron, C. (1988). Second Language Classrooms. Research on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge University Press, 40 West 20th Street, New York, NY 10011. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9781139524469]
22. Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (2012). Handbook of research on student engagement. New York: Springer Science & Business Media. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7]
23. Coates, H. (2006). Student engagement in campus-based and online education: University connections. New York: Routledge. [DOI:10.4324/9780203969465]
24. Coates, H. (2010). Development of the Australasian survey of student engagement (AUSSE). Higher Education, 60(1), 1-17. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40784042 [DOI:10.1007/s10734-009-9281-2]
25. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, M. R. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627-668. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/12712628_A_Meta-Analytic_Review_of_Experiments_Examining_the_Effect_of_Extrinsic_Rewards_on_Intrinsic_Motivation [DOI:10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627]
26. Dogan, U. (2015). Student engagement, academic self-efficacy, and academic motivation as predictors of academic performance. The Anthropologist, 20(3), 553-561. [DOI:10.1080/09720073.2015.11891759]
27. Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2017). Exploring the impact of online peer-editing using Google Docs on EFL learners' [DOI:10.1080/09588221.2017.1363056]
28. academic writing skills: a mixed methods study. Computer Assisted Language Learning 30(8), 787-815. [DOI:10.1080/09588221.2017.1363056]
29. Ebadi, S., & Rahimi, M. (2018). An exploration into the impact of WebQuest-based classroom on EFL learners' critical thinking and academic writing skills: a mixed-methods study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(5-6), 617-651. [DOI:10.1080/09588221.2018.1449757]
30. Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70-120. [DOI:10.3102/0034654312474350]
31. Fathi, J., Arabani,A. S., & Mohamadi, P. (2021). The effect of collaborative writing using Google Docs on EFL learners' writing performance and writing self-regulation. Language Related Research, 12(5), 333-359. http://lrr.modares.ac.ir/article-14-46326-en.html
32. Fathi, J., & Ebadi, S. (2020). Exploring EFL pre-service teachers' adoption of technology in a CALL program: obstacles, motivators, and maintenance. Education and Information Technologies, 25, 3897-3917. [DOI:10.1007/s10639-020-10146-y]
33. Ferris, D. R. (1997.) The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315-339. [DOI:10.2307/3588049]
34. Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59 -109. https://doi:10.3102/00346543074001059 [DOI:10.3102/00346543074001059]
35. Fredricks, J. A. (2015). Academic engagement. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (Vol. 2, pp. 31-36). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. [DOI:10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.26085-6]
36. Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children's academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148-162. https://doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.148 [DOI:10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.148]
37. Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ:
38. Erlbaum.
39. Godwin-Jones, R. (2008). Web-writing 2.0: Enabling, documenting, and assessing writing online. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), 7-12. Retrieved March 14, 2023 from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/74471/
40. Greenwood, C. R., Horton, B. T., & Utley, C. A. (2002). Academic engagement: Current perspectives on research and practice. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 328-349. [DOI:10.1080/02796015.2002.12086159]
41. Ha, X. V. (2017). Primary EFL teachers' oral corrective feedback in Vietnam: Beliefs and practices. Master of Research thesis. Macquarie University, NSW, Australia.
42. Hanrahan, S. J., & Isaacs, G. (2001). Assessing self- and peer-assessment: The students' views. Higher Education Research and Development, 20(1), 53-70. [DOI:10.1080/07294360123776]
43. Hedgcock, J., & Ferris, D. R. (2013). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process, and practice. New York: Routledge.
44. Huisman, B., Saab, N., van den Broek, P., & van Driel, J. (2019). The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students' academic writing: A meta-analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 863-880. [DOI:10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896]
45. Hyland, K. (2003). Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12 (1), 17-29. [DOI:10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00124-8]
46. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. Educause Review, 27(1), 1-12. https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning
47. Kalan, A. (2015). A practice-oriented definition of post-process second language writing theory. TESL Canada Journal 32(1), 1. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/232844375.pdf [DOI:10.18806/tesl.v32i1.1196]
48. Kaufman, J. H., & Schunn C. D. (2011). Students' perceptions about peer assessment for writing: Their origin and impact on revision work. Instructional Science, 39(3), 387-406. [DOI:10.1007/s11251-010-9133-6]
49. Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2010). Peer assessment as collaborative learning: A cognitive perspective. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 344-348. [DOI:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.005]
50. Leki, I. (1991). The preferences of ESL students for error correction in college-level writing classes. Foreign Language Annals 24(3), 203-218. [DOI:10.1111/j.1944-9720.1991.tb00464.x]
51. Li, S. (2010). The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x]
52. Learning, 60(2), 309-365. [DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x]
53. Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1999). Focus-on-form and corrective feedback in communicative language teaching. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 12(4), 429-448. doi:10.1017/S0272263100009517 [DOI:10.1017/S0272263100009517]
54. Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language classrooms. Lang. Teach. 46(1), 1-40. doi: [DOI:10.1017/S0261444812000365]
55. Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: a meta-analysis and research synthesis. In: Mackey, A. (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A collection of empirical studies. Oxford University Press, pp. 407-453.
56. Maftoon, P., Birjandi, P., & Farahian, M. (2014). Investigating Iranian EFL learners' writing metacognitive awareness. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 3(5), 37-51. doi:10.5861/ijrse.2014.896 [DOI:10.5861/ijrse.2014.896]
57. Maghsoudi, M., & Haririan, J. (2013). The impact of brainstorming strategies Iranian EFL learners' writing skill regarding their social class status. International Journal of language and Linguistics, 1(1), 60-67. https://doi. 10.11648/j.ijll.s.20130101.20 [DOI:10.11648/j.ijll.s.20130101.20]
58. Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns in the elementary, middle, and high school years. American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 153-184. [DOI:10.3102/00028312037001153]
59. Mebert, L., Barnes, R., Dalley, J., Gawarecki, L., Ghazi-Nezami, F., Shafer, G., & Yezbick, E. (2020).
60. Fostering student engagement through a real-world, collaborative project across disciplines and institutions. Higher Education Pedagogies, 5(1), 30-51. [DOI:10.1080/23752696.2020.1750306]
61. Murphy, M. P. (2020). COVID-19 and emergency e-learning: Consequences of the securitization of higher education for post-pandemic pedagogy. Contemporary Security Policy, 41(3), 1-14. [DOI:10.1080/13523260.2020.1761749]
62. Nassaji, H. (2016). Interactional feedback in second language teaching and learning: A synthesis and analysis of current research. Lang. Teach. Res. 20(4), 535-562. [DOI:10.1177/1362168816644940]
63. Nassaji, H. (2017). The effectiveness of extensive versus intensive recasts for learning L2 grammar. Mod. Lang. J. 101 (2), 353-368. [DOI:10.1111/modl.12387]
64. Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102-122. [DOI:10.1080/02602938.2013.795518]
65. Niess, M. L., & Gillow-Wiles, H. W. (Eds.) (2015). Handbook of research on teacher education in the digital age. Hershey, PA: IGI Global. [DOI:10.4018/978-1-4666-8403-4]
66. Oga-Baldwin, W. Q. (2019). Acting, thinking, feeling, making, collaborating: The engagement process in foreign language learning. System, 86, Article 102128. [DOI:10.1016/j.system.2019.102128]
67. Pan, C. C., & Sullivan, M. (2005). Promoting synchronous interaction in an e-learning environment. Technical Horizons in Education Journal, 33(2), 27-30.
68. Parsons, J., & Taylor, L. (2011). Student engagement: What do we know and what should we do? Retrieved from https://docplayer.net/237109-Student-engagement-what-do-we-know-and-what-should-we-do.html
69. Petchprasert, A. (2012). Feedback in second language teaching and learning.US-China Foreign Language, 10(4), 1112-1120. http://dl.icdst.org/pdfs/files1/9effbb593766c34c2bc00018b047a7fd.pdf
70. Pham, V. P. H. (2021). The effects of collaborative writing on students' writing fluency: An efficient framework [DOI:10.1177/2158244021998363]
71. for collaborative writing. SAGE Open. [DOI:10.1177/2158244021998363]
72. Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students' engagement by increasing teachers' autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 147-169. [DOI:10.1023/B:MOEM.0000032312.95499.6f]
73. Reeve, J., & Tseng, C. M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students' engagement during learning activities. [DOI:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002]
74. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257-267. [DOI:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002]
75. Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149-172). New York: Springer. [DOI:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_7]
76. Sa'diyah, H., & Nabhan, S. (2021). Collaborative writing using Google Docs in an EFL classroom: Voices from high school students. VELES Voices of English Language Education Society, 5(2), 156-166. [DOI:10.29408/veles.v5i2.3863]
77. Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535-550. [DOI:10.1080/02602930903541015]
78. Saeed, S., & Zyngier, D. (2012). How motivation influences student engagement: A qualitative case study. Journal of Education and Learning, 1(2), 252-267. https://doi:10.5539/jel.v1n2p252 [DOI:10.5539/jel.v1n2p252]
79. Saeed, M. A., & Ghazali, K. (2017). Asynchronous group review of EFL writing: Interactions and text revisions. Language Learning & Technology, 21(2), 200-226. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317332643_Asynchronous_group_review_of_EFL_writing_Interactions_and_text_revisions
80. Sanaeifar, S., & Mirshojaee, S. B. (2020). Optimizing students' engagement through implementing peer-assessment practice in Iranian public high school: An action research. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 10(8), 940-946. doi:10.17507/tpls.1008.12 [DOI:10.17507/tpls.1008.12]
81. Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
82. Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158. [DOI:10.1093/applin/11.2.129]
83. Seyyedrezaie, Z. S., Ghonsooly, B., Shahriari, H., & Fatemi, A. H. (2016). A mixed methods analysis of the effect of google docs environment on EFL learners 'writing performance and causal attributions for success and failure. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 17(3), 90-110. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1106359.pdf [DOI:10.17718/tojde.34418]
84. Shakki, F. (2022). Iranian EFL students' L2 engagement: The effects of teacher -student rapport and teacher support. Language Related Research, 13(3), 175-198. https://lrr.modares.ac.ir/files/lrr/user_files_749497/shakki69-A-10-57486-3-799b74b.pdf [DOI:10.52547/LRR.13.3.8]
85. Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children's behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(3), 493-525. https://doi:10.1177/0013164408323233 [DOI:10.1177/0013164408323233]
86. Slavkov, N. (2015). Sociocultural theory, the L2 writing process, and Google Drive: Strange bedfellows? TESL Canada Journal, 32(2), 80-94. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1083966.pdf [DOI:10.18806/tesl.v32i2.1209]
87. Steinlen, A. K. (2018). The development of German and English writing skills in a bilingual primary school in Germany. Journal of Second Language Writing, 39, 42-52. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2017.12.001]
88. Stell, A. (2018). Exploring the use of collaborative writing in an EFL classroom context. Retrieved from file:///C:/Users/SMA/Downloads/article03-1.pdf
89. Storch, N. (2004). Collaborative writing: Product, process, and students' reflections. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 153-173. [DOI:10.1016/j.jslw.2005.05.002]
90. Strijbos, J. W., & Sluijsmans, D. (2010). Unravelling peer assessment: Methodological, functional, and conceptual developments. Learning and Instruction, 20, 265-269. https://hal.science/hal-00703895/document [DOI:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.002]
91. Suleiman M. F. (2000). The process and product of writing: Implications for elementary school teachers. ERIC Digest, ERIC Identifier ED 442299.
92. Tsao, J. J. (2021). Effects of EFL learners' L2 writing self-efficacy on engagement with written corrective feedback. Asia-Pacific Edu Res. 30(6), 575-584. [DOI:10.1007/s40299-021-00591-9]
93. Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement literature review. Retrieved from https://www.scirp.org/(S(351jmbntvnsjt1aadkposzje))/reference/ReferencesPapers.aspx?ReferenceID=2382319
94. Viner, R. M., Russell, S. J., Croker, H., Packer, J., Ward, J., Stansfield, C., Booy, R. (2020). School closure and management practices during coronavirus outbreaks including COVID-19: a rapid systematic review. The Lancet Child and Adolescent Health, 4(5), 397-404. [DOI:10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30095-X]
95. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
96. Wang, Z., Bergin, C., & Bergin, D. A. (2014). Measuring engagement in fourth to twelfth-grade classrooms: The classroom engagement inventory. School Psychology Quarterly: The Official Journal of the Division of School, 29(4), 517-535. https://doi.org/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000050 https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000050 [DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000050]
97. Wang, W., & Li, S. (2020). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in American ESL and Chinese EFL classrooms: a comparative study. Lang. Cult. Curric. [DOI:10.1080/07908318.2020.1767124]
98. Widyastanti, M. (2019). Using Google Docs on collaborative writing (UIN SUNAN AMPEL SURABAYA).
99. Woodard, R., & Babcock, A. (2014). Designing writing tasks in Google Docs that [DOI:10.4018/978-1-4666-5982-7.ch001]
100. encourage conversation: An inquiry into feedback and revision. In R. S. Anderson (Ed.),
101. Handbook of research on digital tools for writing instruction in K-12 settings (pp. 1-
102. 29). IOI Global. doi: 10.4018/978-1-4666-5982-7.ch00l
103. Yulianto, D., & Mujtahin, N. M. (2021). Online assessment during Covid-19 pandemic: EFL teachers' perspectives and their practices. Journal of English Teaching, 7(2), 229-242. doi: [DOI:10.33541/jet.v7i2.2770]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | International Journal of Research in English Education

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb