Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An exploration of asynchronous and synchronous feedback modes in EFL writing

  • Published:
Journal of Computing in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the English as a foreign language (EFL) writing context, most of the research studies on the feedback process are conducted in a face-to-face context and few research studies have been conducted to investigate what actually happens in online feedback conditions. Thus, this study aimed to compare 44 EFL university students’ experience of employing asynchronous peer feedback (APF) and synchronous corrective feedback (SCF) and whether the utilization of these two modes affected EFL students’ writing on the aspect of syntactic complexity. The major findings suggested that most participants accepted this e-learning revision approach and received satisfactory results via using APF and SCF modes. The feedback that occurred in APF was potentially more usable than that in SCF in writing more sentences. It is assumed that as students added more words, they increased their writing scores after using APF. Although learners generally accepted both online feedback modes, the interview results revealed some of the reasons for learners’ preference for the APF over the SCF mode. Finally, the implications of these findings for future research are discussed and presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aubrey, S. (2012). Students’ reactions to using technology in an EAP writing class. In: Paper presented at the 9th International Far Eastern English Language Teachers Association Conference at Far Eastern Federal University, Vladivostok, Russia.

  • Chang, C. F. (2009). Peer review through synchronous and asynchronous modes: A case study in a Taiwanese college English writing course. JALTCALL Journal, 5(1), 45–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C. F. (2012). Peer review via three modes in an EFL writing course. Computers and Composition, 29, 63–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, K., Phelps, R., & Ellis, A. (2000). Group processes online: Teaching collaboration through collaborative processes. Educational Technology & Society, 3(3). Retrieved June 24, 2015, from http://www.ifets.info/journals/3_3/f06.html.

  • Frear, D. (2012). The effect of written corrective feedback and revision on intermediate Chinese learners’ acquisition of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The University of Auckland, New Zealand.

  • Ge, Z. G. (2011). Exploring e-learners’ perceptions of net-based peer-reviewed English writing. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6, 75–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guardado, M., & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 24, 443–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, M. C. (2015). The effects of face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review on EFL writers’ comments and revisions. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, M. C., & Savignon, S. J. (2007). Face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review in EFL writing. CALICO Journal, 24(2), 269–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 321–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2006). State of the art article: Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39, 83–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, J. H., & Schunn, C. D. (2011). Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: Their origin and impact on revision work. Instructional Science, 39, 387–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S. (2010). Revising the revision process with Google Docs. In S. Kasten (Ed.), TESOL classroom practice series. Alexandria: TESOL Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H. Y. (2014). Learning opportunities in synchronous computer-mediated communication and face-to-face interaction. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 26–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ko, C. J. (2012). Can synchronous computer-mediated communication (CMC) help beginning-level foreign language learners speak? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 25(3), 217–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, M., & Zhu, W. (2013). Patterns of computer-mediated interaction in small writing groups using wikis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(1), 61–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liang, M. Y. (2010). Using synchronous online peer response groups in EFL writing: Revision-related discourse. Language Leaning and Technology, 14(1), 45–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lightbown, P. M. (2008). Transfer appropriate processing as a model for classroom language acquisition. In Z. H. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process (pp. 27–45). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, S. M., & Griffith, P. (2014). Impacts of online technology use in second language writing: A review of the literature. Reading Improvement, 51(3), 303–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liou, H. C., & Peng, Z. Y. (2009). Training effects on computer-mediated peer review. System, 37(3), 514–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shintani, N. (2015). The effects of computer-mediated synchronous and asynchronous direct corrective feedback on writing: A case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning. doi:10.1080/09588221.2014.993400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shintani, N., Ellis, R., & Suzuki, W. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21, 27–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N., & Kuiken, F. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62, 1–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vyatkina, N. (2010). The effectiveness of written corrective feedback in teaching beginning German. Foreign Language Annals, 43, 671–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C. (2000). A sociolinguistic profile of English in Taiwan: Social context and learner needs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.

  • Wang, Y. C. (2014). Promoting collaborative writing through wikis: A new approach for advancing innovative and active learning in an ESP context. Computer Assisted Language Learning. doi:10.1080/09588221.2014.881386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, W. C. V., Petit, E., & Chen, C. H. (2015). EFL writing revision with blind expert and peer review using a CMC open forum. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(1), 58–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Y. F. (2011). A reciprocal peer review system to support college students’ writing. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(4), 687–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Lnaugage Writing, 15(3), 179–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST 105-2410-H-214-011).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Applied English, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan

    Hui-Fang Shang

Authors
  1. Hui-Fang Shang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hui-Fang Shang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Appendices

Appendices

Appendix 1: Peer feedback worksheet

Appendix 2: Self-editing worksheet

Appendix 3: Statistics of questionnaire survey

No

Statements

Mean

SD

Asynchronous peer feedback via Moodle

1

I like to do peer feedback via Moodle in writing classes

3.39

1.02

2

Peer feedback via Moodle is a waste of time

2.41

.90

3

I like to give feedback on my partner’s draft

3.41

.82

4

My partner can provide useful comments

3.39

.99

5

My partner’s comments can help me to write more complex sentences

3.18

.95

6

My partner’s comments can help me to use more accurate grammar

3.34

.99

7

My partner’s comments can help me to use more different words

3.25

1.04

8

My partner’s feedback is not useful for revising drafts

2.52

.95

9

Peer’s feedback can improve my writing quality

3.34

.96

10

I feel that peer’s feedback on the writing assignment is confusing

2.95

.73

11

I do not like to do peer feedback via Moodle because I cannot talk to my partner in person while giving feedback

2.57

1.02

12

It is easy to use Moodle when providing feedback on the writing assignment

3.73

.97

13

I feel comfortable using Moodle to interact with my partner

3.34

.91

14

I think peer feedback via Moodle should be used in writing classes

3.10

.82

Synchronous self-editing via Cool Sentence Corrective Network

15

The spelling and grammar checking feature via Cool Sentence Corrective Network are useful

3.70

.95

16

The function of Cool Sentence Corrective Network is very convenient for correcting my errors

3.86

1.03

17

By using Cool Sentence Corrective Network, correcting problematic sentences is helpful

3.75

.78

18

The comments provided by Cool Sentence Corrective Network can help me to write more complex sentences

3.23

.91

19

The comments provided by Cool Sentence Corrective Network can help me to use more accurate grammar

3.61

1.02

20

The comments provided by Cool Sentence Corrective Network can help me to use more different words

3.07

1.13

21

It is difficult to access Cool Sentence Corrective Network because I have to learn how to use it

2.34

1.03

22

Comments given by Cool Sentence Corrective Network about my problematic sentences are difficult to understand/read

2.36

.81

23

I can not understand and correct my own errors due to my limited English ability

2.59

.95

24

Generally speaking, using Cool Sentence Corrective Network increases my writing quality

3.47

.83

25

By using Cool Sentence Corrective Network, I can improve my writing when I revise my original text

3.66

.86

26

Cool Sentence Corrective Network is a useful tool to immediately understand my errors

3.89

.87

27

I think Cool Sentence Corrective Network should be used in writing classes

3.71

1.04

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shang, HF. An exploration of asynchronous and synchronous feedback modes in EFL writing. J Comput High Educ 29, 496–513 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9154-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9154-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation