Abstract

This study investigates how two feedback forms and sequences influence peer feedback and revision. The two feedback forms included: written asynchronous computer-mediated communication (hereafter WACMC) in Google Docs and traditional oral face-to-face interaction (hereafter OF2F). These two forms were used in two sequences: WACMC followed by OF2F (WACMC–OF2F) and OF2F followed by WACMC (OF2F–WACMC). Participants were twenty-six Vietnamese EFL students. After feedback training, students completed four writing tasks, provided feedback in pairs, and finally revised their work. This study employed a mixed-method approach. Written and oral feedback, student revision, as well as student interviews were collected, transcribed, coded, and analysed. Paired-samples t-tests and ANOVA tests were employed to compare student feedback and revision in the two forms and sequences. The findings showed that: (1) more revision-oriented comments were associated with the WACMC form and with the WACMC–OF2F sequence; (2) written comments had a higher uptake rate in both sequences; (3) global revisions were more often found in the WACMC–OF2F sequence; (4) while students perceived WACMC feedback in Google Docs as more helpful than OF2F feedback, most suggested using both feedback forms. Pedagogical implications for the L2 writing class will also be included.

摘要

这项研究调查了两种反馈形式和顺序如何影响同伴的反馈和修订。这两种反馈形式包括：Google Docs中的书面异步计算机介导通信（以下称WACMC）和传统的口头面对面交互（以下称OF2F）。这两种形式以两种顺序使用：WACMC，然后是OF2F（WACMC–OF2F），OF2F，然后是WACMC（OF2F–WACMC）。参加者有26名越南EFL学生。经过反馈培训后，学生完成了四个写作任务，成对提供反馈，并最终修改了工作。这项研究采用了混合方法。收集，转录，编码和分析书面和口头反馈，学生修订以及学生访谈。配对样本t-测试和ANOVA测试用于比较两种形式和顺序的学生反馈和修订。研究结果表明：（1）更多面向修订的注释与WACMC表格和WACMC–OF2F序列相关；（2）书面评论在两个序列中的吸收率都较高；（3）在WACMC–OF2F序列中更经常发现全局修订；（4）尽管学生认为Google文档中的WACMC反馈比OF2F反馈更有帮助，但大多数人建议同时使用两种反馈形式。第二层写作课的教学意义也将包括在内。