Comparing the effectiveness of online and in-class collaborative writing

Abstract

The importance of peer review practice in writing courses has been strongly supported by pedagogical research due to its value in facilitating students’ writing progress. This study investigated college students’ experiences with different peer review modes in an academic writing course. We investigated three peer review modes: (i) face-to-face peer review (F2F), (ii) anonymous computer-mediated peer review (CMPR), where students provided feedback anonymously on an online platform, and (iii) blended peer review, where students conducted both F2F and CMPR. This study was guided by the question: What are students’ perceptions of and experiences with the three peer review methods? Three classes ( n = 66) enrolled in an academic writing course at a Singaporean university participated in this study. The three classes were assigned to the three peer review modes respectively over a semester. Surveys and interviews were administered to investigate students’ perceived usefulness of the feedback and their interactions with the reviewers. The findings show that students in all three groups were generally satisfied with the mode they were assigned to, but with a preference for the blended mode. The blended mode accommodates different learning needs by addressing the limitations of both F2F and CMPR and leveraging the merits of both modes. Several psychological and contextual factors were found to impact the effectiveness of peer review practices, including the closeness among peers, the presence of incentives, the functionality and affordances of an online peer-review platform, time constraint, and the instructions.