Article Effect Of Online Peer Review Versus Face To Face Peer Review On Argumentative Writing Achievement Of EFL Learners

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ncal20
Computer Assisted Language Learning
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncal20
Effect of online peer review versus face-to-
Face peer review on argumentative writing
achievement of EFL learners
Ghada M. Awada & Nuwar Mawlawi Diab
To cite this article: Ghada M. Awada & Nuwar Mawlawi Diab (2021): Effect of online peer review
versus face-to-Face peer review on argumentative writing achievement of EFL learners, Computer
Assisted Language Learning, DOI: 10.1080/09588221.2021.1912104
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1912104
View supplementary material
Published online: 26 Jun 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data

COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING
Effect of online peer review versus face-to-Face
peer review on argumentative writing achievement
of EFL learners
Ghada M. Awada and Nuwar Mawlawi Diab
Lebanese American University, Beirut, Lebanon
ABSTRACT
This study set out to examine which peer review, face-to-
face given orally or online given in writing, is more effective
in improving the overall argumentative writing achievement
of English as a foreign language (EFL) university learners.
The study utilized an experimental design and reported on
one experiment including online peer review (OLPR) which
was the experimental group (n=74) and a face-to-face peer
review (FTFPR) which served as the control group (n=48).
Both groups (n=122) were trained in the use of their respec-
tive peer review, OLPR or FTFPR. Both groups wrote two
argumentative synthesis essays, immediate and delayed, in
two drafts. The second draft of each essay was written after
receiving the respective peer review, OLPR or FTFPR. Two
Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) tests and a
qualitative analysis of peer reviews were conducted to
address the study question. Quantitative findings showed
that participants in the OLPR group significantly outper-
formed their FTFPR counterparts in improving the argumen-
tative synthesis writing of EFL university learners. The
qualitative analysis of the peer review forms, and the revised
essays revealed that the OLPR group gave more systematic
feedback than that of FTFPR, OLPR focused on content,
organization and language while commenting on the writing
strengths and weaknesses. Thus, instructors are advised to
use OLPR in argumentative writing classes. The study also
showed the significance of shifting the control of feedback
from the teacher to students.
Introduction
Computer-Assisted Language Learning (CALL) is defined as the ‘study
of the applications of the computer in language teaching and learning’
(Levy, 1997, p. 1). In a study on collaborative writing using online
resources, Hsieh (2020) showed that to increase learning, collaboration
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Ghada M. Awada ghadawada@gmail.com Lebanese American University, Beirut, Lebanon
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1912104
KEYWORDS
Argumentative synthesis
writing achievement;
computer assisted
language learning
(CALL); face-to-face peer
review (FTFPR); online
peer review (OLPR)

2 G. M. AWADA AND N. M. DIAB
and interaction, CALL should be integrated into L2 writing. CALL
integration into writing provides ideal learning opportunities due to its
word processing, collaborative and critical writing features (Awada,
Burston, & Ghannage, 2020). CALL also supports learning by allowing
students to apply learning strategies asynchronously at their own pace
and in comfortable non-threatening surroundings (Pham, 2021).
Furthermore, CALL can have a motivational effect on English as a
Foreign Language (EFL) writing classes (Ghufron & Nurdianingsih, 2019;
Zaghlool, 2020) as it gives students the chance to take learning into
their own hands and to become independent learners (Dina & Ciornei,
2013; Awada et al., 2020). To explicate, Lai, Yeung and Hu (2016) who
examined teachers’ perceptions of their roles in promoting autonomous
language learning reported that ‘out-of-class use of technology for lan-
guage learning can compensate for the limited time in class and was
needed to study or strengthen the areas that teachers are not able to
cover during class’ (p. 709). Moreover, CALL allows students to ‘access
the same material over and over again’ and provides ‘immediate and
nonjudgmental feed-back’ necessary for language learning (Dina &
Ciornei, 2013, p. 249). Although feedback has been the prerogative of
teachers, the paradigm shift in education from a teacher-centered to a
student-centered approach has encouraged EFL teachers to integrate peer
feed review into their writing classrooms. Thus, EFL teachers have been
training their students to review their peers’ writing and respond to
peer feedback when revising their own writing.
Peer review can be face-to-face peer review (FTFPR) or
computer-mediated peer review i.e. online peer review (OLPR). Both
types ‘have become a prominent line of inquiry’ (Pham, 2021, p. 2).
While FTFPR is given orally, OLPR is ‘a task involving the use of tech-
nology to reflect and give comments to another with the purpose of
improving the writing quality’ (Breuch, 2004). It is ‘a completely written
activity, with feedback taking place asynchronously with identifiable
peers’ (Hine, 2017, p. 41). However, there has been no conclusive answer
to the question of which method is more effective, computer-assisted,
or face-to-face peer review (Pham, 2021). To elaborate, some studies
(Law, Barny, & Poulin, 2020; Tai, 2016; Wu, Yang, Scott Chen Hsieh,
& Yamamoto, 2020) indicated that online discussion improved interaction
and engagement among peers. Moreover, these studies showed that more
teachers are adopting CALL in their writing classrooms since online
resources can increase interest, enhance the learning environment, and
accordingly, improve EFL learners’ writing proficiency. More importantly,
Ho and Savignon (2007) assert that FTFPR is more efficient than OLPR,
for it provides learners with opportunities to discuss and correct their
mistakes, thus improving their writing. In addition, FTFPR ensures

COMPUTER ASSISTED LANGUAGE LEARNING 3
student conversations and communications which OLPR denies
(DiGiovanni & Nagaswami, 2001). Furthermore, students favor FTFPR
over OLPR as shown in the findings of Ho and Savignon (2007) which
have reported that ‘responses to the Likert-scale items suggested that
although learners accepted both peer review modes, they had more
favorable attitudes toward FFPR than CMPR’ (p. 284).
Hence, many studies have investigated the advantages of OLPR or
those of FTFPR, but few studies have compared OLPR to FTFPR, par-
ticularly with respect to writing achievement (Hine, 2017) although
OLPR and FTFPR are commonly practiced in writing courses. Even
fewer studies have compared the different effects of OLPR and FTFPR
on the argumentative synthesis writing of university students. Conducting
a comparison of FTFPR and OLPR is much needed now due to the
spread of Corona pandemic, which imposed social distancing, and the
news that this virus may plague the world for a while (Alsop & Bencze,
2020) thus hindering students’ face-to face interaction. Accordingly, EFL
teachers need to know whether students may use OLPR to explain
writing components to each other, discuss editing rubrics, and provide
their colleagues with feedback that may help them in revising their
global and local errors and develop their argumentative writing.
More importantly is that online education including OLPR in Lebanon
may be impeded to a certain extent due to the dire circumstances
Lebanon has been mainly facing since October 2019. Such impediments
include ‘economic and political unrest’, ‘2 million displaced persons and
500,000 migrant workers, all within 10,452 km2
’ (Khoury, Azar, & Hitti,
2020, p. 549). Furthermore, unlike the American universities located in
Lebanon, the Lebanese public university that is accommodating 80,000
students, suffers from lack of computer facilities. Students of both
American and public universities suffer from power outages, which may
further hinder online learning (Rouadi & Anouti, 2020).
Thus, in an attempt to bridge the gap in the existing literature con-
cerning which peer review, OLPR or FTFPR, is more effective in improv-
ing argumentative synthesis writing performance of university learners
at an American university located in Beirut, the capital of Lebanon, this
study utilizes both the traditional face-to-face peer review (FTFPR) given
orally and the computer-assisted online peer review(OLPR) given in
writing.
Literature review
The review of over 350 studies have revealed that, ‘in spite of an
abundance of publications available on the topic of technology use in
EFL learning and teaching, evidence of efficacy is limited’ (Taghizadeh

& Hasani Yourdshahi, 2020, p. 982). Moreover, Golonka, Bowles, Frank,
Richardson, and Freynik (2014) have reported ‘moderate support for
claims that technology enhanced learners’ output and interaction, affect
and motivation, feedback, and metalinguistic knowledge’ (p. 70).These
findings apply to the learning situation in third world countries where
online learning is often impeded by lack of computer facilities and
teachers’ lack of technological skills. For example, in Lebanon, there
is a shortage of computer facilities in some universities and poor
Internet connectivity across some rural areas in the country, which
hinders the effective implementation of online learning (Rouadi &
Anouti, 2020). Moreover, some studies have compared conducting
face-to-face peer review to computer-mediated peer review and con-
cluded that face-to-face peer review provides better interaction between
students (DiGiovanni & Nagaswami, 2001; Ho & Savignon, 2007).
DiGiovanni and Nagaswami (2001) investigated whether online peer
review (OLPR) could be a good alternative to face-to-face peer review
(FFPR). Results revealed that FTFPR ensured students the conversations
and communications that OLPR denied. Another study conducted by
Ho and Savignon (2007) examined the attitudes of college students in
Taiwan regarding FFPR and CMPR [computer-mediated peer review].
Findings showed that students favored FFPR over CMPR. Moreover,
the study concluded that FTFPR is more efficient, for it provides
learners with opportunities to discuss and correct their mistakes, thus
improving their writing. Other studies have demonstrated that FTFPR
allowed interaction, improved writing and revision (de Guerrero
&Villamil, 2000; Donato, 1994) as well as developed students’ language
skills (Ohta, 2000). Moreover, Lundstrom and Baker (2009) compared
students who provided FTFPR to those who received it. They concluded
that students who reviewed their colleagues’ writing and those who
received peer review produced better writing. However, those who
provided peer reviews had better writing quality than those who
received the reviews.
Conversely, research has reported some disadvantages for FTFPR.
The first, disadvantage may be the students’ tendency to chat and
give face-saving praise. Furthermore, writing teachers cannot monitor
all students’ conversations during peer review. A third pitfall for
FTFPR is that students might be rushed to carry out peer review
and to give substantial comments (Yang, 2011). In addition, some
students may not feel at ease during FTFPR (Spear, 1987). Peer review
might also threaten and shake learners’ self-esteem (Scollon &
Scollon, 2000).
Other researchers asserted the effectiveness of OLPR and found that
it provides a forum for social learning, collaboration, and engagement

(DiGiovanni & Nagaswami, 2001; Hsieh, 2020; Moloudi, 2011; Pritchard
& Morrow, 2017; Purchase & Hamer, 2018). Others (Taylor, Ryan, &
Pearce, 2015; Purchase &Hamer, 2018) asserted the effectiveness of
OLPR in significantly improving students’ writing performance.
Warschauer (1996) reported other advantages of OLPR. In a study
involving 16 English as a Second Language (ESL) writing students,
Warschauer (1996) concluded that OLPR forums allow students who
struggle with inhibition or poor social skills to contribute more than
they would in FTFPR writing sessions. OLPR could also help learners
to overcome socioemotional challenges as it enabled learners to decrease
anxiety (Warschauer, 1996). However, the OLPR environment denied
students the opportunity to have real life conversations. Similarly,
Breuch’s (2004) findings concluded that students, in general, preferred
OLPR over FTFPR as the online environment provided students with
more time and more comfort to give substantial comments in an
anxiety-reduced atmosphere. Another study (Hine, 2017) involved stu-
dents from two universities. Students of the first university received
OLPR while students of the second university received FTFPR. The
findings of the study stressed the effectiveness of OLPR compared to
FTFPR and argued that online environment helped students overcome
shyness and poor social skills. Hine concluded that ‘OLPR’s advantages
seem to outweigh its disadvantages’ (p. 31). Moreover, Ho and Savignon
(2007) showed that ‘the attitudes of 2-year college students in Taiwan
toward the use of FFPR [face-to-face peer review] and CMPR
[computer-mediated peer review] in composition classes’ (p. 269)
favored FFPR over CMPR.
The current study is framed by two theories, namely Vygotsky’s (1978)
sociocultural theory and the Writing Process Theory. Vygotsky’s (1978)
sociocultural theory (ST) involves reciprocal teaching and scaffolding
to develop the writing skills of first and second languages (Donato,
1994). In the present study, peer review exemplifies Vygotsky’s notion
of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) where a learner can achieve
a task with the help of a more knowledgeable other. Moreover, ST builds
on Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) as learning and
the acquisition of writing skills occur during social interaction. Hence,
the social traits of peer review can improve writing facilitated by social
interactions (Hawkins, 2004). Moreover, this study is framed within the
Writing Process Theory (WPT) which encompasses the following stages:
Prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing (Emig, 1983). The
tasks of the writing process differ, yet they build on each other (Hairston,
1982). Thus, peer review, whether it is online or face-to-face, demands
collaboration among peers as they carry out revisions on two drafts of
the argumentative essay.

Methodology
The purpose of the study is to examine the effect of OLPR and FTFPR
in improving the argumentative writing achievement of EFL university
learners. As such, the present study addressed the following research
question:
Which type of feedback, FTFPR or OLPR, is more effective in improv-
ing the overall argumentative synthesis writing achievement of EFL
university learners?
Participants
The participants in this study were Lebanese, Syrian, Kuwaiti, Sudanese,
Rwandese, Jordanian and Yemeni students registered in five intact classes
of a sophomore level writing course titled Advanced Writing and
Research Skills. The initial sample size was 129 students. Five outliers
were identified and dropped after looking at the standardized score (C)
of the remaining students. These 5 outliers were dropped as they had
passed their Academic English II with a D and D + while the other
students had already passed Academic English I and Academic English
II courses with a minimum score of 70 out of 100, which is equivalent
to a grade of ‘C’. The prerequisite for the Advanced Writing and Research
Skills course is ‘C’. In addition, inspection of multivariate probability
estimates (p < .00) through sorting cases by Mahalanobis Distance
resulted in the deletion of 2 additional multivariate outlier cases. As
such, the final sample size consisted of 122 cases with all skewness and
kurtosis values within acceptable ranges to ensure acceptable skewness
values as suggested by Brown (1996). Consequently, the two cases from
the initial sample who scored below 7.56 and the three cases who scored
above 16.54 of the population mean of 12. 05, SD 4.49 were excluded
from the final analysis. Students in the five classes were assigned to
two groups. One experimental group included three classes (74 partic-
ipants: 34 males and 40 females), while the control group comprised
two classes (48 participants: 21 males and 27 females).There was no
balance in terms of the number of participants in each group since only
five classes were available to serve as subjects for the present study.
Participants’ ages in the two groups ranged from 20–24. The native
language of all participants, excluding the Rwandese, is Arabic. Students
registered in the Advanced Writing and Research Skills course received
3 hours of EFL instruction each week at an American university in
Lebanon, where English is used as the medium of instruction.
Five instructors (none of whom is an author of this paper) facilitated
the Advanced Writing and Research Skills course offered to the two
groups. Four instructors had a Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics and one

instructor had an M.A. degree in English Language. The experience of
the instructors ranged from 5 to 12years. Three instructors taught three
classes utilizing OLPR. The other two instructors taught two groups
using FTFPR. The treatment was randomly assigned to classes.
Research design
The study involved an experimental design. Participants were randomly
assigned to experimental and control groups that were tested on their
performance on two argumentative synthesis essays. Writing and review-
ing rubrics were used for assessment purposes to answer the study’s
research question. The argumentative writing rubric was adapted from
University of Colorado (Appendix A, supplementary material) while the
peer editing form (Appendix B, supplementary material) was prepared
by the second author of this paper.
Treatment
The treatment was given during the 12-week Advanced Writing and
Research Skills course which started in the second week of January
2020. The experimental group utilized OLPR and the control group
used FTFPR. Participants of both groups received training in argumen-
tative synthesis writing and peer review in the first four weeks.
Argumentative synthesis writing is part of participants’ course require-
ments which incorporated as well exploratory, personal response and
journal writing assignments. The argumentative synthesis essay was
selected since synthesis involves higher order thinking skills as explained
in Bloom’s taxonomy (Anderson & Bloom, 2001). Moreover, synthesis
analysis ‘provided a basis for moving curricula and tests toward objec-
tives that would be classified in the more complex categories’ (Krathwohl,
2002, p. 2).To write an argumentative synthesis, students were asked to
extract ideas from different sources, compare these ideas and use them
to develop and support their own arguments.
The instructors explained synthesis writing with the help of an essay
rubric (Appendix A, supplementary material). Next, the instructors
modeled for the experimental and control groups how to give construc-
tive feedback using former student argumentative essay writing and
discussed comments on content, organization, and language. In alignment
with Vygotsky’s notion of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD),
peer review required a learner to carry out revisions with the help of
a more knowledgeable peer who provided comments suggesting the
revisions. In this study, students worked in pairs, each editing the other’s
writing. Every student was considered more knowledgeable than his/her

partner in at least one aspect (content, organization, sentence structure,
vocabulary or grammar) as students do not have identical abilities. The
instructors of OLPR and FTFPR stressed the need to discuss the writing
with the student writer, whether online or face-to-face, depending on
the respective peer review. The FTFPR group conducted peer review in
class, while the OLPR group reviewed each other’s writing at home. The
argumentative essay prompts, the essay rubric and the graded peer
editing forms were common for all participants.
The instructors of both OLPR and FTFPR groups asked students to
understand the intended message, negotiate areas of ambiguity before
embarking on giving clear and respectful feedback, which students in
the two groups applied through FTFPR or OLPR. The instructors of
the two groups answered all students’ questions on the two essays and
on the utilization of the essay rubric but did not play any role in the
peer review process. During FTFPR, the instructors walked around the
room listening to the feedback students gave each other but could not
hear all discussions as all FTFPR pairs were giving feedback at the same
time. Thus, the instructors could not hear and follow all the discussions
that went on with each pair. Instructors counted on the recording done
in class, but the voice quality was not always clear as conversations were
being recorded at the same time.
In reference to the Writing Process Theory (WPT) which encompasses
prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing (Emig, 1983), OLPR
and FTFPR participants were asked to write two argumentative synthesis
essays guided by the essay rubric (Appendix A, supplementary material)
and written in two drafts each. Participants were asked to submit draft
2 of each essay after receiving the respective feedback on draft1. The
first argumentative synthesis essay of around 1800 words was written
on the topic ‘Argue with or against Jon Krakauer’s statement: Happiness
is only real when shared’. After writing draft 1 of the argumentative
synthesis essay in week 5, students in each group were asked to exchange
and peer review each other’s essays, then revise and rewrite their own
essays in response to the feedback they received. In their peer reviews,
both groups (OLPR and FTFPR) gave their peers directive feedback
(pointed out to writers the positive aspects of their writing, the parts
that needed improvement, and offered suggestions) and non-directive
feedback (posed questions to probe writers’ thoughts and indicated that
changes should be made) (Van den Bos & Tan, 2019). Students also
gave each other higher-order feedback (comments on content and logic)
as well as lower-order feedback (comments on language).
To assist participants in conducting their respective OLPR and FTFPR,
both groups used a peer editing form (Appendix B, supplementary
material) which served as guiding tool. To encourage participants to

give peer review, they were given a completion grade upon filling out
the peer editing form that demanded participants to give scores to each
part of the argumentative essay as shown in Appendix C, supplementary
material. The editing form was filled after providing OLPR and FTFPR.
Students in the experimental group provided written peer feedback to
each other on draft 1 of their essay using Moodle from their homes
whereas the control group provided FTFPR to each other during a
75-minute class. MOODLE stands for ‘Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic
Learning Environment. It is a system used for online learning. The
design of Moodle is based on socio-constructivist pedagogy. This means
its goal is to provide a set of tools that support an inquiry- and
discovery-based approach to online learning’ (Brandl, 2005, p. 16). The
OLPR group used Moodle as a venue for receiving, submitting and
posting their essays and peer editing forms. They also used Moodle to
get the prompts of the two argumentative synthesis essays and to post
the two filled-out peer editing forms (Appendix C, supplementary mate-
rial). In contrast, students in the FTFPR group orally provided their
peers with FTF feedback on draft 1 and used the peer editing form as
a guide and to mark their peers’ essays.
Also, in week 5, participants depending on the group they belonged
to posted or submitted their final draft of essay 1 which they had written
in response to their received peer review (OLPR or FTFPR). Instructors
graded draft 2 of essay 1(immediate posttest) written immediately after
their training ended and graded the peer review. In week 11, students
were asked to write a second essay (around 1800 words) to argue with
or against the statement of Lindsay McKenzie: ‘Artificial intelligence
technology has foiled chess masters and Jeopardy! champions, but it
hasn’t won a debating competition against a human—yet’. The same
process applied in writing and revising argumentative synthesis essay 1
was also implemented in essay 2 (delayed posttest) written 6weeks after
the immediate posttest. The second argumentative essay (drafts 1 and
2) were written in week 11. Instructors graded draft 2 of essay two
(delayed posttest).
Each one of the two essays accounted for 35% of the final grade. In
each essay, the grade given by the teachers accounted for overall lan-
guage, accurate and appropriate information and evidence, sources’ valid-
ity and reliability, supporting arguments, supporting evidence, opposing
argument, evidence from two or more sources that might be used to
support the opposing argument and a brief conclusion summarizing the
supporting arguments. The teachers were better able to monitor OLPR
than FFPR feedback as they used the prints of OLPR but could not
hear much of FTFPR. To assess how well FTFPR helped student pairs
in revising their writing, the teachers depended on some comments the

student had written on the peer review form to remind them of the
feedback they had received. The argumentative essay prompts, the essay
rubric and the graded peer editing forms were common for all
participants.
Figure 1 below illustrates the procedure used in this study.
Data collection
The data collection tools used in this study were (a) draft 2 of essay
one written immediately after training in peer review; argumentative
synthesis essay 1 was written in drafts 1 and 2. Draft 2 was written
as a response to the respective feedback received, OLPR or FTFPR),
draft 2 of essay two written in week 11; argumentative synthesis essay
2 was also written in drafts 1 and 2; (b) draft two was also written
after receiving the respective feedback, FTFPR or OLPR; (c) each graded
using the argumentative writing rubric; a qualitative analysis of peer
editing forms was filled out by OLPR group and submitted online. As
such, the peer editing forms filled out by OLPR group were printed
Figure 1. Procedure of the study.

out as they were posted to Moodle; (d) qualitative analysis of peer
editing forms used as a guide by FTFPR group because FTFPR was
given orally.
Data analysis
Two Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) were used to
compare the groups’ argumentative writing achievement using results of
the two drafts of Essay 1) (immediate post-test) and the results of the
two drafts of Essay 2 (drafts 1 and 2) (delayed posttest). The researchers
in collaboration with the course instructors conducted the qualitative
analysis of both OLPR peer editing forms (see Appendix B, supplemen-
tary material). FTFPR was given orally, yet some students in the FTFPR
group wrote some comments while they were reading the peer editing
forms, which were typed to serve the purpose of the present study. The
qualitative analysis and grading of each peer editing form (OLPR or
FTFPR) was based on the peer editing forms (Appendix B, supplemen-
tary material). In order to encourage students of both OLPR and FTFPR
groups to be guided by the peer editing forms, the instructors told them
that the peer editing forms they fill out would be graded. As such, the
OLPR group used the peer editing forms to give the OLPR and to grade
each part of the reviewed essay whereas the FTFPR students were asked
to grade each part of the reviewed essay as part of that assignment
since the FTFPR was given orally. However, the scores given on the
peer editing forms were not used in this study, and only the quantitative
analysis of essay 1 and essay 2 scores was utilized in this study. The
students’ peer editing forms were sampled as mere examples forming
qualitative data. SPSS was used to yield descriptive statistics (means and
standard deviations) that were calculated for all the study variables.
Furthermore, Cronbach alpha reliability values were computed. The
inter-rater reliability value of Cohen K = .72, p < .00.
Results
Two Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) tests along with
the qualitative analysis of OLPR graded peer editing forms were con-
ducted to address the study question of whether there were statistically
significant differences at the p < .05 probability level between the treat-
ment conditions in improving the overall argumentative writing achieve-
ment of the study participants. Specifically, the treatment conditions
with two levels (OLPR versus FTFPR) were used as an independent
variable, the immediate and delayed overall achievement scores as depen-
dent variables, and the pre-test overall achievement scores as a covariate.

Specifically, the study aimed at answering the following question: Which
type of peer review, OLPR or FTFPR, is more effective in improving
the overall argumentative writing achievement of EFL university learners?
The results of this study showed that there were statistically significant
differences between OLPR and FTFPR in favor of OLPR in improving
the overall argumentative writing achievement of EFL university learners.
Table D1 reports descriptive statistics on the overall immediate and
delayed writing achievement by treatment conditions.
Table D2 below reports the results of the MANCOVA analysis con-
ducted to address the question regarding the effect of the treatment
conditions on the overall immediate and delayed writing achievement
of the study participants.
Table D3 reveals that the overall multivariate F value was not signif-
icant for the pretest indicating that the online and face-to-face treatment
groups did not initially differ in terms of the writing achievement prior
to the treatment. F (2,188) = 2.82, p = .06, Ŋ2 = .04. Conversely, there
was an overall significant difference between the two groups in their
essay 1 (immediate post-test) achievement as well as an improvement
in essay 2 (delayed post-test) writing achievement in favor of the online
group: F (1,119) = 10,71, p = .00, Ŋ2 = .08 and F (1,119) = 30.75, p
= .00, Ŋ2 = .25, respectively.
Specifically, the OLPR group outperformed FTFPR group in immediate
writing achievement (Mean 11.45, SD 1.50) versus (Mean 10.46 (SD =
1.13). Likewise, the OLPR outperformed the FTFPR group in delayed
argumentative writing achievement (Mean 13.09, SD 1.61) versus (Mean
11.5 (SD = 1.33).
Table D4 below reports descriptive statistics on the immediate and
delayed argumentative writing achievement by treatment conditions.
These results indicate that OLPR had a more beneficial effect in
improving delayed achievement than FTFPR.
Qualitative analysis of OLPR peer editing forms
Although the quantitative data and the yielded SPSS descriptive statistics
were used to answer the study question, the qualitative analysis of peer
editing forms was also used to describe the OLPR or the peer review
given by the experimental group and the FTFPR given by the control
group (see Figures C1–C4, Appendix C, supplementary material). The
FTFPR group used the peer editing forms as only a guide to grade their
peer’s essay since the FTFPR was given orally. During FTFPR, the
instructors walked around the room listening to the feedback students
gave each other but could not hear all discussions as all FTFPR pairs
were giving feedback at the same time. Thus, the instructors counted

on the recording done in class to examine qualitatively the FTFPR. The
argumentative essay rubric along with the peer editing form were given
to both experimental and control groups. The peer editing form encom-
passed the content of the essay including the introduction, body, orga-
nization, conclusions, logic, APA references and guidelines as well as
language component (see Appendix B, supplementary material). The
written comments given by the OLPR group regarding the language
component incorporated word choice, structure, subject-verb, adjectives
and adverbs, parallelism, modifiers, pronoun reference, pronoun case,
coordination and subordination, fragments, punctuation and capitaliza-
tion. The qualitative analysis of the peer editing forms and the transcript
of the FTFPR recordings revealed that OLPR was more detailed, thor-
ough and systematic than FTFPR. For example, OLPR samples 2, 3 and
4 (see Appendix C, supplementary material) showed how the students
commented on each part of the reviewed essay and gave constructive
feedback by suggesting as shown in ‘the prediction is stated as … but
it needs to be structured better … by making it less wordy…’. Moreover,
samples 2 and 3 (see Figures C2 and C3, Appendix C, supplementary
material) showed how the OLPR student identified the strengths and
the weaknesses of each part as shown in ‘strength is how … weakness
is how … suggestion is to…’. Moreover, 24 out of 74 students (25%)
gave exceptionally long OLPR (see Figures C2 and C3, Appendix C,
supplementary material). Also, 70 out of 74 (94.5%) delved deeply into
both the content and organization as well as the language components
of the reviewed essays. The qualitative analysis of the OLPR peer editing
forms showed that 70 out of 74 OLPR participants (94.5%) focused
equally on content, organization as well as on language whereas 4 OLPR
out of 74 (5.5%) focused more on language and mechanics as shown
in the three sampled examples (see Appendix C, supplementary material).
Discussion
Drawing on the findings of Sheen (2007) regarding the importance of a
large sample, the present study utilized a relatively large sample of EFL
learners to investigate the effectiveness of OLPR (a written peer review
integrated with CALL and given online) compared to FFTF (an oral peer
review given face to face). In the same vein of Hine’s (2017) study, the
results of the present study proved the effectiveness of OLPR in writing
classrooms including EFL learners. The present study proved that OLPR
is more effective than FTFPR in improving argumentative writing achieve-
ment of EFL university learners. Similarly, the present study proved that
peers could give rich OLPR using CALL models such as Moodle. The
statistical analysis of the present study’s data showed the relevance of

applying Vygotsky’s (1978) sociocultural theory (ST) which involves recip-
rocal teaching and scaffolding manifested in using both FFPR and OLPR
to develop students’ writing skills. Reciprocal teaching and scaffolding
took place as learners were randomly paired, each editing the other’s
writing. Participants learned from each other through OLPR and FTFPR,
which exemplifies Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of the Zone of Proximal
Development (ZPD) where a learner can achieve a task with help from
a more knowledgeable peer. These findings also corroborate Donato’s
(1994) and Hawkins (2004) arguments that social interactions can develop
writing. This study asserted the effectiveness of peer review, whether it
is online or face-to-face, as peer review makes writing go through stages.
More significantly, in contrast with the finding of Ruegg (2015) which
suggested that teachers should provide feedback on grammar and content,
while peers should only give feedback on organization and academic
style, the qualitative analysis of the OLPR proved the richness and the
depth of the EFL learners’ feedback on both content and organization.
However, the results of the present study corroborate Ruegg’s (2015)
finding that students’ feedback on grammar is not strong.
The statistical and qualitative data analyses of this study showed
alignment with those of Lai et al. (2016). To elaborate, OLPR showed
the effectiveness of integrating peer review with CALL to allow students
to compensate for the limited class time spent on giving feedback. Thus,
OLPR is needed to strengthen the essay parts that require more time
to evaluate. Furthermore, in alignment with the suggestions of Marcum
and Kim (2020) along with Alsop and Bencze (2020), the results of the
present study proved that the integration of CALL models and peer
review can address the challenges imposed by the spread of Corona
pandemic which forced social distancing on students and rendered CALL
indispensable for education. Furthermore, the written OLPR form made
OLPR’s advantages seem to outweigh those of the oral FTFPR.
The researchers utilized the collected data to associate the theoretical
frameworks of this study with the elicited study results. In addition, in
alignment with the findings of Awada et al. (2020), the findings of this
study showed that online applications can improve the writing of EFL
learners due to their motivational features, including flexible commu-
nication and the relaxing effect of online applications. Thus, Moodle,
being the venue utilized by the OLPR group, facilitated OLPR. Moreover,
this study’s finding that OLPR is more effective than FTFPR is endorsed
by DiGiovanni and Nagaswami (2001). Moreover, both OLPR and FTFPR
showed the effectiveness of peer review in improving the writing achieve-
ment of EFL learners, a finding justified by the writing process approach
of Emig (1983) and Hairston (1982) and corroborated by the results of
Diab (2016), Purchase and Hamer (2018) and Taylor et al. (2015).

Furthermore, the OLPR group resulted in more improved writing
than that of FTFPR. This finding might be explained by the finding
of Warschauer’s (1996) study, which showed that students who struggle
with inhibition or poor social skills contributed more to OLPR than
to FTFPR. Students in the OLPR group were asked to use Moodle and
emails in order to provide OLPR, which may have been responsible
for more significant improvement than that yielded by FTFPR group.
In addition to the above findings, this study showed that training in
using effective peer review can help improve the writing of students
(Hine, 2017), a finding corroborated by Storch and Wigglesworth (2010)
and Van Beuningen, De Jong, and Kuiken (2012). Finally, in alignment
with Hsieh (2020), the study findings showed that the students who
applied OLPR outperformed their counter classmates in FTFPR group
perhaps because they were not limited by class time and could use
Moodle outside class, which contributed to making their peer review
stronger.
Conversely, the findings of this study do not align with those of
Mulder, Pearce, and Baik (2014), who asserted the ineffectiveness of peer
review since peers might provide poor feedback. Moreover, contrary to
the findings of Yang (2011), the present study showed that the FTFPR
is effective, though less effective than OLPR. More importantly, the dis-
tortions, chatting and praise comments did not render FTFPR ineffective.
Limitations
One limitation of this study might be the fact that the instructors could
not hear all FFPR as they walked around the classroom while the stu-
dents were engaged in giving FTFPR; hence, the instructors could not
monitor the feedback effectively though they had provided the FTFPR
group with editing forms to guide the feedback they gave. Instructors
counted on the recording done in class, but the voice quality was not
always clear as all conversations were being recorded at the same time.
Thus, the inability of the instructors to strictly monitor the FTFPR
could have affected the FTFPR participants and the results of the study.
Accordingly, it is recommended that researchers in future have FTFPR
students write their essays in the lab using computers that record their
interactions.
Implications and conclusion
This study investigated the effect of OLPR and FTFPR on improving
the argumentative synthesis writing of EFL learners. In fact, this study
has yielded three findings. First, it showed that OLPR resulted in the

OLPR group’s significant improvement of overall delayed post-test. The
results of this study showed that OLPR is more effective than FTFPR
in improving the argumentative synthesis writing achievement of the
study participants. Second, the performance of the OLPR group may be
due to online collaboration practice. Third, both OLPR and FTFPR
groups improved the overall argumentative writing achievement at the
delayed post-test, though not equally. The statistical analysis showed
that the two types of peer review under study, OLPR and FTFPR have
succeeded in drawing students’ attention to their errors as students were
able to revise and improve their scores.
The study findings have several pedagogical implications. They point
out the importance of raising teachers’ awareness by providing them
‘with the knowledge and skills to advise and support students in making
use of technological resources outside the classroom for language learning’
(Lai et al., 2016, p. 703). Moreover, teachers are advised to use both
OLPR and FTFPR but to focus more on implementing OLPR given that
it proved to be more effective both at the immediate and delayed argu-
mentative writing. It would be interesting for future researchers to rep-
licate the present study in other contexts to examine the generalizability
of the findings of the present study. It is also important to develop a
more comprehensive perspective on the interplay between the effectiveness
of face-to-face and online feedback and argumentative writing achieve-
ment. It is also recommended that future studies use larger samples of
learners of different proficiency levels, cultures and learning styles.
Furthermore, teachers are encouraged to apply peer review in order to
transform the writing class into a student-centered one instead of being
teacher centered. This recommendation is endorsed by Breuch (2004)
and Nicol, Thomson, and Breslin (2014), who showed the advantages of
peer feedback in developing students’ writing by shifting the control of
feedback into students’ hands and reducing the need for teacher feedback.
Notes on contributors
Ghada M. Awada, A Fulbright Scholar at North Carolina State University (NCSU-2016).
The first female recipient of the American University of Beirut (AUB) Excellence Service
Award (2018–2019), and a recipient of Lebanese American University-CEP excellence
award (2014). A holder of a PhD in Applied Linguistics and a PhD in Public
International Law and International Relations and Diplomacy. A faculty and researcher
at Lebanese American University. Designer of a curriculum framework for the inte-
gration of cooperative learning in training materials related to English as a foreign
language. An UNESCO and WB curriculum and textbooks consultant. An author and
co-author of English textbooks and publications related to curriculum reform, CALL
integration into writing and reading, CALL and cooperative learning, human rights
education, global citizenship, intercultural communication, differentiated instruction,
inclusive environments, CALL and literacy, and special education interventions based
on ICT and cooperative learning

Nuwar Mawlawi Diab, Associate Professor of English and Applied Linguistics,
Coordinator of the B.A. in Translation Program, School of Arts and Sciences, Lebanese
American University, Beirut, Lebanon. http://sas.lau.edu.lb/english/people/nuwar-diab.php.
ORCID
Ghada M. Awada http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8486-1630
References
Alsop, S., & Bencze, L. (2020). Reimagining science and technology education in the
COVID-19 portal. Journal for Activist Science and Technology Education, 11(2).
doi:10.33137/jaste.v11i2.34537
Anderson, L. W., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and as-
sessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. London: Longman.
Awada, G., Burston, J., & Ghannage, R. (2020). Effect of student team achievement
division through WebQuest on EFL students’ argumentative writing skills and their
instructors’ perceptions. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(3), 275–300. do
i:10.1080/09588221.2018.1558254
Brandl, K. (2005). Review of are you ready to "Moodle”?Language Learning & Technology,
9(2), 16–23.
Breuch, L.-A. K. (2004). Virtual peer review: Teaching and learning about writing in
online environments. New York: State University of New York Press.
Brown, J. D. (1996). Testing in language programs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
De Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual scaffold-
ing in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51–68.
doi:10.1111/0026-7902.00052
Diab, N. M. (2016). A comparison of peer, teacher and self-feedback on the reduction
of language errors in student essays. System, 57, 55–65. doi:10.1016/j.system.2015.12.014
DiGiovanni, E., & Nagaswami, G. (2001). Online peer review: An alternative to face-to-
face. ELT Journal, 55(3), 263–272. doi:10.1093/elt/55.3.263
Dina, A. T., & Ciornei, S. I. (2013). The advantages and disadvantages of computer
assisted language learning and teaching for foreign languages. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 76, 248–252. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.04.107
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In Vygotskian
approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Westport, CT: Greenwood
Publishing Group.
Emig, J. (1983). The web of meaning: Essays on writing, teaching, learning, and thinking.
London: Heinemann.
Ghufron, M. A., & Nurdianingsih, F. (2019). Flipped teaching with CALL in EFL
writing class: How does it work and affect learner autonomy?European Journal of
Educational Research, 8(4), 983–997. doi:10.12973/eu-jer.8.4.983
Golonka, E. M., Bowles, A. R., Frank, V. M., Richardson, D. L., & Freynik, S. (2014).
Technologies for foreign language learning: A review of technology types and their
effectiveness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 27(1), 70–105. doi:10.1080/0958
8221.2012.700315
Hairston, M. (1982). The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in the
teaching of writing. College Composition and Communication, 33(1), 76–88.
doi:10.2307/357846

Hawkins, M. R. (2004). Language learning and teacher education. Clevedon:Multilingual
Matters.
Hine, L. A. (2017). The Impact of face-to-face versus online peer review on students’
writing achievement. ProQuest LLC.
Ho, M., & Savignon, S. (2007). Face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review in
EFL writing. CALICO Journal, 24(2), 269–290. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24147912
Hsieh, Y. (2020). Learner interactions in face-to-face collaborative writing with the
support of online resources. ReCALL, 32(1), 85–105. doi:10.1017/S0958344019000120
Khoury, P., Azar, E., & Hitti, E. (2020). COVID-19 response in Lebanon: Current
experience and challenges in a low-resource setting. JAMA, 324(6), 548–549.
doi:10.1001/jama.2020.12695
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into
Practice, 41(4), 212–218. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Lai, C., Yeung, Y., & Hu, J. (2016). University student and teacher perceptions of
teacher roles in promoting autonomous language learning with technology outside
the classroom. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 703–723. doi:10.1080/0
9588221.2015.1016441.
Law, J., Barny, D., & Poulin, R. (2020). Patterns of peer interaction in multimodal L2
digital social reading. Language Learning & Technology, 24(2), 70–85. http://hdl.
handle.net/10125/44726.
Levy, M. (1997). Computer-assisted language learning: Context and conceptualization.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of
peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1),
30–43. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002
Marcum, J., & Kim, Y. (2020). Oral language proficiency in distance English-language
learning. CALICO Journal, 37(2), 148–168. doi:10.1558/cj.37788
Moloudi, M. (2011). Online and face-to-face peer review: Measures of implementation
in ESL writing classes. Asian EFL Journal, 52, 4–22.
Mulder, R. A., Pearce, J. M., & Baik, C. (2014). Peer review in higher education: Student
perceptions before and after participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(2),
157–171. doi:10.1177/1469787414527391
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
Ohta, A. S. (2000). Rethinking interaction in SLS: Developmentally appropriate assis-
tance in the zone of proximal development and the acquisition of L2 grammar. In
J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 51–78).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pham, H. T. P. (2021). Computer-mediated and face-to-face peer feedback: Student
feedback and revision in EFL writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34,
1–36. doi:10.1080/09588221.2020.1868530
Pritchard, R. J., & Morrow, D. (2017). Comparison of online and face-to-face peer
review of writing. Computers and Composition, 46, 87–103. doi:10.1016/j.comp-
com.2017.09.006
Purchase, H., & Hamer, J. (2018). Perspectives on peer-review: Eight years of Aropä.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 43(3), 473–487. doi:10.1080/0260293
8.2017.1359819

Rouadi, N. E., & Anouti, M. F. (2020). The online learning experiment in the inter-
mediate and secondary schools in Lebanon during the coronavirus (COVID-19)
crisis. Online Learning, 7(7), 14466–14485.
Ruegg, R. (2015). The relative effects of peer and teacher feedback on improvement in
EFL students’ writing ability. Linguistics and Education, 29, 73–82. doi:10.1016/j.
linged.2014.12.001
Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. W. (2000). Intercultural communication: A discourse approach.
Language in Society, 29(2), 262–266.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language apti-
tude on ESL learner’s acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41(2), 255–283. https://
doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059. doi:10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00059.x
Spear, K. (1987). Sharing writing. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook/Heinemann.
Storch, N., & Wigglesworth, G. (2010). Learners’ processing, uptake, and retention of
corrective feedback on writing. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 303–
334. doi:10.1017/S0272263109990532
Taghizadeh, M., & Hasani Yourdshahi, Z. (2020). Integrating technology into young
learners’ classes: Language teachers’ perceptions. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
33 (8), 982–1006. doi:10.1080/09588221.2019.1618876
Tai, H.-C. (2016). Effects of collaborative online learning on EFL learners’ writing
performance and self-efficacy. English Language Teaching, 9(5), 119–133. doi:10.5539/
elt.v9n5p119
Taylor, S., Ryan, M., & Pearce, J, (2015). Enhanced student learning in accounting
utilizing web-based technology, peer-review feedback, and reflective practices: A
learning community approach to assessment. Higher Education Research, 34(6), 1251–
1269.
Van Beuningen, C. G., De Jong, N. H., & Kuiken, N. F. (2012). Evidence on the ef-
fectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language
Learning, 62(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x
Van den Bos, A. H., & Tan, E. (2019). Effects of anonymity on online peer review in
second language writing. Computers & Education, 142, 103638. doi:10.1016/j.compe-
du.2019.103638
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the
Development of Children, 23(3), 34–41.
Warschauer, M. (1996). Computer assisted language learning: An introduction. In Fotos
S. (Ed.), Multimedia language teaching (pp. 3–20). Tokyo: Logos International.
Wu, W. C. V., Yang, J. C., Scott Chen Hsieh, J., & Yamamoto, T. (2020). Free from
demotivation in EFL writing: The use of online flipped writing instruction. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 33(4), 353–387. doi:10.1080/09588221.2019.1567556
Yang, S. (2011). Exploring the effectiveness of using peer evaluation and teacher feed-
back in college students’ writing. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 20(1), 144–
150.
Zaghlool, Z. D. (2020). The impact of using CALL online writing activities on EFL
university students’ writing achievement. Theory and Practice in Language Studies,
10(2), 141–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1002.0. doi:10.17507/tpls.1002.01 .

Article Effect Of Online Peer Review Versus Face To Face Peer Review On Argumentative Writing Achievement Of EFL Learners

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Article Effect Of Online Peer Review Versus Face To Face Peer Review On Argumentative Writing Achievement Of EFL Learners

Similar to Article Effect Of Online Peer Review Versus Face To Face Peer Review On Argumentative Writing Achievement Of EFL Learners (20)

More from Kelly Lipiec

More from Kelly Lipiec (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Article Effect Of Online Peer Review Versus Face To Face Peer Review On Argumentative Writing Achievement Of EFL Learners