Does the peer review mode make a difference? An exploratory look at undergraduates' performances and preferences in a writing course

• Published in: Computers and composition Vol. 72; p. 102854
• Main Authors: Hsieh, Yi-Chin, Leong, Alvin Ping, Lin, Yu-Ju, Aryadoust, Vahid
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier Inc 01.06.2024
• Subjects: Anonymous; Blended; CMPR; Feedback; Interactivity; Objectivity; Peer review; Writing; CMPR; Feedback; Objectivity; Writing; Blended; Interactivity; Peer review; Anonymous
• ISSN: 8755-4615; 1873-2011
• DOI: 10.1016/j.compcom.2024.102854

•Students highly favor a blend of online anonymous and face-to-face peer review modes.•In a blended peer review, students benefit from both objectivity and interactivity.•The blended peer review mode optimises the efficiency of peer review practices.•The blended peer review mode effectively accommodates different learning needs.•The findings provide critical pedagogical insights to inform peer review instructions. The importance of peer review practice in writing courses has been strongly supported by pedagogical research. Adopting a mixed-methods approach, this study investigated three peer review modes in an undergraduate academic writing course through the lens of students’ writing performances and perceptions. The three modes are (i) face-to-face peer review (F2F), (ii) anonymous computer-mediated peer review (CMPR), and (iii) blended peer review (a blend of F2F and anonymous CMPR). Three classes enrolled in an academic writing course participated in this study. Students’ assignments were collected to analyze their writing performances. Focus group discussions (FGDs) were administered to investigate students’ perceptions of the peer review modes, including their perceived usefulness of the feedback and the review processes. The findings show that the students’ writing performances significantly improved after the peer review session in all three peer review modes, with the anonymous CMPR and the blended mode showing stronger effectiveness as compared to the F2F mode. The participants generally preferred the blended mode, which addresses the limitations of both F2F and anonymous CMPR by leveraging the merits of both. We propose the use of the blended peer review mode to accommodate different learning needs and maximize the effectiveness of peer review practice.