Abstract
Technology-enhanced peer feedback (TEPF) activity has been increasingly investigated in L2 writing education. Researchers have conducted many review and meta-analysis studies on related research and identified factors influencing the activity effectiveness. However, few reviews have been conducted based on the activity theory that may clarify details of this learning approach and reveal how various factors influence the activity effectiveness. To fill in the gap, we reviewed 40 relevant articles from 2001 to 2021, following the activity theory. The findings showed that most TEPF activities were based on network-based social computing to enhance academic performance in English as L2 writing. College and university students with training experiences attended the activities independently or collaboratively as feedback givers and/or takers in anonymous, out-of-class, online settings for a long term. Learners may influence TEPF activities via peer feedback quality and the efficiency of peer interaction. Technology may influence the activities via peer feedback quality, learner emotions, and the efficiency of peer interaction and feedback generation, giving, taking and comprehension. Peer interaction may influence the activities via error identification, affective aspects, and knowledge and ideas of writing. Conditions may influence the activities via learners’ experiences, trust in peers, devotion of effort and time, emotions and efficiency in peer interaction and feedback giving and taking. Mechanisms may influence the activities via learners’ cognitive processes and active learning. Based on the results, we analysed the interactions in TEPF activities that may influence the activity effectiveness.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Data Availability on Request from the Authors
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Di Zou, upon reasonable request.
References
Alshuraidah, A., & Storch, N. (2019). Investigating a collaborative approach to peer feedback. ELT Journal, 73(2), 166–174. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccy057.
Bahari, A. (2021). Computer-mediated feedback for L2 learners: Challenges versus affordances. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(1), 24–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12481.
Chen, T. (2016). Technology-supported peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing classes: a research synthesis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(2), 365–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.960942.
Chen, Z., Chen, W., Jia, J., & An, H. (2020). The effects of using mobile devices on language learning: a meta-analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(4), 1769–1789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09801-5.
Chen, X., Zou, D., Xie, H., & Cheng, G. (2021a). Twenty years of personalized language learning: topic modeling and knowledge mapping. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 24 (1), 205–222.
Chen, X. L., Zou, D., Xie, H. R., & Su, F. (2021b). Twenty-five years of computer-assisted language learning: a topic modeling analysis. Language Learning & Technology, 25(3), 151–185. http://hdl.handle.net/10125/73454.
Chen, X., Zou, D., Xie, H., Cheng, G., & Liu, C. (2022). Two decades of Artificial Intelligence in Education. Educational Technology & Society, 25(1), 28–47.
Chung, C. J., Hwang, G. J., & Lai, C. L. (2019). A review of experimental mobile learning research in 2010–2016 based on the activity theory framework. Computers & Education, 129, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.010.
Double, K. S., McGrane, J. A., & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2020). The impact of peer assessment on academic performance: a meta-analysis of control group studies. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 481–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3.
Duman, G., Orhon, G., & Gedik, N. (2015). Research trends in mobile-assisted language learning from 2000 to 2012. ReCALL, 27(2), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344014000287.
Ellis, R. (2008). Learner beliefs and language learning. Asian EFL Journal, 10(4), 7–25.
Engeström, Y. (2001a). Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theoretical reconceptualisation. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/13639080020028747.
Engeström, Y. (2001b). Making expansive decisions: an activity-theoretical study of practitioners building collaborative medical care for children. Decision making: Social and creative dimensions (pp. 281–301). Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9827-9_14.
Frohberg, D., Göth, C., & Schwabe, G. (2009). Mobile learning projects–a critical analysis of the state of the art. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(4), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00315.x.
Gabillon, Z. (2005). L2 learner’s beliefs: an overview. Journal of Language and learning, 3(2), 233–260.
Gibbes, M., & Carson, L. (2014). Project-based language learning: an activity theory analysis. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 8(2), 171–189.
Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59(1), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci004.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4624888.
Huisman, B., Saab, N., van den Broek, P., & van Driel, J. (2019). The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: a Meta-analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 863–880. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896.
Hwang, G. J., & Fu, Q. K. (2019). Trends in the research design and application of mobile language learning: a review of 2007–2016 publications in selected SSCI journals. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(4), 567–581. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1486861.
Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research. In B. A. Nardi (Ed.), Context and consciousness: activity theory and human-computer interaction (pp. 17–44). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Li, H., Xiong, Y., Hunter, C. V., Guo, X., & Tywoniw, R. (2020). Does peer assessment promote student learning? A meta-analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(2), 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1620679.
Loncar, M., Schams, W., & Liang, J. S. (2021). Multiple technologies, multiple sources: trends and analyses of the literature on technology-mediated feedback for L2 English writing published from 2015–2019. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1943452.
Lv, X., Ren, W., & Xie, Y. (2021). The Effects of Online Feedback on ESL/EFL writing: a Meta-analysis. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00594-6.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Maxwell, J. A. (2011). A realist approach for qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Saeed, M. A., Ghazali, K., & Aljaberi, M. A. (2018). A review of previous studies on ESL/EFL learners’ interactional feedback exchanges in face-to-face and computer-assisted peer review of writing. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-017-0084-8.
Shadiev, R., & Yang, M. (2020). Review of studies on technology-enhanced language learning and teaching. Sustainability, 12(2), 524. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020524.
Storch, N. (2019). Collaborative writing. Language Teaching, 52(1), 40–59. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000320.
Su, F., & Zou, D. (2020). Technology-enhanced collaborative language learning: theoretical foundations, technologies, and implications. Computer Assisted Language Learning. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1831545.
Thirakunkovit, S., & Chamcharatsri, B. (2019). A meta-analysis of effectiveness of teacher and peer feedback: implications for writing instructions and research. Asian EFL Journal, 21(1), 140–170.
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1170598.
Tsai, Y. R. (2015). Applying the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) to explore the effects of a Course Management System (CMS)-Assisted EFL writing instruction. Calico Journal, 32(1), 153–171. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/https://doi.org/10.2307/calicojournal.32.1.153
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes Harvard university press. https://books.google.com.hk/books?hl=zh-CN&lr=&id=Irq913lEZ1QC&oi=fnd&pg=PR13&dq=Vygotsky,+L.+S.+(1978).+Mind+in+society:+The+development+of+higher+psychological+processes.+Harvard+university+press&ots=HbDnE1Enna&sig=33oxGyyAkt65Lo1t6r-EqBK2LtY&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Vygotsky%2 C%20L.%20S.%20(1978).%20Mind%20in%20society%3A%20The%20development%20of%20higher%20psychological%20processes.%20Harvard%20university%20press&f=false
Yang, Y. F. (2010b). Students’ reflection on online self-correction and peer review to improve writing. Computers & Education, 55(3), 1202–1210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.017.
Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2015). Understanding EFL students’ participation in group peer feedback of L2 writing: a case study from an activity theory perspective. Language Teaching Research, 19(5), 572–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814541714.
Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2016a). Peer feedback in second language writing (2005–2014). Language Teaching, 49(4), 461. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444816000161.
Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2016b). Exploring chinese students’ strategy use in a cooperative peer feedback writing group. System, 58, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.02.005.
Zhang, R., & Zou, D. (2020). Types, purposes, and effectiveness of state-of-the-art technologies for second and foreign language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1744666.
Zhang, R., & Zou, D. (2021). Types, features, and effectiveness of technologies in collaborative writing for second language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1880441.
Zhang, R., Zou, D., Cheng, G., Xie, H., Wang, F. L., & Au, O. T. S. (2021). Target languages, types of activities, engagement, and effectiveness of extramural language learning. PloS One, 16(6), e0253431. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253431.
Zhang, R., Zou, D., Cheng, G., & Xie, H. (2022). Implementing technology-enhanced collaborative writing in second and foreign language learning: A review of practices, technology and challenges.Education and Information Technologies,1–29.
Zou, D., Luo, S., Xie, H., & Hwang, G. J. (2020). A systematic review of research on flipped language classrooms: theoretical foundations, learning activities, tools, research topics and findings. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1839502.
Zou, D., Huang, Y., & Xie, H. (2021). Digital game-based vocabulary learning: where are we and where are we going? Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(5–6), 751–777.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Disclosure statement
There are no relevant financial or non-financial competing interests to report.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, R., Zou, D. A review of research on technology-enhanced peer feedback for second language writing based on the activity theory framework. Educ Inf Technol 28, 6727–6753 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11469-8
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11469-8