2009 年12 月第32 卷　第6 期

中国英语教学（双月刊）Teaching English in China —CELEA Journal（Bim onthly）

Dec．2009Vol．32 No．6

SYNCHRONOUS LEARNING NETWORK ：HOW COLLEGESTUDENTS USE PEER ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES

IN EVALUATION OF THEIR WRITING �

Weng Keshan ＆Li QingHainan Medical College

Abstract　　This study investigated how students used peer assessments in synchronous learning netw ork（SLN）toassess each other�s writing．It focused on examining the frequency and styles of various techniques studentsem ployed w hile assessing each others�writing and student response to assessing each other�s writing in a SLNcontext．The findings indicated that these students received many assessments during each peer assessmentactivity．They preferred to use assessing techniques of less critical types，and had positive attitudes towardSLN－based peer assessments．These findings suggest that SLN－based peer assessments are quite useful infacilitating m orphological techniques and fostering a sense of audience，though they aren�t efficient inim proving critical thinking．

Key wordspeer assessment；synchronous learning netw ork；online writing co m munity

1．Introduction

Writing has been the prim ary means by w hich students move fro m passive recipients of knowledge toactive knowledge constructors．In the EFL context，writing instruction has often been confined toteaching certain technical aspects，rather than emphasize the goal and purpose of writing as a means ofcom munication．A significant num ber of students thus demonstrate inadequate writing skills．They areseldom aware of the way they make decisions as they write．Their w ork is often inform ation－oriented，focusing on finding things to say and forming sentences with correct gram m ar and appropriate w ords，rather than the needs and expectations of their potential readers（Chandrasegaran ＆Schaetzel 2004）．Toaddress this，some tertiary educators em ploy peer assessment�to achieve the effects of“giving students asense ofaudience，increasing their m otivation to write，and helping them evaluate their own writing m oreeffectively”（Dennen ＆Jones 2006）．

Peer assessm ent online has em erged alongside the developm ent of telecom munications and theavailability of personal com puters．In this study，a program using peer assessment in the context ofsynchronous learning netw ork（SLN）was designed to enhance student writing techniques．Through onlinepeer assessment，students were both evaluators and target readers who read and responded to their peers�writing．This study focused on how peer assessment techniques were used in a SLN context． Thefrequency，preferences and responses of students using peer assessment techniques were examined．

2．Theoretical background

Peer assessment（also known as peer response，peer feedback ，or peer evaluation）is the process of

25� 本文为海南省教育厅高等学校科研资助项目，项目编号为Hjsk2008－78 。

having students critique one another�s w ork with the intention of helping their peers revise and eventuallyim prove their writing（Lu ＆Bol 2007）．In peer assessment，learners look at others�w ork，judge theirown and others�，receive feedback from m ultiple sources and thus build a com munity in w hich there areauthentic readers taking active roles in their own learning（Ferris 2004 ；Roberts 2006）． With peerassessm ent，students become aware of their own performance as they organize their com ments on peerwriting，practice critique techniques and receive peer feedback，creating a strong sense of em powermentin writers and of active readership（Dennen ＆Jones 2006）．More advanced students can benefit fromexpressing to others what they may have understood only intuitively，w hile learners who are uncertainabout how to approach an assignment can get a better grasp of it by seeing how other students respond toit．These features are in accordance with both the Vygotskyan perspective on learning and the notion ofsocial constructivism ，wherein learning requires exchanging，sharing，and negotiation along with personalinner processes and social interaction（Liu，et al．2001；Vygotsky 1978）．These advantages show that“peer assessment fits well with writing courses�aims of developing both student writing techniques andcritical thinking”（Bartels 2003）．

However，in a traditionalface－to－face writing class，instructors encourage peer assessments by havingstudents exchange hard copies of their writing，read them and then discuss them in sm all groups（Dennen＆Jones 2006）．Instructors have difficulty m onitoring critical discussions and students usually provide onlyspoken，tem porary responses（Roberts 2006）． Although peer assessment began as an oral activity，instructors today are finding that in some situations，written peer response makes it easier to monitorwhat each student says（Bartels 2003）and is the only option for enabling students to give feedback usingcom munication technologies or to off－site peers．A co mparative study of face－to－face vs．online peerassessm ents showed that the latter were m ore likely to keep the students on task （DiGiovanni ＆Nagaswami 2001）．

Online text－based discussion has been used as a platform for peer assessment，since it eliminates thedrawbacks of face－to－face peer w ork by allowing easy exchange of work ，time for reflection and teachermonitoring of the feedback process（Dennen ＆Jones2006）．It helps build a learning com m unity（Kanuka＆Anderson 1998；Roberts 2006），and makes students feel m ore confident and increases participation（Porter 2003）．Many studies（e．g． Dennen ＆Johns 2006 ；Lu ＆Bol 2007）have been done to documentthe effects of peer assessment on writing in the environ ment of asynchronous learning netw ork（ALN）．Online discussion happening in ALN contexts，however，often results in“access to‘clunky’ or‘unsexy’text－based chat tools that become little m ore than‘lightweight distractions’ or‘social meeting spaces’”（Coghlan 2004，seen in Murphy ＆Ciszewska－Carr 2007）．

On the other hand，few studies have been done on effects of SLN－based peer assessment．Butsynchronous technology has been documented to“cultivate the social network and ，thus，strengthenstudents�sense of belonging in online com munities”（Wang，Sierra ＆Folger 2003）．SLN－based discussionsuse direct or instant m essaging（Murphy ＆Ciszewska－Carr 2007 ；Nicholson 2002）as the m ain tool w hichis synchronous and im mediate in nature．It is convenient and facilitates distribution of peer assessments（Roberts 2006）．It encourages reflection（Schwier ＆Balbar 2002），leads to focused discussion and makespossible egalitarian participation among participants（Bonk ＆King 1998）．As Zhang et al．（2007）argue，the new teaching approach of SLN－based discussion enableslearners to form study groups and build onlinelearning com munities on their own ，and to freely present personal positions based on their learninginterests and previous experience． Thus it helps to reduce students�learning anxiety and create aharmonious and relaxing learning environ ment（Xu 2004）．Additionally，it is a way to dram aticallyincrease im mediacy and connections between students and the teacher；it is a much m ore personalengagement than asynchronous discussion（Wang ＆Newlin 2001）．That�s why SLN ，rather than ALN ，was used in this study to support peer assessment activities and help build a writing com munity．

3．Research design

3．1 Objectives of the studyThis study was of a one－group longitudinal design．It used the case－study approach to explore how

students used SLN－based peer assessmentsin evaluating each other�s writing in an elective，university－level6－session writing course．It focused on investigating the process of peer assessment activities，rather than

35

Weng Keshan ＆Li Qing

the product，revised writing．This study sought answers to the following 3 questions：

1）Is a SLN capable of fostering an effective learning com munity for students to assess peer writing？2）What assessment techniques do the students provide for one another in a SLN context？Do their

preferences change over time？3）How do the students respond to the actions of assessing one another�s writing in a SLN context？

3．2 Participants in the studyOne class of students（n ＝38）was selected from Grade 06 at Hainan Medical College（HMC）and

enrolled in the writing course that was administered on the ca mpus netw ork．A semi－structured interviewprior to the study indicated that these participants had m astered basic writing techniques and hadsufficient practice in writing articles．They had also studied computer technology for three sem esters atthe college．Most of them had the experience of online com munication using QQ 1 ，but no experience inonline learning．However，they had never been trained to write by thinking rhetorically or in the socialdimension of written discourse，so they did not have a strong sense of audience，nor of com munity ，whereideas were created and shaped．

3．3 TechnologyThis study used Blackboard Academic Suite 7．1（BAS7．1）asits research platform ，w hich is a web－

based learning management system （LMS）．This system is used universally for teaching and researchpurpose by tertiary educators in China（e．g． Qi ＆Fu 2007 ；Zhang ＆Zhao 2008）．It is powerful infacilitating online com munication ，specified in the incorporated items of announcements，collaboration，discussion board，group pages，posts，and e－m ail co m munication．The discussion board was focal in thisstudy．

This discussion board was originally designed for asynchronous，threaded discussions，providing aforum for students to share their views and reflect on others�posted articles．However，it w ould bemisleading to say that a particular medium has one specific effect or one single best application（Rice，etal．2004）．According to Rice，et al．（2004），“any medium might be sufficient to accom plish some oreven many of the needs of teachers and students，depending on the pedagogical approach and the socialcontext”．The discussion board can also be used to serve synchronous or in－person learning by bringinglearners together in the same LAN－based m ultimedia labs（Fotos 2004 ；Warschauer 1996），with learnersand instructors available online in class sessions in the same location． The use of synchronouscom munication tools in the context of asynchronous courses have been investigated（Hrastinski 2005；Nicholson 2002），although these studies focused on text－based synchronous tools only．

Participants can use the discussion board to edit，deliver posts to classm ates and receive posts fromthem．Posts are organized by threads，meaning that an original post is linked to allits replies．This givesthe participants opportunities to read，reflect and sub mit their responses to the forum．Each participantthen attem pts to present，explain，or illustrate his／her ideas to his／her peers through posting andreflecting，w hile trying to understand and assimilate the new inform ation．

The discussion board had three m ain functions（Lam ＆McNaught 2006）in the study：e－resources，e－display，and e－com munication．E－resources provided student m aterials regarding instructor�s lectures andassignments，w hich appeared as forum starters．The e－display function enabled the board to be a place fordisplaying and exchanging student work．The e－com munication facility prom oted student－student andstudent－instructor interaction and thus helped build an online learning com munity．

3．4 Intervention methodsThis was a course－based study．In this short－term course，there were six sessions totally，each lasting

90 minutes．In the first session，the instructor explained to the students the requirements of the courseand techniques for editing，delivering writing assign ments，reading and giving feedback using thediscussion board section of BAS 7．1 system．The rem aining five sessions were all writing sessions，administered in a co mputerized m ultimedia language lab linked to the campus netw ork． The 38participants were required to write five articles on five assigned titles and conducted five synchronous peer

45

Synchronous Learning Network：How College Students Use Peer Assessment Techniques in Evaluation．．．

assessm ent activities online．Each session involved four phases：（1）the preparation stage，in w hichstudents collected writing inform ation and assessed the required activity；（2）the working stage，in w hichstudents actually w orked alone on their writing；（3）the sharing stage，in w hich writing was circulated forfeedback ；and（4）the revision stage，in w hich students reflected on feedback and made modifications totheir own w ork．Specific actionsin each stage of a session are listed in Figure 1．Allthe data collected foranalysis are from the sharing stage，during w hich students presented different techniques of assessing peerwriting．

The three m ain e－functions that the discussion board provided had specific uses in these four stages．The E－resources stored instruction m aterials and assign ments given to participants，w hich was helpful forparticipants in preparing their w ork．This also kept better records of assessm ents fro m classm ates，w hichwas necessary for reflection and revision．The E－display enabled the campus network to be a place fordisplaying and exchanging w ork．It was used to exhibit the instructor�s lectures，assigned writing tasks，participants�w ork ，com ments，feedback and revision．The E－com munication encouraged participant－participant and teacher－participant dialogues．It helped participants read peer w ork，give com ments，takein new ideas and inform ation from peer w ork，and then build an online learning com munity．Figure 1 alsoshowsthe uses of these e－functions in the various stages of the peer assessment activities．

Figure 1．Uses of the three functions of the discussion board for the variousactivities in the four stages of peer assessment

Each writing session progressed through the four stages of preparation ，w ork，sharing and revision．First，participants logged in to the system to read the writing assign ment and com posed their first draftson an assigned title within 30 minutes，and posted them into the foru m as thread starters．Then they spent40 minutes reading each other�s work and giving synchronous responses under the threads．After the peerassessm ent activity，they spent the rem aining 20 minutes making necessary amend ments to their originalw ork，based on peer com ments，new ideas taken in fro m others�w ork or reflections on their own w ork．Finally they posted revised drafts as final products assessed and m arked by the instructor．Thus datacollected for analysis were taken from the 40 minute peer assessment process．

To ensure each participant received balanced feedback，the instructor，instead of assigningassessm ent pairs，sim ply encouraged the participants to assess each other�s work and make sure everyone�sw ork received approxim ately the same number of assessments．The peer assessm ent activities were doneanonymously，because students participating in such e－peer assessments were relieved fro m the socialpressure and enabled to express themselves freely（Zhao 1998）．This way ，they could perform better onwriting tasks and provided m ore critical feedback than students participating in identifiable e－peer review（Lu ＆Bol 2007；Pelaez 2002），though anonymity increased socialloafing both physically and cognitively（Lu ＆Bol2007）and led students to w ork less（Zhao 1998）．

55

Weng Keshan ＆Li Qing

3．5 Data collectionIn order to get an overall picture of how these participants used peer assessment techniques，the five

peer assessment activities were evaluated through a com prehensive theory－driven collection of measures（Kay 2006）in two steps． These concerned student performance，student activities and studentperceptions（Lam ＆McNaught 2004）．The first step explored the frequency and style of peer assessmenttechniques in the SLN context．The second step helped explain the quantitative findings fro m the abovetwo groups of resources．It was a hard copy questionnaire given to the 38 participants after the study．

First，throughoutthe course，the frequency of peer assessments（Lam ＆McNaught 2006；Riel，et al．2006）was studied．Three categories of data were collected from the system ：1）the number of tim es eacharticle and its responsive posts were read；2）the num ber of responsive posts each article received；and 3）the number of assessments（a responsive post may contain one or m ore than one unit of assessment）givento each article．These data were used to assess the number of peer assessments and examine whether anonline writing co m munity based on various responses from a large num ber of online audiences had beenbuilt．They were available in the archives recorded in performance dashboard in the BAS7．1 system．

Second，throughout the course，the style of peer assessment techniques students used and stylechanges over the five sessions were examined．Riel，et al．（2006）designed a framew ork to analyze howonline participants assess each other�s writing．In their fra mew ork，four categories，affirm ation，editorial，extension and critique，were used to codify student assessing posts into peer assessmenttechniques．In this study，a framew ork of five categories（with the addition of“uncertainty”），w hich wasadapted and modified from Riel et al�s，is shown in Table 1．These were laid out on a critical scale of“affirm ative→critical”．Through content analysis（Hara，et al．1998），the participants�assessing postswere collected and grouped into the five categories and used to obtain an in－depth look at the quality ofpeer assessments．

Table 1．Techniques used to assess peer work

Criticalscale

Assessingtechniques

Definition of the technique Assessing statements

Affirm ative Affirm ation Supportive，appreciativestatements about the w ork，butwithout inform ation that wouldlead to revision of the w ork．

“Allin all，fantastic！”“Good writing．”“Excellent phrasing／sentencepattern．”“Coherent structure．”

Uncertainty Revealing one�s uncertainty aboutmodifying and understanding thetarget article，or failure tounderstand the target article．

“Ifeel there is som ething not OKwith your writing，but Idon�tknow how to correct．”“Idon�t know if the correctionsare of any use to you．”“Icannot understand what youwant to say in this sentence．”

Editorial Encom passed anything that couldbe construed as m echanicaladvice，but did not suggest m ajorconceptual changes to the w ork．

“This w ord should be spelled as‘cam paign’”．“Unsuccessful use of nominativeco m pliment structure here．”“You�d better use‘fit in with’inthis sentence，not fit in”．“Pay m ore attention to thespelling．”

65

Synchronous Learning Network：How College Students Use Peer Assessment Techniques in Evaluation．．．

Criticalscale

Assessingtechniques

Definition of the technique Assessing statements

Extension Feedback from peers that wasintended to elicit m oreconsideration or new directions toexplore．Contains no im pliedcritique or attem pts to question，reorient，or challenge ideas of theauthor．Suggestions for m oreevidence to support positions．

Suggestions for new inform ationto add to the writing；Discussion of different theories．

Critical Critique Constructive critique thatchallenges any aspect of what thestudent has written or presentedand offers a different directionfor the student to consider．

Com ments suggesting a differentm ethod；Questioning an outcome；Questioning the reasoning in thewriting．Suggesting a different approach．

Extra posts Off－task response Responses that are not part of thepeer assessment cycle．Theseinclude social－only responses orresponses designed to prom otediscourse，or show gratitude forassessments，etc．

“Buddy，you are so funny．”“You delivered your assignment tothe wrong forum．”“Didn�t you sleep welllast night？”“Thank you for the com pliment．”

　　Since one assessing post may contain m ore than one unit of assessment，itisimportant to decode anddivide each post into units of assessments（Ingram ＆Hathorn 2003）．The above five categories of peerassessm ent were calculated in terms of the number of assessments the responsive posts contained ，insteadof the nu mber of posts．

Finally，as Coit（2005）argued that participants were to be responsible for managing their ownwriting and for the assessments of their peers，it was essential to determine exactly what students thinkabout learning in such a SLN setting．A post－study questionnaire was designed to organize and interpretonline discussion．It was based on Ceci�s model of intellectual development（Ceci1990）．This framew orkincluded three key com ponents：context，person and process．The“context”co mponent is concernedwith environ mentalinfluences，redefined into the narrower focus of the user－friendliness in this study．The“person”component refers to personality disposition ，redefined asthe narrower dynamic of affectivefactors．The“process”incorporates mental dispositions，redefined into learning progress as perceived bythe students and features of design that foster language learning．Thus this post－study questionnairecontains 23 questioned items of 5－point likert－scale in three areas：User－friendliness，Learning－affectivefactors，and Features fostering writing development and Perceived progress． Details of the post－studyquestionnaire are listed in Appendix．

4．Findings and discussion

4．1 Frequency of peer assessmentsBy analyzing the archives auto m atically recorded by the system ，the data showing frequency of peer

assessm ents within each 40－minute activity was collected in Table 2．It shows the overall picture of thefrequency of the five peer assessment activities．

75

Weng Keshan ＆Li Qing

Table 2．Descriptive statistics on the frequency of peer assessments

CategoriesAssessment activities

1 st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Average

1． The number oftim es that eacharticle and itsresponsive posts wereread． （ Mean／Range／SD）

15．55／6－43／8．51

20．42／6－78／14．23

16．26／2－54／11．17

16．55／4－79／12．12

18．63／8－66／10．32

18．21

2． The number ofresponsive posts eacharticle received．（Mean／Range／SD）

2．95／1－10／1．86

3．87／1－10／2．22

4．01／0－16／3．07

2．76／0－9／2．21

3．68／2－8／0．95

3．40

3． The number ofassessments given toeach article．（Mean／Range／SD）

10．39／1－21／5．05

14．95／1－47／10．35

12．17／0－26／7．25

8．29／0－30／7．99

12／4－28／6．12

11．45

Data from the first category indicatesthatthere was no consistentchange in the num ber of tim es thateach participant read the online articles and the posts responding to them over the five sessions．But thefact that students on average read over 18 essays and the assessing posts responsive to them within each40－minute activity dem onstrates that an effective，busy learning com munity had been created．The largeRange and SD data of the first category in all five peer assessment activities reveal that there were bothactive and inactive participations in assessing peer w ork in a SLN context．

The average num bers of tim es that each article was responded to within the 40 minutes were low ，ranging from 2．76 to 4．01 for the five activities．Given the high frequency in Category 1 ，itis reasonableto say that students preferred to spend m ore time reading rather than giving feedback．However，theaverage number of various kinds of assessments each article received within a 40－minute activity was11．45．Taylor（2002）dubbed students who only read peers�w ork instead of assessing it“lurkers”．Heargued that“lurkers”still played a role in online discussion ，describing them as learning throughlegitim ate peripheral participation．Fung（2004）also asserted that“lurkers”learned through readingothers�ideas，though too many“lurkers”would negatively affect others�active involvement．It is arguedthat these participants were actually reading each other�s contributions and building upon them toim provethe quality of their w ork．

In sum m ary，the participants preferred to read others�w ork or the assessing posts responsive to itrather than give com m ents during SLN－based peer assessment activities．The process of SLN peerassessm ents does not produce num erous responses or lengthy sequences of responses．The m ost significantbarriers to the participants�active responses were learner preference for spending m ore time reading thangiving feedback and the time constraints of a SLN environment．Due to the high volume of reading andabundant assessments each article received，it is concluded that an effective writing com munity had beencreated，within w hich participants had cultivated a sense of audience．Once students have a concretesense of audience，regardless of whether or not the course is online or in a classroom ，their awareness ofaudience often translates into im proved quality in their writing（Greene 1995）．

4．2 Styles of peer assessment techniques　　In order to analyze the style and style changes of the various peer assessment techniques，the firststep was to decode and divide a responsive postinto units of assessment．The sam e mistakes or limitationsbeing evaluated by the same assessor repeatedly within a responding post would be calculated as one unitof assessment in one style of assessment technique．The second step was to codify the assessment intotypes of peer assessment techniques and calculate the num ber and proportion of each type in the totalnum ber of peer assessments．

85

Synchronous Learning Network：How College Students Use Peer Assessment Techniques in Evaluation．．．

Table 3．Assessment types participants used in peer－assessment activities（num．／percentage）

Assessmenttypes

Assessment activities

1 st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th Total

Affirm ation 82／21．1 ％ 96／15．2 ％ 45／12．5 ％ 86／24．1 ％ 70／17．2％ 379／17．7％Uncertainty 20／4．9％ 19／3 ％ 9／2．5 ％ 6／1．7 ％ 6／1．5％ 60／2．8％Editorial 181／46．6 ％ 445／70．4 ％ 270／74．8 ％ 226／63．3％ 264／65 ％ 1386／64．6 ％Extensions 28／7．1％ 29／5 ％ 14／3．9％ 14／3．9％ 19／4．7 ％ 104／4．8 ％Critique 61／15．7 ％ 17／2．7 ％ 5／1．4 ％ 9／2．5 ％ 27／6．7 ％ 109／5．1 ％Off－task 17／4．4％ 26／4 ％ 18／5％ 16／4．5％ 20／5 ％ 97／4．5％Total／Average（per student）

389／10．2 632／16．6 361／9．5 357／9．4 406／10．7 2145／56．45

　　The data in Table 3 reveal that m ost of the peer assessments（an average of 64．6％in total）wererelated to direct correction in the editorial type．It shows the subjects had a strong preference for usingeditorial assessments in the context of SLN－based peer assessment． Within such an environ ment，especially for EFL learners，students focus too heavily on“surface concerns”or editing（especiallym orphologicalissues），neglecting larger issues or text－based changes．

The second m ost preferred technique was affirm ation，though there was no obvious or regular changein its use throughout the sessions．This type of assessmentis easier to write than m ore critical assessmentssuch as extension or critique．There are many factors contributing to this phenomenon ，e．g． face，friendship ，anonymity，gender，personal preferences，time－conservation．As Porter（2003）noted thatstudents m ore often receive positive and supportive online feedback．Itisinteresting to note that the dataalso showed that a decrease in affirm ative assessment was accom panied by an increase in editorialcom ments．

Extension and Critique assessment，accounting for 4．8％ and 5．1 ％ respectively in the totalassessm ents，appear to be the hardest forms of feedback for participants to submit．This was m ainly dueto the fact that it takes a lot of time，and that it might not be in their“comfort zone”（Topping，et al．2000）to produce feedback of a m ore critical type．That�s why，in an open－ended response（Dennen ＆Jones 2006），students cited a preference for m ore time to think about what they wanted in the context ofonline peer assessment．This finding also im plies that students are either unskilled in evaluating the w orkof their peers，or weak in L2 linguistic proficiency to suggest deeper m odification for their peers�w ork．Their assessm ent of the work of their peers was“m ore a reflection of personal characteristics than anykind of quantitative evaluation”（Kennedy 2005）．Other potential factors included the students�opinionthat feedback of this type was the teacher�s responsibility（Sengupta 1998）． As was proved in thefrequency analysis，students preferred to spend time reading rather than giving feedback．

Throughout the course，students increased the number of techniques they used in peer assessment．Adecreasing use of uncertainty techniques represents developmentin both participants�confidence in givingfeedback and an increased sense of being readers．It was demonstrated thatthe participants gained skillinproviding feedback in a SLN context throughout the course．

Another finding was that the percentages of off－task peer assessments over the sessions rem ainedstable．This indicates that socioem otional feedback in the context of SLNis necessary and that SLN couldsupport considerable socioem otional content．Content analysis shows that m ost of the off－task feedbackwas social，w hich has great value in com m unity－building online．The exchange of social off－task postsserves to build cohesiveness（Gunawardena 1995）．Consistent off－task com munication also serves tofacilitate the development of a social presence over time（Kreijins 2003）．Thus，to acco m modate groupform ation and the development of a social presence，students should be allowed to contribute off－taskfeedback．

These findings reveal that peer assessm ent happening in the context of SLN does not efficientlyprom ote critical thinking or a deeper understanding of the issues．But it does provide good opportunitiesfor students to practice their m orphological techniques and reduce the heavy w ork－load on the instructors

95

Weng Keshan ＆Li Qing

to repeat the modification work on a surface level．There were no obvious changes in assessment stylesthroughout the peer assessment sessions．Though students produced varying num bers of peer assessmentwithin the same period of time in different online assessment sessions，they showed an obvious preferencefor using editorial and affirm ation techniques，rather than extension and critical ones．As stated above，there was also a tendency to use fewer and fewer assessments of uncertainty．Participants then did notpresent a m ple peer assessm ent techniques at higher critical levels in a SLN context，and they wereaccustomed to peer assessment in such a context．

Through adding his expertise，the instructor plays an important role in ensuring the sm oothness ofeach assessment activities and helping to im prove the quality of student assessment．Assome students maynot think their peers are qualified to criticize their writing and may distrust their co m ments（Nelson ＆Murphy 1993），they may prefer instructor feedback（Nelson ＆Carson 1998）．He may participate in theassessm ent activities by reading students�com ments，encouraging“lurkers”to contribute to the writingcom munity，or providing frequent and directed questions or responses to stim ulate criticalthinking．Firstand forem ost，he should instruct students in assessm ent techniques and provide them with appropriatedata on w hich to base their judgments．Students will then be made to feel that their unique strengths arevalued，and that they can offer som ething to the writing com munity． Overall，students preferencouragement，direction and reinforcement from the instructor to his being in control．

4．3 Participant response to SLN－based peer assessmentThe final research item addressed student opinions on receiving and giving public feedback in a SLN

context．As Appendix shows，the mean in all the three categories was above average（over 3．0）．Thismeant that students had positive attitudes toward the process and the results of peer assessments in a SLNcontext．

Since peer assessment activities were mediated by technology，it is im portant to understand whatstudents thought about the use of technology in mediating peer w ork．There was a mean of 3．97（SD ＝0．89）in the first category of user－friendliness．This indicates that students felt comfortable using thediscussion board of BAS7．1 as a tool for synchronous peer assessment．This finding is consistent with Lu＆Bol�s study（2007），w hich revealed that participants felt comfortable with peer assessment administeredonline，since they could do it at a self－mediated pace．It also showed that the system interface design wasaccepted by the students．The students had especially high opinions of the technology in navigatingthrough others�w ork（M ＝4．31 ，SD ＝0．71）．But they also felt that peer assessment happening in such aSLN context were m ore co m manding（M ＝3．81，SD ＝0．95）than those happening in face－to－faceclassrooms．SLN－based peer assessments，especially the editing feedback，were actually rather time－consuming．This was proved by the rather sm all average number of assessment each article receivedwithin each 40 minute peer activity．

These students saw peer assessment in a SLN context as helpful in im proving their writing andobserved im provementin their writing skills after the sessions（M ＝3．52，SD ＝1．10）．Worth mentioningis that the students did not think they received much useful feedback from classm ates（M ＝2．86 ，SD ＝0．96）．This finding was a reflection of the factthat students might not be satisfied with only surface－levelmodifications，such as editorial and affirm ative feedback．They perhaps expected in－depth assessment oftheir writing from peers．But as non－native speakers，they had insufficient linguistic skills to expresscom plex thoughts well in English（Lang 2000）．That�s why giving assessment is often seen as theinstructor�s job．However，students referenced a lot of others�ideas w hile reading their articles（M ＝3．47 ，SD ＝1．06）．This would be helpful for both writing im provement and the building of a learningcom munity．From their responses，it is seen that they started to care about what others thought of（M ＝3．69 ，SD ＝1．04）and expected from（M ＝3．47，SD ＝1．18）their writing in the sessions．It could beinferred that students had fostered a sense of writing in a reader－oriented way．

The participants had positive opinions of such a writing form at（ M ＝4．04 ，SD ＝1．01）．Thiscategory had the highest mean score of the three．Insights were gained from their responses．They werewilling to present their w ork for peer assessment（M ＝4．22，SD ＝0．96）．They were serious and activew hile participating in online peer assessment activities．All these reflected their satisfaction with the

06

Synchronous Learning Network：How College Students Use Peer Assessment Techniques in Evaluation．．．

online experience（M ＝4．33，SD ＝0．89）．Changes in the forms of peer assessment activity should bemade，however，so that participants would not feel dissatisfaction（M ＝2．76，SD ＝0．94）．Then theywould be willing to put m ore energy into the peer w ork ，and feedback of higher critical levels mightresult．

5．Conclusion

In this study，using SLN－based peer assessments，writer，reader and text were successfully linked．Ineach 90－minute writing session ，this process was used：analyzing（writing assignments）→ writing（editingthe first drafts）→ feedback（peer assessments）→ rewriting（producing the final drafts）．Because ofhigh frequency of peer assessment within the allotted time，an effective online writing co m munity wasbuilt．In such a com m unity，student writers expected their w ork to be read by fellow students，becausethe process com pels them to think through how they would respond not only to others�writing but also totheir own，due to an embodied sense of audience（Cooper 1986）．Also ，a sense of responsibility towardthe learning com m unity im proves student performance（Dennen ＆Jones 2006）．Participants were notm erely anticipating what the instructor expected，but what their peers wanted．The participants playedthe dual roles of receivers and givers of help．A sense of audience would thus be cultivated ，and perhapsthe ability to write rhetorically，as well．This lends further support to the contention that students canlearn by examining the critiques of their peers�w ork．

But there are also obvious disadvantages to using SLN－based peer assessments in writing classes．Asthe findings show ，the participants did not like to use assessing techniques at highly criticallevels in sucha SLN context．They focused too heavily on“surface concerns”or editing，neglecting larger revisionissues．This further showsthat SLN－based interaction does not facilitate reflection as deeply as does ALN－based interaction（Satillo 2000）．Time limitation and a lack of the advantages of being time－and space－free may even make students resort to off－tasked feedback．And，although the participants read a wealthof peer compositions and the responsive com ments these compositions received，they did not read in－depth．This again lends support to the conclusion that，within a synchronous learning com munity，students don�t have sufficient time to reflect，and thus produce feedback at surface levels．Other obviouslimitations are the length of the current study，w hich lasted for only six sessions；the number of peerassessm ent activities（only five）；the time－consuming nature of editing online feedback and the factthatitwas not in their comfort zone．

This study was not concerned with how the styles of peer assessment affected writing proficiency orhow much progress had been made from the first drafts to the final products． Rather，onlinecollaborative learning involves a variety of ele ments and factors that have to be considered and measuredin order to analyze and assess group and individual performance effectively and objectively．Thus furtherstudies concerning these two perspectives are required．

Note1．QQis software developed by Tencent Co m puter Syste ms Ltd in 1999．Based on instant－m essaging technology ，

QQ supports online chat，video phone ，person－to－person docu m ent transmission ，sharing files，netw orkhardware ，custo m panel and E－m ail．

ReferencesBartels，N．2003．Written peer response in L2 writing．English Teaching Forum 1 ：34－37．Bonk，C．J．＆ King，K． S．1998． Electronic Collaborators． Learner－centered Technologies for Literacy，

Apprenticeship，and Discourse．Mahwah，NJ：Lawrence Erlbaum Associates．Ceci，S．J．1990． On intelligence．．． m ore or less．A bio－ecological treatise on intellectual development．

Englewood Cliffs，NJ：Prentice Hall．Chandrasegaran，A．＆Schaetzel，K．2004． Think Your Way to Effective Writing． Singapore：Pearson

Education South Asia Pte Ltd．Coit，C．2005．A Student－centered Online Writing Course．In P．Zaphiris（Ed．）． User－Centered Computer

Aided Language Learning．Hershey，PA ，USA ：Information Science Publishing．Cooper，M．M．1986．The ecology of writing．College English 48／4：364－375．Dennen，V．P．＆Jones，G．2006．How�s m y writing？Using online peer feedback toim prove performance in

16

Weng Keshan ＆Li Qing

the composition classroom．In T．S．Roberts．（Ed．）．Self，Peer and Group Assessment in E－learning．Hershey，PA ，USA ：Information Science Publishing．

DiGiovanni，E．＆Nagaswami，G．2001．Online peer review ：An alternative to face－to－face？ELT Journal55／3：263－272．

Ferris，D．R．2004 Teaching ESL Composition：Purpose，Process，and Practice．Mahwah，NJ，USA ：LawrenceErlbaum Associates，Incorporated．

Fung，Y．Y．H．2004 Collaborative online learning：Interaction patterns and limiting factors．Open Learning19／2．

Greene，S．1995． Making sense of my own ideas：The problems of authorship in a beginning writingclassroo m． Written Com munication 12／2 ：186－218．

Hara，N．，Bonk ，C．J．＆Angeli，C．1998．Content analysis of online discussion in an applied educationalpsychology（Center for Research on Learning and Technology，No，2－98）．Retrieved March 17，2005．

Hrastinski，S．2005．Introducing a synchronous medium in a computer－mediated distance learning course：Towards understanding how student participation is affected．Proceedings ASCILITE 2005 ，Brisbane．［viewed 24 Oct 2005］ http：／／w w w．ascilite．org．au／coferences／brisbane05／blogs／proceedings／30 ＿Hrastinski．pdf

Ingram ，A．＆Hathorn ，L．2003．Methods for analyzing collaboration in online com munications．In T．S．Roberts（Ed．）．Online Collaborative Learning：Theory and Practice．Hershey，PA ，USA ：Idea Group Inc．

Kanuka，H．＆Anderson ，T．1998．Online socialinterchanges，discord，and knowledge construction．Journalof Distance Education 13／1：57－74．

Kay，R．H．2006．Developing a com prehensive metric for assessing discussion board effectiveness． BritishJournal of Educational Technology 37／5 ：761－783．

Kennedy，G．J．2005．Peer－assessmentin group projects：Is it w orth it？The Australasian Computing EducationConference 2005，Newcastle，Australia．［verified 11 Feb 2007］

Lam ，P．＆McNaught，C．2004．Evaluating educational websites：Asyste m for m ultiple websites at m ultipleuniversities．In L．Cantoni＆C．Mcloughlin（Eds．）．Proceedings of the 16 th Annual World Conference onEducational Multimedia，Hypermedia ＆Telecom munications，ED－MEDIA 2004 ，Lugano，Switzerland（pp．1066－1073）．Norfolk，VA ：Association for the Advancement of Computers in Education．

Lam ，P．＆McNaught，C．2006．Evaluating designs for Web－assisted peer and group assessment．In T．S．Roberts（Ed．）．Self，Peer and Group Assessmentin E－Learning．Hershey，PA ，USA ：Information Publishing．

Lang ，D．2000．Critical thinking in Web courses：An oxym oron？Syllabus 14／2 ：20－24．Liu，S．J．，Liu，Z．F．＆Yuan ，S． M．2001． Web－based peer review ：The learner as both adapter and

reviewer．IEEE Transactions on Education 44／3：246－251．Lu，R．＆Bol，L．2007．A Com parison of Anonymous Versus Identifiable e－peer Review on College Student

Writing Performance and the Extent of Critical Feedback．Journalof Interactive Online Learning 6／2：100－115．

Murphy，E．＆Ciszewska－Carr，J．2007．Instructors�experiences of web based synchronous com m unicationusing two way audio and direct messaging．Australian Journal of Educational Technology 23／1 ：68－86．

Nelson，G．L．＆Carson，J．G．1998．ESL students�perceptions of effectiveness of peer response groups．Journal of Second Language Writing 7：113－131．

Nelson，G．L．＆Murphy ，J．M．1993．Peer response groups：Do L2 writers use peer co m ments in revisingtheir drafts？Tesol Quarterly 27／1：135－141．

Nicholson，S．2002．Socialization in the“virtual hallway”：Instant messaging in the asynchronous web－baseddistance education classroom．Internet and Higher Education 5／4 ：363－372．

Pelaez，N．J．2002．Proble m－based writing with peer review im proves academic performance in physiology．Advancesin Physiology Education 26／3：174－184．

Porter，L．R．2003．Developing an Online Educational Curriculum ：Techniques and Technologies．Hershey，PA ，USA ：Idea Group Inc．

Rice，R．E．，Hiltz，S．R．＆Spencer，D．H．2004．Media Mixes and Learning Netw orks．In S．R．Hiltz（Ed．）． Learning Together Online：Research on Asynchronous Learning． Mahwah，NJ，USA ：LawrenceErlbaum Associates，Incorporated．

Riel，M．，Rhoads，J．＆Ellis，E．2006．Culture of critique：online learning circles and peer reviews ingraduate Education．In T．S．Roberts（Ed．）． Self，Peer and Group Assessment in E－learning．Hershey，PA ，USA ：Information Science Publishing．

26

Synchronous Learning Network：How College Students Use Peer Assessment Techniques in Evaluation．．．

Roberts，T．S．2006．Self，Peer and Group Assessment in E－learning：An introduction．In T．S．Roberts（Ed．）． Self，Peer and Group Assessment in E－learning． Hershey ，PA ，USA ：Information SciencePublishing．

Satillo，S． M．2000． Discourse functions and syntactic co m plexity in synchronous and asynchronousco m munication．Language Learning ＆Technology 4／1 ：82－119．

Schwier，R． A．，＆ Balbar，S．2002． The interplay of content and com m unity in synchronous andasynchronous com munication ：Virtual com m unication in a graduate seminar．Canadian Journal of learningand Technology 28／2：21－30．

Sengupta，S．1998．Peer evaluation：Iam not the teacher．ELTJournal 52／2 ：19－28．Taylor，J．C．2002 Teaching and learning online：The w orkers，the lurkers and the shirkers，keynote speech

at the 2nd Conference on Research in Distance and Adult Learning in Asia，Hong Kong．Topping，K．J．，Smith ，E．F．，Swanson ，I．＆Elliot，A．2000．Formative peer assessment of academic

writing between postgraduate students． Assessment＆Evaluation in Higher Education 25／2 ：149－169．Vygotsky，L．1978． Mind in Society：The Development of Higher Psychological Processes．Cambridge，MA ：

Harvard University Press．Wang，A．Y．＆Newlin，M．H．2001．Online lectures：Benefits for the virtual classroom．T．H．E．Journal

29／1：17－24．Wang，M．，Sierra，C．＆Folger，T．2003．Building a dynamic online learning co m munity among adult

learners．Educational Media International 40／1－2：49－61．Zhao ，Y．1998．The effects of anony mity on co mputer－mediated peer review． International Journal of

Educational Telecom munication 4／4：311－345．齐红、符祝芹，2007 ，Blackboard 平台支持下的大学英语混合教学模式的实证研究，《西安外国语大学学报》

第3 期。许竹君，2004，在线实时在线讨论辅助学生英语学习的调查，《外语电化教学》第6 期。张海森、窦卫霖、黄荣怀，2007 ，基于QQ 网络平台的实时在线英语口语教学研究，《外语电化教学》第6 期。张洪岩、赵建华，2008 ，基于协作知识建构的专业英语网络课程设计理念，《外语电化教学》第4 期。

Appendix

Descriptive statistics on post－study questionnaire items（Great＝5，pretty good ＝4 ，average＝3 ，not so good＝2 ，clueless＝1）

User－friendliness（for supporting“feeling comfortable”） Mean SD n

1．There was clear guidance on how to use the system． 3．86 0．892．This system was efficient in aiding peer assessment． 3．89 0．923．It was easy to navigate through the others�w ork． 4．31 0．714．The system was effective in receiving and providing feedback． 3．94 0．895．The w orkload for the online participation was light． 4．03 0．946．Online peer assessment is m ore demanding than that of face－to－face classrooms． 3．81 0．95

Total 3．97 0．89Features fostering writing develop ment and perceived progress1．Getting feedback has been helpful for my own writing． 3．92 0．972．Providing feedback has been helpful for m y own writing． 3．78 0．993．Ireceived a lot of useful feedback fro m my classm ates． 2．86 0．964．Ioften referenced a lot of others�ideas w hile reading their w ork． 3．47 1．065．There were a lot of personal thoughts to be assessed． 3．33 1．156．It helped me see others making mistakes，and Icould avoid them m yself． 3．42 1．08 387．Icared m ore and m ore about what others thought of my writing． 3．69 1．048．Icared m ore and m ore about what others expected of my writing． 3．47 1．189．I�d learned a lot through peer assessment． 3．56 1．1310．My writing techniques have im proved． 3．42 1．08

Total 3．52 1．10

36

Weng Keshan ＆Li Qing

User－friendliness（for supporting“feeling comfortable”） Mean SD n

Learning affective factors1．Iknew it was supposed to help im prove my grades． 3．50 1．282．I was willing to present m y composition online to be assessed by m y classm ates． 4．22 0．963．I was serious when providing feedback． 4．14 0．874．I was serious when reading others�feedback． 4．19 0．955．I was actively involved in online peer assessments． 4．03 0．916．Idiscovered a lot of joy in doing peer assessments． 2．76 0．947．I was satisfied with the online experience． 4．33 0．89

Total 4．04 1．01

《中国英语教学》英文刊名更名启事暨征稿通知

《中国英语教学》英文刊名自2010 年第1 期开始更名为 Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics。《中国英语教学》为国家级学会中国英语教学研究会的会刊，由外语教学与研究出版社和英国使馆文

化教育处联合出版，是国内唯一的一本刊登用英语写成的有关中国英语教学理论与实践的论文的外语类学术期刊，在国际、国内享有较大的影响，成为国内外了解中国英语教学的窗口。

本刊按国际学术期刊惯例实行同行专家双向匿名审稿制度，并实行五审制度，分别为预审、外审、复审、终审、外籍专家审稿。

本刊已被以下期刊索引或全文数据库收录：中国期刊网（CNKI）全文收录；现代语言学会国际文献索引（MLA International Bibliography）提要收录；美国EBSCO 学术数据库全文收录。本刊主要栏目有英语教学法、二语习得、语言测试与评估、语言政策、课程设计与教材评估、教师发展、

跨文化交际与英语教学、专门用途英语教学、词典与英语教学、教学实践创新、翻译教学、语言学教学、文学教学、书评与文评等栏目。本刊不刊登语言学理论、文学评论、翻译理论实践、英美社会文化研究等方面的论文，但可以刊登语言学、文学、翻译、英美社会文化等课程相关的教学理论与实践方面的论文。本刊对稿件的基本要求如下：

a）述评类稿件：8 ，000 —10，000 英文词，参考文献50 个以上，近两年国内外相关文献要多。要求全面综述相关该领域的最新成果，重在讨论与批评，在总结前人成果的基础上提出自己的创见，及对未来研究方向的展望。

b）实证类稿件：6，000 —8 ，000 英文词，参考文献20 个以上。通过对实验和数据的分析，提出并论证新的观点。实证研究的又可分为定性研究、定量研究、定性定量相结合的研究。

c）教学实践创新类的稿件：4，000—6 ，000 英文词，参考文献20 个以上。提出新的教学方法与实践，前人用过什么类似方法？在此基础上有什么创新？本方法有什么实际效果？本刊对教学实践类的稿件要求比较严格，一定在跟现有的教学方法和实践作对比分析后突出自己的新意。只写点个人感受是远远不够的。

联系人：金玲电　邮：elt＠fltrp．co m电　话：＋86 10 88819581

46

Synchronous Learning Network：How College Students Use Peer Assessment Techniques in Evaluation．．．