CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Anxiety
2.1.1 Anxiety
Anxiety is generally seen as a psychological concept and has been explored by
researchers. Spielberger (1996) defines anxiety as “subjective, consciously perceived
feelings of apprehension and tension, accompanied by or associated with activation or
arousal of the autonomic nervous system.” This kind of feeling prevents people from
performing successfully in their learning. He further proposes the distinction between
trait and state anxiety. In addition, a third perspective, situation specific anxiety is
now widely accepted by researchers as an alternative to the state anxiety concept. In
the following paragraphs, the three perspectives will be discussed.
Trait anxiety is a permanent state, which is part of the personality. That is, a
person with high trait anxiety tends to be more anxious no matter what situation he or
she is in. However, MacIntyre & Gardner (1991a) points out the problem that people
with the same trait anxiety scores do not always show the same degree of anxiety in
an identical situation. If the situation factor is not taken into consideration, it is not
easy to describe anxiety precisely. Therefore, the idea of “state anxiety” is proposed.
Spielberger (1983) indicates that state anxiety is apprehension experienced at
particular moment in time, for example, prior to taking examinations. Beatty, et al.
(1989) further indicates that trait anxiety is the accumulation of prior experience of
state anxiety. However, according to MacIntyre & Gardner (1991b), state anxiety
could be criticized for not able to point out the source of the anxiety. In the state
anxiety scale, questions would be like “Are you nervous now?” rather than “Did the
situation make you nervous?” The respondent may not answer the question in the
designed target situation. Rather, there are numerous factors that can influence the
answer of the respondent. Therefore, situation specific anxiety is adopted.
This perspective focuses on the situations where anxiety is aroused.
Respondents’ anxiety is explored “in a well-defined situation such as public speaking,
writing examinations, performing math, or participating in French class” (MacIntyre
& Gardner, 1991b, p.90) They need to report the particular source of their
apprehension. For example, Horwitz, et al. (1986) believe that foreign language
anxiety is situation specific anxiety. They asked more detailed questions in the
situation like speaking in front of the language class, taking exams in language course,
and perceiving other students’ evaluations of them. By doing so, the anxiety in each
particular situation could be examined. Thus, researchers are able to define their
situation more specific to their requirements of researches, and therefore deepen the
understanding of anxiety in the target situation.
2.1.2 Foreign Language Anxiety
2.1.2.1 Types of Foreign Language Anxiety
Horwitz, et al. (1986) describe three components of foreign language anxiety: 1)
communication apprehension; 2) test anxiety; 3) fear of negative evaluation. They are
introduced as follows:
Communication apprehension is described as “the fear or anxiety an individual
feels about oral communication” (Daly, 1991). In a foreign language classroom, the
language learners’ oral tasks include not only learning a second language but also
performing the language, which consists of two components: listening and speaking.
According to Daly (1991), the main reason for communication apprehension is related
to the learners’ language competence and previous learning experience. The
frustration experienced to speak in a foreign language can lead to apprehension about
future attempts to communicate (Sparks & Ganschow, 1991).
Horwitz, et al. (1991) suggest that “test anxiety refers to a type of performance
anxiety stemming from a fear of failure.” Students with test anxiety always think the
tests are so difficult that they can’t handle and will fail the tests. Young (1991) thinks
that proficiency would affect the levels of test anxiety. It also occurs when students
have poor performance in the previous tests (Chan & Wu, 2000). Test-anxious
students may have false beliefs in language learning. They habitually put impractical
demands on themselves and feel that anything less than a perfect test performance is a
failure (Horwitz, et al., 1986).
The third anxiety, fear of negative evaluation, is defined as “apprehension about
others’ evaluations, distress over their negative evaluations, and the expectation that
others would evaluate oneself negatively” (Watson & Friend, 1969). Not limited to
test-taking situations and the academic subject matters, it may take place in any social,
evaluative situations, such as interviewing for a job or speaking in foreign language
classes. MacIntyre & Gardner (1991b) even propose that fear of negative evaluation is
closely related to communication apprehension. With it, students are unsure of
themselves and uncertain about what they are saying, and thus fear of negative
evaluation occurs. Besides, fear of negative evaluation derives mainly from both
teachers and peers. They are sensitive to peers’ opinions and care a lot about the
performance in front of their classmates.
2.1.2.2 Effects of Foreign Language Anxiety
There are two effects of anxiety, facilitating and debilitating. Facilitating anxiety
is regarded as an asset or a helpful source to language performance (MacIntyre &
Gardner, 1989), and motivates the learner to adopt an approach attitude. On the other
hand, debilitating anxiety motivates the learner to assume an avoidance attitude and
therefore tends to escape from the new learning task (Scovel, 1987). The factor of task
difficulty is the determinant. MacIntyre (1995) suggests only when “a given task is
relatively simple”, foreign language anxiety could be facilitating, which may improve
performance through increased efforts. Otherwise, anxiety will impair learning.
These two effects can be further confirmed by the theory of language class
risktaking and language class discomfort. Ely (1986) defines language class risktaking
as “an individual’s tendency to assume risks in using the L2 in the second language
class.” A successful learner has to be willing to try out the new language and take the
risk of being wrong. On the contrary, a language learner with discomfort who adopts
the policy of avoidance is unwilling to participate and volunteer answers, and
performs unsuccessfully in the language classroom settings.
2.1.3 Writing Apprehension
2.1.3.1 Writing Apprehension
Writing apprehension is a language-skill-specific anxiety. In recognition of the
existence and significance of writing apprehension has been a notable result of the
considerable research. The justification for regarding writing apprehension as a
distinct form of anxiety is provided by a number of researches. (Burgoon & Hale,
1983 ; Daly & Wilson, 1983 ; Stafford & Daly, 1984) The great majority of researches
indicated that writing anxiety is negatively associated with the quality of the message
conveyed (Burgoon & Hale, 1983 ; Daly, 1997; Fleming, 1985; Garcia, 1977), with
individuals’ actual writing behavior (Bannister, 1992), their writing performance
(Dickson, 1978), and their willingness to write or to take advanced writing courses
(Daly & Miller, 1975b). Writing apprehension is also found to influence individuals’
career choices and academic decisions (Daly & Miller, 1975a).
Individuals with high apprehension of writing would fear evaluation of their
writing, feeling that they will be negatively rated on it. Thus they avoid writing as
possible as they can. If they are forced to write, they exhibit high levels of anxiety.
They expect to fail in writing, and logically they should since they seldom engage in it.
Outside the classroom, they seldom engage in extra-curricular activities that require
writing such as journalism. They would seek occupations they view as requiring little
writing (Daly & Miller, 1975a).
2.1.3.2 Sources of Writing Apprehension
According to Cheng (2004), EFL student writers’ apprehension stemmed from a
variety of sources related to (1) instructional practices, (2) personal beliefs about
writing and learning to write, (3) self-perceptions, and (4) interpersonal threats.
One major source of writing apprehension comes from instructional practices
such as the instructor’s assigning topics that students are not familiar with (Feng,
2001), giving unreasonable time constraint to complete a writing task (Shen, 1999),
imposing rigid rules of text composition , and requiring students to sit for a writing
test (Cheng, 2004).
Another source of writing apprehension concerns with personal beliefs, such as
the belief that good writing is error-free and that writing is an insurmountable learning
task. According to Johanson’s (2001) study, preoccupation with accuracy in language
as well as content aggravated students’ anxiety that their mistakes would be exposed
to others. Many participants in Cheng’s (2004) study believed that composing is a
tremendously complicated laborious task and they had not much control over the
outcomes of the learning process.
Some writers expressed detrimental emotions, which had their roots partly in
learners’ low self-confidence or perceived limited L2 competence, especially in the
areas of vocabulary and word usage. For these limitations seemed to hamper wirters’
authentic communication and presentation of their “true self” to others (Horwitz et al.,
1986).
Finally, the threats of possible negative evaluation and fear of exposure were
found to be one of the major contributors to writing apprehension (Johanson, 2001).
Besides, competitiveness and teacher’s harsh attitudes are two other significant
sources of writing apprehension because the former poses threats to self-esteem
whereas the latter, threats of social rejection (Cheng, 2004).
2.2 Writing as a Process
2.2.1 Definition
In the late sixties and early seventies, the conventional paradigm was challenged
and composition researchers began to question their “writing as a product” approach.
As a result, a dramatic shift came – the process approach – when researchers began to
analyze what writers really do when they write instead of what they ought to do.
Wu (1995) proposed that a process approach is “a writer-dominated approach in
which accuracy and patterns are replaced by process.” Besides, Montague (1995)
defined process-oriented approach as a teaching approach focusing on the process a
writer engages when constructing meaning. It may include identified stages of the
writing process such as pre-writing, writing, and re-writing. Similarly, Wu (1995)
suggested that the process approach “guides student writer frequently through five
stages of prewriting, organizing, writing, evaluating, and revising (p.469).”
2.2.2 Elements of Process Writing
Exploring the writing process, researchers and teachers had found some basic
elements of process writing. First, Su (1995) stated “the writing process is an active
and constructive endeavor through which student writers draw upon their own
knowledge and thoughts to create meaning.” Therefore, teachers are obliged to teach
students the process how to discover, analyze, and organize their ideas in order to
convey the student writers’ real thoughts and feelings (Wu, 1995).
Second, the process approach also creates an encouraging climate in writing
class. Reid (1993) pointed out that “the act of composing should become the result of
a genuine need to express one’s personal feeling, experience, or reaction, all within a
climate of encouragement.” As a result, students gained general ideas from reading,
sharing, and discussion about the topic. They organized their ideas and develop them
into sentences and paragraphs.
Third, with peer revision, the draft is proofread and strengthens the readability of
the article. (Bello, 1997; Fregeau, 1999; Wu, 1995). If students learn how to write
with the knowledge of what the writing process is, they will know how to construct
their ideas and thus write meaningfully.
2.2.3 Advantages of Process Writing
First, it provides a student-centered environment. According to Grau and Bartasis
(1995), teachers serve as the primary source of instruction and the gatekeeper of
information in a traditional teacher-centered classroom. Therefore, students become
uninterested in writing because of tight regulation. They have no opportunity to confer,
change, or understand what is really involved in learning to write (Atwell, 1987).
However, the process-oriented approach encourages the practice-like atmosphere and
students are free to express themselves through written language. (Reeves, 1997) The
learners have responsibility for learning and can influence what, how and when they
learn (Davis et al., 2000). On the other hand, teachers provide their students with a
supportive environment and many opportunities to write.
Second, it provides a non-threatening community setting. In a traditional class,
students work individually and compete with each other to get higher grades.
However, on-going support and feedback is crucial as students share their writing
(Flood et al., 1991). Because there is no turn-taking necessary, interruptions are
eliminated, immediate feedback and free interaction are allowed in this approach,
students feel less anxious about English writing. (Abrahamsen, 2000).
Third, it helps students understand what the writing process is all about. The
approach also gives them the time to respond to other students’ writing pieces and
conference with their teacher during the writing process (Husen and Neville, 1994).
The students learn that quality writing takes time, effort, and patience because it’s not
a mystical experience that only happens to a few lucky people (Reeves, 1997). They
also learn that they need not be committed to their words in the first draft because
writing is a process that involves exploring several different pathways before deciding
where to go.
2.3 Cooperative Learning
2.3.1 Definition
Recently, the concept of cooperative learning is widely applied to EFL learning.
According to Roger E. W-B Olsen and Spencer Kagan (1992), cooperative learning is
defined as the following:
“Cooperative learning is group learning activity organized so that learning is
dependent on the socially structured exchange of information between learners in
groups and in which each learner is held accountable for his or her own learning and
is motivated to increase the learning of others.”
2.3.2 Theoretical Background of Cooperative Learning
According to Wei and Chen (1993), proponents of cooperative learning consider
that “learning is a process of constructing knowledge, not a process of passively
copying information from teachers.” Students, as the dominators of learning, construct
knowledge by means of merging what they have learned or experienced, that is, their
background knowledge, with the newly received information (Krashen, 1985).
Researchers have suggested a wide range of theoretical models to explain the
superiority of cooperative learning in classroom context (Slavin, 1990). Four main
categories are: (1) social interdependence theory, (2) cognitive developmental theory,
(3) achievement motivation theory, and (4) cognitive elaboration theory
(1) Social Interdependence Theory
According to Johnson and Johnson (1999), there are three choices to achieve
teaching goals: competitive, individual, and cooperative. In competitive learning,
students’ success builds upon others’ failure, that is, negative interdependence. In
individual learning, each learner fulfills his task without giving or receiving assistance,
that is, non- interdependence. However, in cooperative learning, each member must
be responsible to help each other to achieve the common goal of the group, that is,
positive interdependence.
(2) Cognitive Developmental Theory
The cognitive developmental theory is mainly based on the theories of Piaget,
Vygotsky, cognitive science, and academic controversy (Johnson and Johnson, 1999).
During the process of cooperation, students have to negotiate meaning to make the
explanations clearer, and during this process, students can construct their cognitive
system (Vygotsky, 1978). From the perspective of cognitive science, cooperative
learning involves “modeling, coaching, and scaffolding – conceptual frameworks
provided for understanding what is being learned”. Cooperative groups produce
conflicts among ideas, opinions, conclusions, theories, and information of members.
(Johnson and Johnson, 1999). Students reshape their ideas and attain a more refined
and elaborative conclusion during the process of debating.
(3) Achievement Motivation Theory
Dornyei (1994) mentions that motivational complex underlying L2 learning is a
multidimensional construct comprising three independent levels: the language level,
the learner level, and the learning situation level. The most important impact of
cooperative learning occurs at the learning situation level, which concerns
situation-specific motives rooted in various aspects of language learning in a
classroom setting. But continuous exposure might influence motivational processes at
the learner level as well.
In his study in 1997, Dornyei identifies that motivational components at the
learning situation level incorporate classroom goal structure, group cohesiveness,
goal-orientedness and reward system. In cooperative learning situations, the
classroom goal structure is “centered on positive interdependence and the resulting
process of cooperation.” Cohesive groups make the learning process more enjoyable.
Students are more goal-oriented than in traditional classrooms. Their achievement is
not built on other peers’ failures but on mutual concern, collaboration and
encouragement (Johnson and Johnson, 1999).
(4) Cognitive Elaboration Theory
Flurkey (1992) indicates that students’ explaining learning materials to the other
students can enhance higher order thinking skill. Feng and Wu (1999) also claims
that the learning effects are higher in cooperative learning situations, in which they
practice summarizing or explaining the materials to others.
2.3.3 Advantages and Disadvantages
The research findings provide much evidence that expresses the cognitive,
affective, and social-interpersonal benefits as well as some drawbacks of
implementing cooperative learning. The strengths of applying cooperative learning
include:
(1) Enhancing Learning Autonomy
Kohonen (1992) indicates that autonomy includes the notion of “interdependence,
that is, being responsible for one’s behavior in the social context, being able to
cooperative with others and solve conflicts in constructive ways.” When students
are given positions and tasks of genuine authority or are encouraged to take part in
group work and peer tutoring, they are granted opportunities for self-regulation
and independent decision making skills (Hill, 1992).
(2) Improving Academic Achievement
Cooperative learning results in higher-order reasoning, critical thinking, and
cognitive skills (Johnson and Johnson, 1999). Thus, cooperative groups are more
competent to deal with complex problems than competitors working alone for they
adopt reasoning strategies more often when interacting with other members
(Putnam, 1997). Besides, they got more opportunities to practice the target
language so the overall English proficiency levels were improved (Wei & Chen,
1993).
(3) Enhancing Self-esteem
Self-esteem is defined as “a person’s own judgment about his or her own worth,
and is based on that person’s perception of how competent and well-liked he or
she is” (Putnam, 1997). In cooperative settings, students feel less anxious and
more liked by their peers because of the increased opportunities to interact and
support psychologically (Chiu, 2002) Besides, Slavin (1995) concludes that “two
of the most important components of students’ self-esteem are the feeling that they
are well-liked by their peers and the feeling that they are doing well
academically.” Thus, cooperative learning actually increases their self-esteem.
(4) Improving interpersonal relationships
In cooperative learning, group members are in a state of dynamic cooperation and
would develop intimate learning relationship (Bejarano, 1987). Thus, through
mutual interactions with teammates, students improve their language competence,
sharpen social skills, and further develop interpersonal relationship with group
members (Chen, 1998).
2.4 Peer Assessment
2.4.1 Definition
According to Ammer (1998), Topping (1998), Falchikov & Goldfinch (2000),
and Fallows& Chandramohan (2001), peer assessment can also be referred as peer
evaluation, peer marking, peer correction, peer feedback, peer rating, peer review, and
peer appraisal. Among them, the term “peer assessment” is the most common one.
The idea of peer assessment comes from peer assisted learning (PAL) and multiple
assessment. PAL can be briefly defined as “the development of knowledge and skill
through explicit active helping and supporting among status equals or matched
companions, with the deliberate intent to help others with their learning goals. Its
types include peer tutoring, peer modeling, peer monitoring, and peer assessment
(Topping and Ehly, 2001). According to Topping (1998), peer assessment is defined as
an arrangement in which individuals consider the amount, level, value, worth, quality,
or success of the products or outcomes o learning of peers of similar status. Fallows&
Chandramohan (2001) proposes that peer assessment moves the responsibility from
the tutor to the students.
2.4.2 Positive Perspectives
Peer assessment provides cognitive and metacognitive benefits, according to
Topping (1998) because assessment involves the capability of asking intelligent,
adaptive questions. Van Lehn, Chi, Baggett, and Murray (1995) suggested that peer
assessment involves the assessor in reviewing, summarizing, clarifying, giving
feedback, diagnosing misconceived knowledge, identifying missing knowledge, and
considering deviations from the ideal. These are cognitively demanding activities that
could help to consolidate, reinforce, and deepen understanding in the assessor.
According to Lin et al. (2001), peer assessment emphasizes providing and
receiving feedback. They pointed out that receiving feedback is correlated with
effective learning. Receiving abundant and immediate peer feedback can prevent
some errors and provide hints for making progress. Topping (1998) also indicated that
peer assessment also makes available swifter feedback in greater quantity. In the event
of misconception, it might prevent consolidation of confusion and the compounding
of error upon error, reducing cumulative errors. While peer feedback might not be of
the high quality expected from a professional staff member, its great immediacy,
frequency, and volume compensate for this.
Besides, Ammer (1998) suggested that a peer assessor would provide a unique
frame of reference that often goes unnoted when a teacher provides assessment
feedback regarding a student’s writing performance. A same-age evaluator brings a
similar set of experiences and the voice of one who is doing the same assignments that
produce difficulties for the student with a learning problem.
Peer assessment involves students directly in the learning process and may
promote a sense of ownership, personal responsibility, and motivation. (Topping,
1998)
Developing social and transferable skills is one of the advantages. Peer
assessment can develop teamwork skills and promote active rather than passive
learning. It can also develop verbal communication skills, negotiation skills, and
diplomacy (Riley, 1995). Learning how to give and accept criticism, justify one’s
opinion, and reject suggestions are all forms of social and assertion skills. Student
practice in peer evaluation could facilitate subsequent evaluation skills (Marcoulides
& Simkin, 1991).
If we confine the scope to peer assessment of writing, according to Huang (2003),
several related research indicated merits of peer assessment of English writing as
follows:
1. Peer assessment brings a genuine of sense of audience into the writing classroom;
2. Peer assessment facilitates the development of students’ critical reading and
analysis skills;
3. Peer assessment encourages students to focus on their intended meaning by
discussing alternative points of view and leading to the development of those ideas.
2.4.3 Negative Perspectives
However, Lin et al. (2001) observed that some students had negative feelings
about peer assessment. Some students disliked peer assessment because assessors
were also competitors. Upon receiving an unexpectedly low score from peers,
students often reduced the previous scores that they had given to others as a form of
retaliation. Besides, many educators refuse to adopt peer assessment owing to the
possibility of overmarking or undermarking peers’ performance.
Moreover, students often believe that only teachers have the ability and
professional knowledge to evaluate and provide critical feedback (Zhao, 1998). They
may suspect peers’ ability; in particular, those who receive lower scores regard peer
assessment as inaccurate (McDowell, 1995). Actually, some studies revealed that
students cannot provide peer with useful feedback or just pay attention to the local
problems (Bender, 1989; Flynn, 1982).
Furthermore, according to Freeman (1992), one obvious phenomenon was that
students engaged in peer assessment avoided evaluating one another’s writing
negatively because they were afraid of hurting others by giving negative comments.
Thus, this would reduce the efficiency of peer evaluation.
Also, most advanced students used their own discretion to selectively incorporate
peer feedback into their subsequent drafts (Mendonca & Johnson, 1994) or even failed
to incorporate peer comments into their following revisions owing to a strong sense of
text ownership and vagueness of peer feedback (Tsui & Ng, 2000).
Besides, those students from the countries with the norm of teacher-centered
classrooms are likely to have difficulty appreciating suggestions from the peers and
apt to approach collaboration work in an authoritative stance. This explains why peer
feedback is unfavorable in Asian countries (Nelson & Carson, 1998). Particularly,
skepticism is evident in Chinese and Japanese cultures because the teachers in these
cultures are authoritative (Nelson & Murphy, 1993; Tsui, 1999).
2.4.4 Types of peer assessment
Fallows& Chandramohan (2001) pointed out that peer assessment could be
applied using three kinds of different arrangements including:
1. Assessment of just one or two colleagues: Here, there is a potential to consider
quite detailed and extensive items of work such as written reports.
2. Assessment of all colleagues (either individually or in groups): This is the most
applicable to assessment tasks such as oral presentations, displays and exhibitions,
but is not usually appropriate for tasks such as written reports except where the
class size is very small.
3. Within group assessment: Here, the intention is to focus on colleagues’
performance and contributions to a group-based activity.
Topping (1998) also develops a typology of peer assessment. Some of the main
parameters of variation between projects are described subsequently and summarized
in Table 2.1.
In this study, the participants are senior high school freshmen and the subject is
set on English. They can do peer assessment wherever and whenever they can get into
the Internet. The experiment will last for three months. The data will be collected both
quantitatively and qualitatively. The object is to investigate the effect of peer
assessment activity on decreasing students’ writing apprehension. In the process, the
directionality is reciprocal. Students are as assessors and assesses at the same time.
Their output will be three pieces of writing. Anonymous policy is adopted for fair and
honest results. The matching between assessors and assesses is voluntary. Besides,
students will be given extra course credits in order to encourage participation.
Table 2.1
A Typology of Peer Assessment in Higher Education
Variable Range of Variation
Curriculum area/ subject All
Objectives 1. Of staff and/or students?
2. Time saving?
3. Cognitive/affective gains?
Focus 1. Quantitative/summative?
2. Qualitative/formative?
3. Both?
Product/ output 1. Tasks/marks/grades ? 2. Writing?
3. Oral presentations?
4. Other skilled behaviors?
Relation to staff assessment 1. Substitutional?
2. Supplementary?
Official weight Contributing to assessee final official grade or not?
Directionality 1. One-way?
2. Reciprocal, mutual?
Privacy 1. Anonymous?
2. Confidential?
3. Public?
Contact 1. Distance?
2. Face to face?
Year 1. Same year?
2. Cross year of study?
Ability 1. Same ability?
2. Cross ability?
Constellation Assessors 1. Individuals?
3. Groups?
Constellation Assessed 1. Individuals?
2. Pairs?
3. Groups?
Place 1. In class?
2. Out of class?
Time 1. Class time?
2. Free time or informally?
Requirement 1. Compulsory for assessors/ees?
2. Voluntary for assessors/ees?
Reward 1. Course credit?
2. Other incentives or reinforcement for participation?
2.4.5 Web-based peer assessment
2.4.5.1 Characteristics of web-based learning
According to Warschauer (2000), NBLT (network based language teaching) is
“ language teaching that involves the use of computers connected to one another in
either local or global networks.” It can be discussed from two aspects, material
provided on websites, such as on-line databases, and web-provided environment for
communication, such as chat-room or discussion forum (Tsai, 2002).
The characteristics of web-based learning have been discussed by many
researchers (Forsyth Ian 1998, Orlando R. Kelm, 1994, cited from Tsai, 2002). The
following are their suggestions:
(1) Real context: It connects teachers and students to a real context. The interaction is
in essence human-human but not the made-up human-computer interaction, so
students will not be limited in the non-web-based classroom, which is created to
(2) Distance and time free: It breaks the limitation of physical classroom settings in
time and in space. As long as there is internet, teachers and students can communicate
with each other at any time and at any location.
(3) Rich resources: It helps to retrieve valuable resources easily and the cost is very
low. The contents of the websites on the internet cover nearly all topics because
“resource sharing” is the essence of the internet.
(4) Fair turn-taking: In non-web-based classroom, teachers are usually turn assigners.
However, in web-based learning, students participating in the interaction have the
equal opportunity to send a message and may not feel ignored.
(5) Abundant feedback: There are two types of feedback on the internet: synchronous
and asynchronous. Examples of the former are chatting in chatting rooms and
interaction in MOO. Examples of the latter are E-mail exchange and discussion in
BBS. Both provide abundant feedback, which is critical to learning.
(6) Lower-anxiety: Since the interaction in web-based learning is anonymous and
asynchronous, students’ anxiety can be lowered. They don’t have to worry about
being laughed at so there is less face threatening.
(7) Learner controlled learning path: According to their own pace and will, students
can decide their path of learning. However, in non-web-based setting, participation is
coordinated by the teachers. They set up the goal, decide the activities, and even how
long they last.
2.4.5.2 Advantages & Disadvantages
According to Lin et al. (2001), web-based peer assessment has some advantages
over ordinary peer assessment. First, students evaluate peers’ work through the web
(not in a face-to-face presentation), therefore ensuring anonymity and facilitating a
willingness to critique. Second, web-based peer assessment allows teachers to monitor
students’ progress at any period of the assessment process. Teachers can determine
how well an assessor or assesses performs at any time and constantly monitors the
process. This is nearly impossible during ordinary peer assessment when several
rounds are involved. Third, web-based peer assessment can decrease photocopying
time and expense since assessees do not need to photocopy their assignments for their
peer assessors.
Using applications not specifically designed for peer assessment may either
increase management load or cause difficulty in maintaining anonymity among peers.
2.4.5.3 Relative studies on Web-based Peer Assessment
Downing and Brown (1997) described the collaborative creation of hypertexts by
psychology students, which were published in draft on the World Wide Web and peer
reviewed via e-mail. Wider access to increasingly sophisticated speech-text software
seems likely to affect peer assessment, especially of writing.
Brock (1993) compared feedback from computerized text analysis programs and
from peer assessment and tutoring for 48 ESL student writers in Hong Kong. Both
groups showed significant growth in writing performance. However, peer interaction
was rated higher for helpfulness in improving content, and peer-supported students
included significantly more words in postintervention essays.
Davies (2000) introduced a computerized peer assessment system as part of the
assessment process of an undergraduate module and also analyzed the students’
response.
Cheng S.C. (2003) investigated the effects of peer assessment on 86 fifth-grade
elementary school students’ motivation, meta-cognitive strategies, critical thinking,
competency enhancement, academic achievement and attitudes within a web-based
learning environment. He used 3(assessment methods) x3 (measure times) mixed
experimental design research method. Some showed statistically significant
differences between the peer assessment group and no peer assessment group, but the
others didn’t.
