10.57647/jntell.2025.0401.01

Leveraging Technology in Education: A Microgenetic Analysis of Language-Related Episodes in EFL Learners’ Writing through Divergent Effects of Peer versus Teacher Assessment via Google Docs

PDF
  • Leila Mohammad Yousefi1,
  • Mojgan Rashtchi*2,
  • Bahram Mowlaie1,
  1. Department of Teaching English as a Foreign Language, ST.C., Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
  2. Department of Teaching English as a Foreign Language, NT.C., Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Received: 2025-01-31

Revised: 2025-02-24

Accepted: 2025-03-03

Published in Issue 2025-04-23

Copyright (c) 2025 Leila Mohammad Yousefi, Mojgan Rashtchi, Bahram Mowlaie (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Mohammad Yousefi, L., Rashtchi, M., & Mowlaie, B. (2025). Leveraging Technology in Education: A Microgenetic Analysis of Language-Related Episodes in EFL Learners’ Writing through Divergent Effects of Peer versus Teacher Assessment via Google Docs. Journal of New Trends in English Language Learning (JNTELL), 4(1). https://doi.org/10.57647/jntell.2025.0401.01
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

PDF views: 507

Abstract

The emergence of “Web 2.0” tools, exemplified by platforms like “Google Docs,” has revolutionized the landscape of collaborative writing in second or foreign language learning environments. These technological advancements afford participation at an unprecedented level, encouraging learners to engage interactively with peers and educators. Thus, the present mixed-methods survey scrutinizes the efficiency of Google Docs space to accelerate cooperative writing within an assessment framework, particularly “peer and teacher assessments,” on the written competencies of  “EFL” pupils. Seventy-four sophomores in three groups majoring in English participated in the study after taking the “Oxford Placement Test” “(OPT).” The students were randomly assigned to three treatment groups: peer assessment (n=25), teacher assessment (n=25), and conventional teaching method groups (n=24). The data analysis unfolds in two critical phases: the quantitative analysis, employing ANCOVA and the qualitative lens embarking on the superior performance of peer assessment groups to explore peer mediation that trace microgenetic developments in writing “content,” “organization,” and “language-related peer mediation” (LREs). The study’s results concertedly offer a perceptible comprehension of the intricate dynamics in the Google Docs-mediated assessment platform and can shed light on improving writing competencies.

Keywords

  • Google Docs, Peer assessment, Teacher assessment, Collaborative writing instruction, Language-Related Episodes (LREs)
PDF

References

  1. Agbayahoun, J. P. (2016). Teacher written feedback on student writing: Teachers’ and learners’ perspectives. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(10), 1895–1904. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0610.01
  2. Al Breiki, A. M. A., Gabarre, S., & Gabarre, C. (2024). The effect of peer assessment using Google Docs on Omani grade ten students’ writing performance. Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research, 6 (1), 76–87. https://doi.org/10.37534/ bp.jhssr.2024.v6.n1.id1269.p76
  3. Allan, D. (2004). Oxford placement test. Longman.
  4. Alwaleedi, M. A. (2017). Examining Language-Related Episodes (LREs) of learners of Arabic as a Second Language (ASL) during collaborative writing activities. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(4), 256–263. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0704.03
  5. Barrot, J. S. (2021). Using automated written corrective feedback in the writing classrooms: Effects on L2 writing accuracy. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 36(4), 584–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2021.1936071
  6. Benson, P. (2019). Ways of seeing: the individual and the social in applied linguistics research. LanguageTeaching, 52(1), 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000234
  7. Blau, I., & Caspi, A. (2008). Do not edit or discuss! The influence of Wiki editing on learning experience and achievement. In D. Ben-Zvi (Ed.), Innovative e-learning in higher education (pp. 19–23). University of Haifa.
  8. Bllaca, N., & Dalton-Puffer, C. (2024). The effect of collaboration on the adolescent EFL learners’ writing performance. The Language Learning Journal [online publication], 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2024.2403478
  9. Brodahl, C., Hadjerrouit, S., & Kristian Hansen, N. (2011). Collaborative writing with web 2.0 technologies: Education students’ perceptions. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 10, 73–103. https://doi.org/10.28945/1384
  10. Cahusac de Caux, B., & Pretorius, L. (2024). Learning together through collaborative writing: The power of peer feedback and discussion in doctoral writing groups. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 83, Article 101379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101379
  11. Chang, C. Y., Lee, D. C., Tang, K. Y., & Hwang, G. J. (2021). Effect sizes and research directions of peer assessments: From an integrated perspective of meta-analysis and co-citation network. Computers & Education, 164, Article 104123. https://doi.org/10.1 016/j.compedu.2020.104123.
  12. Chin, P. (2016). Peer Assessment. New Directions in The Teaching of Physical Science, 3(3), 13–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.29311/ndtps.v0i3.410
  13. Creswell, J. W., Shope, R., Vicki, L., Clark, P., & Green, D. O. (2006). How interpretive qualitative research extends mixed methods research. Research in the School, 13(1), 1–11.
  14. Dehghanzadeh, H., Soltani Bahram, S., Noroozi, O., & Banihashem, S.K. (2024). Google Docs for improving students’ collaborative scientific writing. Innovations in Education and Teaching International [online publication], 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2024.2438345
  15. 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(2), 481–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3
  16. Fernández-Dobao, A. (2024). Discursive positioning in heritage – second language learner interaction: A case study of the dynamic construction of linguistic expertise. Language Teaching Research [online publication]. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688241260172
  17. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed). Sage.
  18. Fleckney, P., Thompson, J., & Vaz-Serra, P. (2024). Designing effective peer assessment processes in higher education: a systematic review. Higher Education Research and Development, 44(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2024.2407083
  19. Fogal, G.G. (2024). Expanding the collaborative writing research framework: A longitudinal analysis of how collaborative and independent writers orient to writing spaces. Journal of Second Language Writing, 63, Article 101096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2024.101096
  20. Godwin-Jones, R. (2018). Second language writing online: An update. Language Learning & Technology, 22(1), 1–15. https://dx.doi.org/10125/44574
  21. Hemati, Z., & Farahanian, M. (2024). Fostering EFL learners’ classroom engagement: Does collaborative writing through Google Docs make a difference? Technology Assisted Language Education, 2(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.22126/tale.2024.10225.1030
  22. Jongsma, M. V., Scholten, D. J., van Muijlwijk-Koezen, J. E., & Meeter, M. (2023). Online versus offline peer feedback in higher education: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research 61(2), 329–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221114181
  23. Karlsson, D., Kultti, A., Lagerlöf, P., Makitalo, A., Pramling, N., & Saljo, R. (2024). Cross-linguistic interpretation of figurative expressions in collaborative language learning: Gaps as instances for learning. English Language Teaching, 17(11), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v17n11p47
  24. Kessler, G., Bikowski, D., & Boggs, J. (2012). Collaborative writing among second language learners in academic web-based projects. Language Learning and Technology, 16(1), 91–109.
  25. Kos, T. (2023). Young EFL learners collaboratively writing a dialogue during a regular classroom lesson. International Journal of English Studies, 23(1), 49–79. https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes.511241
  26. Krishnan, J., Cusimano, A., Wang, D., & Yim, S. (2018). Writing together: Online synchronous collaboration in middle school. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 62(2), 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.871
  27. Liao, H. C. (2016). Enhancing the grammatical accuracy of EFL writing by using an AWE-assisted process approach. System, 62, 77–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.02.007
  28. Li, M., & Zhang, M. (2023). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 56(1), 94–112. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444821000318
  29. Mawarda, A. (2024). Students' view on peer assessment in academic writing. ICELS, 1(1), 116–119.
  30. Moradian, M. R., Miri, M., & Nasab, M. H. (2017). Contribution of written languaging to enhancing the efficiency of written corrective feedback. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 27(2), 406–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12138
  31. Moranski, K., Finnegan, A. & Ziegler, N. (2024). Examining beginner Spanish learners' interactions during text chat: Self‐monitoring and the impact of metacognitive instruction, Foreign Language Annals, 58(4), 1026–1050. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12774
  32. Neumann, H., & McDonough, K. (20014). Exploring the relationships among student preferences, prewriting tasks, and text quality in an EAP context. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 15, 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2014.05.002
  33. Ningsih, P. S. S. (2023). Effective collaborative writing with Google Docs in EFL classes. English Journal of Indragiri, 7(2), 2589–5140. https://ejournal-fkip.unisi.ac.id/index.php/eji/
  34. Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual. (5th ed.). A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS. Open University Press.
  35. Peeters, W., Viberg, O., & Spikol, D. (2023). Self-regulation in foreign language students’ collaborative discourse for academic writing: An explorative study on epistemic network analysis. In C. Damşa & A. Barany (Eds.), Advances in quantitative ethnography (pp. 140–164). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31726-2_18
  36. Pham, V. P. Ho. (2021). The effects of collaborative writing on students’ writing fluency: An efficient framework for collaborative writing. Sage Open, 11(1), 1–17.
  37. Pham, V. P. H., & Usaha, S. (2016). Blog-based peer response for L2 writing revision. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 724–748. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2015.1026355
  38. Poverjuc, O., Brooks, V., & Wray, D. (2012). Using peer feedback in a master's program: A multiple case study. Teaching in Higher Education, 17(4), 465–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2011.641008
  39. Rashtchi, M., & Khoshnevisan, B. (2020). Lessons from critical thinking: How to promote thinking skills in EFL writing classes. European Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 5(1), 34–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejfl.v5i1.3153
  40. Reddy, K., Harland, T., Wass, R., & Wald, N. (2021). Student peer review as a process of knowledge creation through dialogue. Higher Education Research and Development, 40(4), 825–837. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1781797
  41. Storch, N. (2013). Collaborative writing in L2 classrooms. Multilingual Matters.
  42. Storch, N., & Alshuraidah, A. (2020). Languaging when providing and processing peer feedback. Languaging in language learning and teaching: A collection of empirical studies. In W. Suzuki & N. Storch (Eds.), Language Learning & Language Teaching (pp.112–128). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.55.05sto
  43. Suzuki, W., & Storch, N. (2020). Languaging in Language Learning and Teaching: A collection of empirical studies. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.55
  44. Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1998). Interaction and second language learning: Two adolescent French immersion students working together. Modern Language Journal, 82, 320–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb01209.x
  45. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  46. Wang, K., Zhang, J., Wang, M., & Wu, Y. (2024). The effects of task complexity and collaborative writing on L2 syntactical complexity development: A self-determination theory perspective. Learning and Motivation, 88, Article 102035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2024.102035
  47. Wigglesworth, G., & Storch, N. (2012). What role for collaboration in writing and writing feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 364–374. doi:10.1016/j. jslw.2012.09.005
  48. Wilson, M. J., Diao, M. M., & Huang, L. (2015). ‘I’m not here to learn how to mark someone else’s stuff’: An investigation of an online peer-to-peer review workshop tool. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.881980
  49. Woodrich, M., & Fan, Y. (2017). Google Docs as a tool for collaborative writing in the middle school classroom. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 16, 391–410. http://dx.doi.org/10.28945/3870
  50. Zhang, M., & Crawford, W. J. (2021). Attention to form in collaborative writing: Language related episodes in L1 and L2 use conditions. Language Awareness, 31(2), 194–212. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2021.1998087
  51. Zhang, Z., & Hyland, K. (2018). Student engagement with the teacher and automated feedback on L2 writing. Assessing Writing, 36, 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2018.02.00
  52. Zhang, M., & Plonsky, M. (2020). Collaborative writing in face-to-face settings: A substantive and methodological review. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49, Article 100753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100753