A Better Form of Peer Review with the Integration of Critical Thinking Training in an EFL Writing Class—CMPR or OPPR?

Abstract

Past literature has affirmed the effectiveness of integrating critical thinking into an EFL writing course, but there is a dearth of research on developing critical thinking through different forms of peer review. To fill in the gap in the past research, this study aimed to explore whether there was a difference between different forms of peer review in developing critical thinking and writing proficiency. Twenty-nine English majors of a private university in Taiwan were divided into two groups: One participated in computer-mediated peer review (CMPR), and the other oral-presentation peer review (OPPR), while both receiving critical thinking training. Pre- and post-test writing assessments were used to investigate whether there were any differences in global, local or overall revisions between the two groups, and how critical thinking training embedded in different forms of peer review contributed to writing outcomes. The results found that there were no differences between the two peer review groups in global, local or overall revisions. However, by studying students’ reflection journals and peer feedback, the less proficient writers seemed to incorporate more peer feedback and hence their gains were higher than those of the proficient writers. In light of the findings, this study suggests more teacher encouragement to promote dynamics of peer review so that the learners can have more opportunities to exercise critical thinking skills and demonstrate quality text revision. In addition, more time for developing critical thinking is needed so that proficient writers may produce quality text revisions.