Effects of Translanguaging in Online Peer Feedback on Chinese University English-as-a-Foreign-Language Students’ Writing Performance

Abstract

Peer feedback has long been recognized for its value in improving second language learning outcomes. However, limited attention has been given to the potential influence of translanguaging in the process of online peer feedback on learners’ second language writing performance. To fill the gap, we carried out this mixed-methods study to examine to what extent translanguaging in online peer feedback contributes to improvement in second language writing performance. A total of 79 Chinese English-as-a-foreign-language university students participated in 3 rounds of online peer feedback with a control group using only second language English (n = 39) and an experimental group adopting translanguaging (n = 40) in the process of online peer feedback. Six semi-structured interviews were also carried out to solicit participants’ understanding of online peer feedback. The quantitative results revealed that translanguaging online peer feedback, compared to English-only online peer feedback, was significantly more conducive to the improvement of learners’ second language writing performance in the first round of online peer feedback. However, such a significant difference was not observed in the second and third rounds of online peer feedback. The qualitative findings, on the other hand, showed that both conditions of online peer feedback were supported for their own advantages of improving learners’ second language writing. Additionally, the qualitative findings suggested that factors, such as motivation, agency, self-efficacy and translanguaging awareness, should be taken into consideration to enhance students’ translanguaging practice.

Keywords

translanguaging English-only online peer feedback second language writing performance English as a foreign language

Introduction

Peer feedback has drawn increasing attention in the field of foreign/second language (L2) writing in recent years (Chang, 2015; Cheng and Zhang, 2021; Yu and Hu, 2017). It has been acknowledged to be conducive to improvement in individuals’ writing performance, such as spelling, grammar, referencing, idea development and logic (Harris and Leeming, 2022; Schillings et al., 2021; Yang, 2016). The reason that peer feedback has been implemented as a pedagogical activity is not only due to its greater immediacy compared to teacher feedback (Cho and MacArthur, 2010; Zhang and Cheng, 2021), but also because of its benefits on students’ L2 acquisition, self-monitoring and confidence-building (Cao et al., 2019; López-Pellisa et al., 2021; Yu and Lee, 2016). Nevertheless, peer feedback has not been widely adopted in L2 English classroom teaching in real practice (Yu and Lee, 2016; Zhang and Cheng, 2020).

With the advancement of information and communications technology (ICT), online peer feedback has received much attention (Zhan et al., 2022). Be it online or offline, it can facilitate translanguaging in the process of feedback provision, whereby learners strategically use their first language (L1), L2 or other resources for feedback provision and meaning negotiation. Although there are different positions on translanguaging (see Leung and Valdés, 2019; Poza, 2017 for details), it has been valued for its merit to go beyond monolingual or exclusive language practice by incorporating multimodality and multimodal semiotics as resources in language education.

Peer feedback and translanguaging have been theoretically discussed and empirically investigated and documented in the literature in terms of their facilitative role in the improvement of L2 writing as independent and discrete entities (W Li, 2018; Liu et al., 2021; Yu and Hu, 2017). However, there has been limited understanding of the effects of translanguaging in online peer feedback on learners’ L2 writing performance (Musanti and Rodríguez, 2017). This study, therefore, was set up to examine the effectiveness of translanguaging in an online peer feedback context in contributing to a group of university English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) students’ writing performance in China.

Literature Review

Translanguaging and Translanguaging Pedagogy

Translanguaging can be understood as a process of meaning-making through the deployment of linguistic and/or non-linguistic repertoires in cross- and multi-modal communication ‘without regard for socially and politically defined language names and labels’ (Li, 2018:19; Otheguy et al., 2015). There are three translanguaging positions/perspectives summarized by Poza (2017: 112): (a) translanguaging as ‘language alternation’ with individuals combining two or more languages in learning; (b) translanguaging as heteroglossia with limited schooling and societal implications; and (c) translanguaging as heteroglossia ‘with schooling and societal implications’. However, the first position of translanguaging ‘occurred rather infrequently’ (Poza, 2017: 111).

Against the immersed language learning or the monolingual pedagogy, translanguaging allows learners and teachers to leverage various linguistic, semiotic and translingual resources as an integrated system to complete certain tasks or achieve certain goals (Canagarajah, 2011; García and Li, 2014; Li, 2018; Yuzlu and Dkilitas, 2021). In other words, translanguaging as a pedagogical practice provides opportunities for learners to use their linguistic and non-linguistic repertoires in ways that may deepen their engagement and comprehension in the process of learning (Jones, 2020; Li, 2010; Vogel and García, 2017). It may also act as a glue strengthening the relationship between students and teachers (Vogel and García, 2017).

Pedagogical translanguaging, according to Cenoz and Gorter (2022: 18), refers to ‘instructional strategies which integrate two or more languages’. It is planned by teachers aiming to ‘develop multilingualism in two or more languages in both language and content classes’ (18). In designing pedagogical translanguaging as a teaching approach, teachers are advised to draw on theoretical principles and learning theories, such as prior knowledge, scaffolding, and connected growers (see Cenoz and Gorter, 2020, 2022 for details). In terms of implementation, pedagogical translanguaging can be ‘very broad’ and ‘take many shapes’ (Cenoz and Gorter, 2020: 23). In our study, however, we did not specifically design pedagogical translanguaging as a teaching approach in class. Rather, classroom teaching took place in a natural and spontaneous way without any deliberate attention to enhance students’ translanguaging awareness. The main reasons are: (a) to rule out the effect of different teaching approaches on students’ L2 development and thus their abilities to offer feedback; and (b) to disguise the purpose of the present study so that students could provide authentic peer feedback over the course.

Understanding L2 Writing through Translanguaging

To date, an increasing number of studies have tapped into learners’ L2 writing from the translanguaging perspective. For example, Wang and Wen (2002) examined 16 Chinese university EFL learners’ L1 use in L2 narrative and argumentative writing. The study revealed that although learners used both L1 and L2 for composing L2 essays, they relied more on their L1 for generating and organizing ideas. The study also showed that learners’ L1 use declined with the progress in their L2 proficiency. In a similar vein, Chen et al. (2019: 80) looked into 21 Chinese university EFL learners’ translingual writing process in 4 writing tasks. The results suggested that translanguaging improved learners’ writing quality ‘in terms of enriched content, professional style, and better language’. Specifically, translanguaging helped learners to convey more information, express more ideas and achieve a wider use of academic words.

The benefits of translanguaging in L2 writing have also been evidenced in learner populations other than college students. For example, Priluskaya and Knoph (2020) compared 200 Norwegian upper-secondary school students’ L2 English writing under 3 L2 writing conditions (i.e. English-only, translation and translanguaging). The study suggested that translanguaging might help develop learners’ L2 writing skills given that translingual writing might not only enhance stylistic and rhetorical features of the text, but also offer a wider range of writing possibilities. Despite its advantages, participants’ attitudes towards translanguaging in L2 writing may vary, as shown in Adamson and Coulson’s (2015) study of 475 questionnaires and 271 reports collected in 3 academic years in Japan. The study found that although undergraduate students’ positive attitude towards translanguaging dropped in the first year, there was a significant rise of the positive attitude in the third year. Apart from their positive attitude towards translanguaging, the result suggested that students with either low or high proficiency used more L1 references in their reports.

To sum up, translanguaging in L2 writing frees learners from ‘the constraints of having to use language only according to certain conventions’ (Vogel and García, 2017: 14), resulting in more linguistic creativity and development in L2 writing.

Understanding L2 Writing through Corrective Feedback

There has been a substantial surge of research on corrective feedback (CF), especially in terms of its effects on L2 writing and learning (e.g. Harris and Leeming, 2022; Zhang and Cheng, 2021). The effectiveness of CF has been well documented over the last two decades. For example, Kim and Emeliyanova (2021) examined the effects of individual and collaborative written CF on 36 English-as-a-second-language (ESL) learners over 8 weeks in the USA. The results showed that CF could significantly improve L2 English writing accuracy either in the pair-correction or the self-correction groups. Although the pair-correction group had a higher rate of accuracy correction, there was no significant difference found between the two groups in terms of their effects on L2 English writing improvement. Additionally, Li’s (2010) meta-analysis of 22 published studies and 11 doctoral dissertations found that:

CF was beneficial to L2 learning to an overall medium extent.

Lab-based CF was more effective than classroom-based CF.

CF in a foreign language context had a larger effect size than that in an SL context.

With the development of technology, increasing interest has been drawn to the automated and/or online CF in L2 writing. For instance, Gao and Ma (2020) examined the effects of automated CF on L2 English writing. Data were collected from 152 Chinese EFL college students in China who had an intermediate level of English proficiency. The results revealed that although automated CF drills provided the learners with more feedback exposure, it was not the automated CF drills but the traditional CF that contributed more to L2 English writing. Such findings, to some extent, were in line with Tian and Zhou’s (2020) study of five Chinese EFL learners’ engagement in the automated, peer and teacher feedback in an online writing course. The study suggested that although learners received the most feedback in the automated CF condition, such CF demonstrated the least uptake rate in learners’ writing.

Although the automated and/or online CF seems to be less effective than the traditional and/or offline CF, the positive effects of online CF on learners’ L2 writing improvement cannot be denied. Sarré et al. (2021) examined 6 types of online CF with 93 student teachers registered for an EFL course in France. The findings suggested that all the six types of online CF were beneficial to learners’ L2 English writing accuracy compared with the condition of no CF provided. Specifically, ‘the repeated provision of unfocused indirect CF (with metalinguistic comments on the nature of errors) combined with extra computer-mediated micro-tasks over a certain period of time (24 weeks) seems to be the most efficient CF type’ (Sarré et al., 2021:707).

In summary, the positive role of CF in L2 writing development has been well documented in the literature. However, our understanding of the effect of CF in the online L2 writing context is insufficient, particularly from the translanguaging perspective.

Translanguaging in L2 Written Peer Feedback

Peer feedback, as a type of corrective feedback, involves the engagement of learners’ evaluation of ‘the level, value or quality of a product or performance of other equal status learners’ (Topping, 2009: 20). Although the literature has witnessed an increase in the number of studies on peer feedback, there is limited understanding of translanguaging in L2 written peer feedback (Kim and Chang, 2022). Studies of Yu and Lee (2014), Yu (2016), Yeh (2018) and Kim and Chang (2022) are the few ones that situate translanguaging in L2 written peer feedback.

Yu and Lee’s (2014) investigation into 22 EFL college students’ language choice in L2 written peer feedback in China revealed that learners would like to use L1 for feedback on content and organization but L2 for feedback on language issues. It was also suggested that learners’ translanguaging practice could be subject to various factors such as L2 proficiency, task requirement and teachers’ feedback practice.

To determine the influence of different language choice of peer feedback on L2 writing, Yu (2016) divided 18 Chinese EFL college students into 2 groups with one using L1 and the other using L2 for peer feedback. The study indicated that students using L1 provided more concrete feedback to their peers which helped them better understand comments and subsequently their L2 writing performance.

In line with Yu’s (2016) study, Yeh (2018) examined 17 Chinese EFL college students’ L1 and L2 use in peer feedback for L2 writing. It was found that EFL college students would resort to their L1 for meaning negotiation and mutual scaffolding when they were not able to offer feedback in L2. The participants held a positive attitude towards L1 use in peer feedback for L2 writing, believing that L1 use was less cognitively loaded and thus could enhance the quality of feedback.

The latest study on translanguaging in L2 written peer feedback was perhaps Kim and Chang’s (2022) examination of 24 Japanese college students’ translanguaging practice in peer feedback for L2 writing. The results showed that most participants made flexible language choice for feedback due to various reasons such as ‘the ease of referencing concepts learned in L2’ or the different L2 proficiencies, or ‘the affective need to mitigate negative feedback and to avoid trouble by providing erroneous L2 feedback’ (Kim and Chang, 2022: 1373).

Although the above reviewed studies have expanded our understanding of the role of translanguaging and feedback in L2 writing, the participant numbers of these studies are small, ranging from 17 to 24. Additionally, translanguaging practice in most studies is limited to the use of L1 and L2 without taking non-linguistic translanguaging practice into consideration. Lastly, there is no study that examined translanguaging in online peer feedback contexts. To bridge the gaps, this study attempted to understand the contribution of translanguaging, both linguistic and non-linguistic, to EFL college students’ L2 writing performance in an online peer feedback context. Specifically, the present study was guided by the following question:

RQ: How effective are the two conditions of online peer feedback, English-only and translanguaging, on the improvement of EFL learners’ L2 writing performance?

Methods

Research Context and Participants

This mixed-methods study was carried out in a university in Zhenjiang, China, where College English is a mandatory EFL course for every college student. Although textbooks for College English may slightly vary in different universities, all should follow the College English Curriculum Requirements launched by the Ministry of Education of China. When the study was conducted, New College English (3rd ed.), one of the mainstream textbooks, was used in the university. For this collection of College English textbooks, there are four levels ranging from level 1 (low intermediate) to level 4 (advanced). Every College English class meets twice a week and for 90 min per session over a 16-week semester in a classroom equipped with 45 computers. To alleviate College English teachers’ workload, teaching assistants are normally recruited from postgraduates majoring in English literature or applied linguistics. These teaching assistants are randomly assigned to each class to mark students’ essays and quizzes. They are provided with sample essays and rubrics to ensure the consistency of their marking.

A total of 79 first-year EFL college students from 2 intact classes of College English (level 3 or high intermediate/advanced low level) participated in the quantitative phase of the study, including 43 males and 36 females (see Table 1 for details). Their average age was 18.35 years old (SD = .63). To examine the effect of translanguaging in online peer feedback on L2 writing, two types of online peer feedback were randomly assigned to the two classes, respectively. Specifically, Class A was required to use English only and Class B translanguaging for online peer feedback. To better guide students’ online peer feedback, respective samples were provided for the two classes for reference (see Appendix A). It is worth noting that translanguaging in online peer feedback in the present study was not limited to the use of linguistic resources but included semiotic resources and any other possible ways of feedback (García and Li, 2014; Li, 2018).

Table 1.

Background information of quantitative participants.

	Sex	Age	English score
Class A (English-only)	23 males, 16 females	18.37, SD = .67	135.12, SD = 6.03
Class B (translanguaging)	20 males, 20 females	18.33, SD = .59	134.16, SD = 5.31

Note. The total English score for the college entrance examination is 150.

In the qualitative phase of the study, three students from each class participated in semi-structured interviews. To counterbalance, participants with different genders and L2 English writing proficiencies were recruited. Details of the qualitative participants can be found in Table 2.

Table 2.

Background information of qualitative participants.

	Gender	Age	English score	Average writing score
Fei (English-only)	Female	18	135/150	13.83/15
Alex (English-only)	Female	18	137/150	13.17/15
Baker (English-only)	Male	19	135/150	8.33/15
David (translanguaging)	Male	18	139/150	12.67/15
Scarlet (translanguaging)	Female	19	135/150	13.67/15
Jimmy (translanguaging)	Male	19	131/150	9.33/15

Note. The total English score for the college entrance examination is 150; the total writing score for each essay is 15.

Data Collection

The quantitative phase of the present study was naturally embedded in a semester-long College English course instructed by the first author. The two classes followed the same pedagogical design throughout the semester except for the different requirements of online peer feedback for students. The two classes of students were not informed of the purpose of the study to ensure that they could provide online peer feedback naturally. Shimo online collaborative documents, similar to Google Docs, were adopted for online peer feedback. The essays were collected 4 times in the 7th, 9th, 11th and 13th week during the 16-week semester. The reason that the first online essay was collected in the seventh week was to make sure that the participants who had just graduated from high school could fully adapt themselves to the university education environment.

The first online essay was collected in class in order to examine the homogeneity of the participants’ L2 writing proficiency. Afterwards, students were randomly paired together in each class and were required to offer peer feedback to each other through an online document (similar to the Google Docs). The following three online essays were collected every time when they finished peer feedback. Students were required to provide a clear version below the peer feedback version in their online peer feedback documents for the first author and a teaching assistant’s evaluation based on a full score of 15 for each essay. The intraclass correlation coefficient analysis showed that the correlation between the two raters’ evaluation was r = .96, suggesting satisfactory inter-rater reliability.

After the semester was over and final grades were submitted, three participants from each class were recruited for a semi-structured interview following the principle of voluntary participation. A total of six EFL university students participated in this qualitative phase of data collection (see Table 2). The semi-structured interview was designed to corroborate and supplement the findings in the quantitative phase. Each interview lasted for roughly half an hour. The participants all agreed that the interview would be recorded and later transcribed for data analysis.

It should be noted that after finishing all the data collection (i.e. after the semester was over and final grades were submitted), participants from both phases were informed of their right to withdraw their data from the data pool without any consequence. No student expressed their desire to delete their data from the study.

Data Analysis

For the quantitative data analysis, we firstly checked the normal distribution. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov results showed that most data sets (or scores) were not normally distributed. The Mann Whitney U test, a non-parametric test, was therefore adopted to examine whether there were any significant differences between the two intact classes of EFL learners’ respective general English proficiency and L2 writing performance. The result showed that there was no significant difference between the two groups either in terms of their general English proficiency (U = 680.50, p = 33) or their L2 writing performance (U = 747.00, p = .74). In other words, the two groups of participants were homogeneous in terms of their general English ability and L2 writing ability before taking part in the two conditions of online peer feedback. Afterwards, descriptive analyses were carried out to obtain a holistic profile of the participants’ L2 writing performance under the two conditions of online corrective feedback. Last, non-parametric tests, such as Mann Whitney U test (an alternative to independent samples t-test) and the Wilcoxon test (alternative to paired samples t-test), were respectively performed to examine the between and within groups differences between the two conditions of online peer feedback.

For the qualitative data analysis, interviews were firstly transcribed (in Chinese) and later reviewed by the first author. Data coding in this study followed a qualitative inductive approach allowing data to speak for themselves (Suter, 2012). Special attention was paid to the participants’ attitudes toward the two types of corrective feedback. To enhance the trustworthiness of the qualitative data, Chinese transcriptions and codes were sent back to participants for member checking. Any misinterpretation of the data was rectified based on the participants’ feedback. Afterwards, transcriptions and codes were translated into English for qualitative data presentation. Both the word-by-word and the main idea methods were adopted for data translation. Two PhD students in applied linguistics were invited to check whether there were any misunderstandings and/or mistakes in translation.

Results

Overall Tendency

Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations of the four writing scores including the pre-feedback (before online peer feedback), post-feedback1 (after the first round of online peer feedback), post-feedback2 (after the second round of online peer feedback) and post-feedback3 (after the third round of online peer feedback). Overall, students’ L2 writing performance was improved in both conditions of online peer feedback. Specifically, Figure 1 shows that EFL learners in the translanguaging condition outperformed their counterparts in the English-only online peer feedback condition.

Figure 1.

Line chart of the two conditions of online peer feedback.

Table 3.

Means and SDs of the two conditions of online peer feedback.

		Pre-feedback	Post-feedback1	Post-feedback2	Post-feedback3
Class A	Mean	10.92	11.23	11.45	11.54
Class A	SD	1.68	1.68	1.57	1.83
Class B	Mean	10.90	12.15	12.04	12.23
Class B	SD	1.26	1.28	1.27	1.16

Non-Parametric Analysis Results

Although both online peer feedback conditions have shown their positive influence on L2 writing (see Table 3 and Figure 1), the effectiveness of the two types of feedback on the improvement of EFL learners’ L2 writing performance was unknown. Therefore, Wilcoxon tests were performed to examine whether there was a significant difference before and after online peer feedback. The results showed that it was the translanguaging online peer feedback rather than the English-only online peer feedback that significantly contributed to the improvement of L2 writing performance (see Table 4). Specifically, Class B learners’ L2 writing performance significantly improved with large effect sizes after each round of translanguaging online peer feedback, despite the fact that there was a slight decrease in learners’ L2 writing performance after the second round of translanguaging online peer feedback compared with the other two rounds (see Figure 1); whereas Class A learners’ L2 writing performance did not significantly differ after the three rounds of English-only online peer feedback, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4.

Within-group differences on online peer feedback.

	Class A^a		Class B^b
Comparison	p	Z ^c	p	Z ^c	ES ^d
Pre-feedback – Post-feedback1	.266	−1.11	***<.001	−3.74	.59
Pre-feedback – Post-feedback2	.098	−1.65	*** = .001	−3.39	.54
Pre-feedback – Post-feedback3	.071	−1.81	***<.001	−4.08	.65

Note. ^aEnglish-only online peer feedback; ^btranslanguaging online peer feedback; ^cZ score; ^deffect size r; ***p ≤ .001; r ≥ .1 (small effect size); r ≥ .3 (medium effect size); r ≥ .5 (large effect size).

To examine whether the two conditions of online peer feedback were significantly different in terms of EFL learners’ L2 writing improvement, Mann Whitney U tests were performed. Table 5 shows that EFL learners in the translanguaging condition (Class B) significantly outperformed their counterparts in the English-only online peer feedback condition (Class A) in the first round of online peer feedback, with a medium effect size. However, no significant difference was found between the two conditions in the second and third rounds of online peer feedback.

Table 5.

Between-group differences on online peer feedback.

	Post-feedback1		Post-feedback2	Post-feedback3
Comparison	p	Z ^c	ES ^d	p	Z	p	Z
Class A^a – Class B^b	.009**	.24	.42	.24	.41	11*	.45

Note. ^aEnglish-only online peer feedback; ^btranslanguaging online peer feedback; ^cZ score; ^deffect size r; **p ≤ .01; r ≥ .1 (small effect size); r ≥ .3 (medium effect size); r ≥ .5 (large effect size).

Qualitative Findings

All the six participants pointed out that corrective feedback is necessary for the improvement of EFL writing performance. For one reason, ‘peer feedback not only pushes [them] to pay more attention to the quality of their EFL writing but also provides [them] with opportunities to learn from other’s writing’ (Baker, English-only group). For another, ‘comments from peer feedback help [them] realize grammatical or logical issues that overlooked by [themselves]’ (Alex, English-only group). However, not all the participants would enjoy the process of peer feedback, particularly in an English-only condition. As Baker (English-only group) recalled,

[m]y English writing ability was not so good. I felt it was a huge challenge for me to provide any useful feedback to my partner. It was difficult for me to provide feedback completely in English. Usually, I gave up offering some of my feedback, because I was not able to express myself clearly in English. I felt really sorry for my partner.

Although the English-only peer feedback was difficult for some participants, there were others claiming that ‘such feedback drove [them] to use more English. Gradually, it contributed to [their] ability to write in English, because [they] would check whether [their] comments were understood by [their] partner’ (Fei, English-only group). Such a point was also corroborated by some participants from the translanguaging group. As David (translanguaging group) mentioned, ‘I think peer feedback in the English-only condition will be more beneficial. If you can only use English, you will use strategies to complete your feedback. Such a process in turn will improve your English writing.’

In contrast, some participants found that translanguaging peer feedback would contribute more to the improvement of their EFL writing. As Jimmy (translanguaging group) pointed out, ‘I would give up providing feedback easily if I were not allowed to use Chinese to help express myself. So, I think online translanguaging peer feedback is better.’ Such a point of view was in line with Scarlet’s (translanguaging group):

I think there were times when Chinese were needed. Using Chinese would encourage us to offer more constructive feedback. After all, Chinese is our mother tongue. When you use English-only to offer your comments, you may not be able to explain them in a crystal clear manner. Your partner also may not be able to completely understand your comments.

To understand which online peer feedback condition was better, the two groups of participants, after explaining the two types of online peer feedback with reference to exemplars, were invited to express their attitudes towards the two conditions and possible reasons why the translanguaging group outperformed the English-only group in terms of L2 English writing in the present study. Both groups of participants reflected that the difference in performance between the two conditions might not be due to one approach being superior to another. Rather, motivation, agency and self-efficacy might be factors that influenced individuals’ execution of online peer feedback and its effectiveness. Specifically, for students who lack L2 writing motivation, they ‘may not be interested in peer feedback. As a result, they may not take feedback seriously’ (Baker, English-only group). Even if students were interested in peer feedback, they might ‘not have enough agency to continuously provide feedback for [their] peers’ (Alex, English-only group; David, translanguaging group). Students who lack L2 writing self-efficacy ‘may not be confident enough to offer peer feedback completely in English. Consequently, they tend to provide limited feedback’ (Fei, English-only group). ‘If [students’] were allowed to use other resources apart from English, [they] may feel less vulnerable in the process of feedback’ (Jimmy, translanguaging group).

Apart from the above findings, an interesting observation is worth noticing. That is, although the translanguaging group was advised to use linguistic and non-linguistic resources for peer feedback, the participants mostly resorted to L1 and L2 use, with limited use of emoticons as semiotic symbols for feedback. One possible reason may be that it is more direct and efficient for individuals to employ linguistic resources other than non-linguistic resources to offer peer feedback in writing situations.

To sum up, all the participants have suggested the positive effect of online peer feedback on EFL writing in the qualitative phase of the study. However, no consensus was reached on which condition of online peer feedback, English-only or translanguaging, contributed more to EFL learners’ L2 writing improvement.

Discussion and Implication

The aim of the present study is two-fold. One is to understand the role of online peer feedback in EFL writing. The other is to examine the effectiveness of translanguaging in online peer feedback on Chinese EFL learners’ writing performance.

The Role of Online Peer Feedback in EFL Writing

To understand the role of online peer feedback in EFL writing, two groups of students with homogeneous EFL general and writing proficiency were recruited for the present study. The two groups were required to provide online English-only feedback and online translanguaging feedback for their peers, respectively. The quantitative results showed that the two groups’ L2 writing performance both showed improvement after the three rounds of online peer feedback. Such a result concurs with previous research showing that corrective feedback can positively contribute to learners’ L2 writing development (e.g. Gao and Ma, 2020; Li, 2010; Sarré et al., 2021), regardless of the format of feedback. In other words, whether feedback is provided offline or online or provided in English-only or through translanguaging, its positive role in EFL writing improvement cannot be denied.

In line with the quantitative results, the qualitative findings of the study also suggested that online peer feedback pushed learners to re-evaluate and reorganize their previous writing and thus resulted in more development of their L2 writing as shown in their improvement in writing performance (Kim and Emeliyanova, 2021). However, what should be noted is that despite the positive role of online corrective feedback in EFL writing, motivation, agency and self-efficacy may be important factors determining learners’ willingness to continuously offer feedback for their peers, as the qualitative data suggest.

Effectiveness of Translanguaging in Online Peer Feedback on EFL Writing

Although both conditions appeared to be beneficial to learners’ L2 writing improvement, there is a possibility that such improvement may be the result of the English language course. Wilcoxon tests were, therefore, performed on the two conditions of online peer feedback to rule out the L2 English learning effect. The result revealed that there was a significant difference between the two conditions of online peer feedback, with the translanguaging condition being more conducive to L2 writing performance. Such a result may be due to the fact that translanguaging involves the deployment of all possible linguistic and non-linguistic repertoires, leading to better meaning negotiation and idea exchange (Jones, 2020; Li, 2010; Vogel and García, 2017). Specifically, L1 use can be cognitively less demanding which enabled learners to produce more comments on content and offer more specific linguistic feedback (Cheng and Zhang, 2021; Yu, 2016). In turn, more feedback may lead to more positive changes in L2 writing performance (Yeh, 2018). Additionally, the use of emoticons in translanguaging may enhance the personal relationships among students. As a result, students would be more willing and candid in the translanguaging condition to offer feedback to each other.

The quantitative results also showed that online translanguaging peer feedback may not always be significantly superior to online English-only peer feedback. For example, there was no significant difference in terms of the two groups’ L2 writing performance in the second and third rounds of online peer feedback, regardless of the fact that the average L2 writing score of the translanguaging group was higher than that of English-only group. Such a result, to some extent, echoes previous research showing the dynamic of learners’ attitudes towards translanguaging (e.g. Adamson and Coulson, 2015; Priluskaya and Knop, 2020). In other words, the positive role of online translanguaging peer feedback in L2 writing may change according to learners’ attitudes towards translanguaging. This possibly explains the fluctuation of L2 writing performance in the three times of online peer feedback in the translanguaging condition (see Figure 1).

In line with the quantitative results that both translanguaging and the English-only conditions could contribute to learners’ L2 writing performance, the qualitative findings suggested that there were respective supporters for the two types of online peer feedback, believing that both conditions play a positive role in the improvement of L2 writing. Specifically, English-only online peer feedback may have the advantage of pushing learners to use English more and thus improving their L2 English writing. In contrast, translanguaging online peer feedback may result in more comments and thus is more conducive to L2 English writing improvement (e.g. Yeh, 2018; Yu, 2016).

However, different from the quantitative results, the qualitative findings did not suggest that the translanguaging condition would outperform the English-only condition in contributing to learners’ L2 writing performance. On the contrary, the findings showed that learners acknowledged the benefits of both online peer feedback conditions in improving L2 writing. Additionally, they pointed out what matters might be factors (i.e. motivation, agency and self-efficacy) contributing to individuals’ execution of online peer feedback rather than the format of feedback.

Although the benefits of translanguaging online peer feedback in L2 writing have been evidenced in the present study, especially in the quantitative results, participants’ translangaging practice was limited to the use of L1 and L2. Apart from the possibility that linguistic resources are readily available for them to utilize, another possibility may be due to participants’ weak translanguaging awareness. As suggested in Adamson and Coulson’s (2015) study, students’ awareness of translanguaging led to their improvement in L2 writing.

Implications for Practice

The effect of online peer feedback, especially that of translanguaging online peer feedback, on the improvement of learners’ L2 English writing merits teachers’ attention. First, teachers may consider involving students more frequently in online peer feedback instead of marking essays by themselves in light of the positive role of online peer feedback revealed in the present study. Doing so may not only free up teachers from the heavy chores of essay marking, but also inspire students to pay more attention to their language use through offering peer comments. In addition, teachers may have more spare time to design different feedback approaches to find out the optimal way to improve their students’ L2 writing.

Second, given that translanguaging online peer feedback may be more effective in terms of improving L2 writing performance compared to English-only online peer feedback, teachers are encouraged to utilize translanguaging online peer feedback for essay marking. However, teachers should understand that the role of translanguaging online peer feedback in L2 writing may fluctuate over the course. To avoid learner fatigue in the participation of translanguaging online peer feedback, teachers may also intermittently alternate between other types of feedback (Guasch et al., 2019; López-Pellisa et al., 2021), such as traditional paper-based feedback, face-to-face feedback and computer-based automated feedback.

Thirdly, teachers might need to take their students’ motivation (Wang, 2019; Wang et al., 2021), agency (Chen et al., 2022), self-efficacy (Ekholm et al., 2015) and translanguaging awareness (Adamson and Coulson, 2015) into consideration, given that our findings suggest these factors influencing students’ execution of translanguaging online peer feedback. Specifically, teachers may offer incentives and rewards to enhance learners’ motivation and agency to participate in translanguaging online peer feedback. Teachers may also offer encouraging comments on students’ linguistic and/or non-linguistic feedback practice in order to boost their self-efficacy in translanguaging online peer feedback. To enhance students’ translanguaging awareness, evidence of the positive effects of translanuaging online peer feedback on L2 writing could also be shared with students to explicitly inform them of the importance of translanguaging practice in online peer feedback.

Last but not least, teachers may consider enriching students’ translanguaging practice in online peer feedback so that its benefits can be translated effectively to students’ taking initiatives themselves. Specifically, apart from the combined use of L1, L2 and emoticons by the participants in the present study, they are advised to resort to online resources, such as online dictionaries, online videos and online websites, in the process of online peer feedback. For instance, when students are not sure about whether they have authentically used L2 words/expressions or whether their peers could understand certain advanced L2 words/expressions in their feedback, they may check them first through online dictionaries, such as Merriam-Webster’s Learner’s Dictionary and the Oxford Learner’s’ Dictionary, and share the results with their peers. Additionally, when students find that their peers have logic issues or lack ideas in L2 writing, they may share useful online video links and online websites with their partners in the process of offering translanguaging feedback to enhance their peers’ L2 writing performance.

Conclusion and Limitation

This study examined the effectiveness of two online peer feedback conditions on the improvement of Chinese EFL learners’ L2 writing performance, with one condition requiring participants to use English-only for online peer feedback and the other allowing participants to use translanguaging as an approach for online peer feedback. The quantitative results revealed that translanguaging online peer feedback, compared to English-only online peer feedback, was significantly more conducive to the improvement of learners’ L2 writing performance in the first round of online peer feedback. However, such a significant difference was not observed in the second and third rounds of online peer feedback. The qualitative findings, on the other hand, showed that both conditions of online peer feedback were supported for their own advantages in improving EFL learners’ writing. Additionally, the qualitative findings suggested that factors such as motivation (Wang, 2019), agency, self-efficacy and translanguaging awareness should be taken into consideration to enhance students’ translanguaging practice.

Although the present study yielded findings that are pedagogically insightful for teachers, it is not without limitations. Firstly, the study did not include learners without any feedback as a baseline control group to completely rule out the influence of other possible factors on learners’ L2 writing development. Future research might need to take this into consideration to verify the findings of the present study. Secondly, the study only focused on the impact of online peer feedback on L2 writing without comparing it with other types of feedback, such as paper-based peer feedback, paper-based group feedback and online group feedback. Future research might need to consider more innovative types of feedback for comparison to find out which are more efficient in improving EFL learners’ writing performance. Thirdly, the study invited students to conjecture why translanguaging might be better for EFL writing in the online peer feedback context. Such results based on participants’ assumptions may not be totally convincing. Future research may consider designing a counterbalanced study by offering two conditions of online peer feedback to all the participants. Lastly, the study only carried out three rounds of online peer feedback due to various restrictions or constraints on the study. Future research may consider extending the length of the study to examine the effects of online peer feedback and translanguaging online peer feedback longitudinally.

Footnotes

Ethics Statement

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the University of Auckland Ethics Committee. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study. Written informed consent was obtained from the individual(s) for the publication of any potentially identifiable images or data included in this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The work was supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 17BYY105).

ORCID iDs

Peijian Paul Sun

Lawrence Jun Zhang

Article Note

The following updates were made to this article:

– ‘*’ has been removed from Table 5.

– Reference ‘Li X (2010) Sociolinguistic variation in the speech of learners of Chinese as a second language. Language Learning 60(2): 366–408.’ has been replaced with ‘Li S (2010) The effectiveness of corrective feedback in SLA: A meta-analysis. Language Learning 60(2): 309–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2010.00561.x’ reference in end reference list.

Appendix A.

1. Sample of translanguaging online peer feedback

References

Adamson

Coulson

(2015) Translanguaging in English academic writing preparation. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning 10(1): 24–37.

Canagarajah

(2011) Translanguaging in the classroom: Emerging issues for research and pedagogy. Applied Linguistics Review 2: 1–28.

Cao

Huang

(2019) A qualitative inquiry into undergraduates’ learning from giving and receiving peer feedback in L2 writing: Insights from a case study. Studies in Educational Evaluation 63: 102–112.

Cenoz

Gorter

(2020) Pedagogical translanguaging: An introduction. System 92: 102269.

Cenoz

Gorter

(2022) Pedagogical Translanguaging. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Chang

(2015) Teacher modeling on EFL reviewers’ audience-aware feedback and affectivity in L2 peer review. Assessing Writing 25: 2–21.

Chen

Tsai

Tsou

(2019) The application of translanguaging in an English for specific purposes writing course. English Teaching & Learning 43(1): 65–83.

Chen

Zhang

Huang

(2022) Translanguaging/trans-semiotizing in teacher–learner interactions on social media: Making learner agency visible and achievable. System 104: 102686.

Cheng

Zhang

(2021) Teacher written feedback on English as a foreign language learners’ writing: Examining native and nonnative English-speaking teachers’ practices in feedback provision. Frontiers in Psychology 12(629921): 1–16.

10.

Cho

MacArthur

(2010) Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction 20(4): 328–338.

11.

Ekholm

Zumbrunn

Conklin

(2015) The relation of college student self-efficacy toward writing and writing self-regulation aptitude: Writing feedback perceptions as a mediating variable. Teaching in Higher Education 20(2): 197–207.

12.

Gao

(May 8, 2020) Instructor feedback on free writing and automated corrective feedback in drills: Intensity and efficacy. Language Teaching Research 136216882091533. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168820915337.

13.

García

(2014) Translanguaging: Language, Bilingualism and Education. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

14.

Guasch

Espasa

Martinez-Melo

(2019) The art of questioning in online learning environments: The potentialities of feedback in writing. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 44(1): 111–123.

15.

Harris

Leeming

(2022) The impact of teaching approach on growth in L2 proficiency and self-efficacy. Journal of Second Language Studies 5(1): 114–143.

16.

Jones

(2020) Creativity in language learning and teaching: Translingual practices and transcultural identities. Applied Linguistics Review 11(4): 535–550.

17.

Kim

Chang

(2022) Japanese L2 learners’ translanguaging practice in written peer feedback. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 25(4): 1363–1376.

18.

Kim

Emeliyanova

(2021) The effects of written corrective feedback on the accuracy of L2 writing: Comparing collaborative and individual revision behavior. Language Teaching Research 25(2): 234–245.

19.

Leung

Valdés

(2019) Translanguaging and the transdisciplinary framework for language teaching and learning in a multilingual world. Modern Language Journal 103(2): 348–370.

20.

(2018) Translanguaging as a practical theory of language. Applied Linguistics 39(1): 9–30.

21.

(2010) Sociolinguistic variation in the speech of learners of Chinese as a second language. Language Learning 60(2): 366–408.

22.

Liu

Zhou

, et al. (2021) Exploiting the potential of peer feedback: The combined use of face-to-face feedback and e-feedback in doctoral writing groups. Assessing Writing 47(100482): 1–11.

23.

López-Pellisa

Rotger

Rodríguez-Gallego

(2021) Collaborative writing at work: Peer feedback in a blended learning environment. Education and Information Technologies 26(1): 1293–1310.

24.

Musanti

Rodríguez

(2017) Translanguaging in bilingual teacher preparation: Exploring pre-service bilingual teachers’ academic writing. Bilingual Research Journal 40(1): 38–54.

25.

Otheguy

García

Reid

(2015) Clarifying translanguaging and deconstructing named languages: A perspective from linguistics. Applied Linguistics Review 6(3): 281–307.

26.

Poza

(2017) Translanguaging: Definitions, implications, and further needs in burgeoning inquiry. Berkeley Review of Education 6(2): 101–128.

27.

Prilutskaya

Knoph

(2020) Research on three L2 writing conditions: Students’ perceptions and use of background languages when writing in English. Cogent Education 7(1): 1832179.

28.

Sarré

Grosbois

Brudermann

(2021) Fostering accuracy in L2 writing: Impact of different types of corrective feedback in an experimental blended learning EFL course. Computer Assisted Language Learning 34(5-6): 707–729.

29.

Schillings

Roebertsen

Savelberg

, et al. (2021) Improving the understanding of written peer feedback through face-to-face peer dialogue: Students’ perspective. Higher Education Research and Development 40(5): 1100–1116.

30.

Suter

(2012) Introduction to Educational Research: A Critical Thinking Approach, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

31.

Tian

Zhou

(2020) Learner engagement with automated feedback, peer feedback and teacher feedback in an online EFL writing context. System 91(102247): 1–14.

32.

Topping

(2009) Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice 48(1): 20–27.

33.

Vogel

García

(2017) Translanguaging. In: Noblit

Moll

(eds) Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–19.

34.

Wang

(2019) Multilingualism and Translanguaging in Chinese Language Classrooms. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

35.

Wang

Wen

(2002) L1 use in the L2 composing process: An exploratory study of 16 Chinese EFL writers. Journal of Second Language Writing 11(3): 225–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00084-.

36.

Wang

Derakhshan

Zhang

(2021) Researching and practicing positive psychology in second/foreign language learning and teaching: The past, current status and future directions. Frontiers in Psychology 12(731721): 1–20.

37.

Yang

(2016) Transforming and constructing academic knowledge through online peer feedback in summary writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning 29(4): 683–702.

38.

Yeh

(2018) L1 versus L2 use in peer review of L2 writing in English. Asian EFL Journal 20(9): 124–147.

39.

(2016) An exploratory study on the role of L1 use in peer written feedback of L2 writing. Porta Linguarum Revista Interuniversitaria de Didáctica de Las Lenguas Extranjeras 25: 135–146.

40.

(2017) Can higher-proficiency L2 learners benefit from working with lower-proficiency partners in peer feedback? Teaching in Higher Education 22(2): 178–192.

41.

Lee

(2014) An analysis of Chinese EFL students’ use of first and second language in peer feedback of L2 writing. System 47: 28–38.

42.

Lee

(2016) Peer feedback in second language writing (2005–2014). Language Teaching 49(4): 461–493.

43.

Yuzlu

Dikilitas

(2021) Translanguaging in the development of EFL learners’ foreign language skills in Turkish context. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 16: 176–190.

44.

Zhan

Wan

Sun

(2022) Online formative peer feedback in Chinese contexts at the tertiary level: A critical review on its design, impacts and influencing factors. Computers and Education 176(104341): 1–17.

45.

Zhang

Cheng

(2020) A synthetic review of a decade of peer feedback research in China: Looking back and looking forward. Journal of Xi’an International Studies University 28(1): 48–56. https://doi.org/10.16362/j.cnki.cn61-1457/h.2020.01.010.

46.

Zhang

Cheng

(2021) Examining the effects of comprehensive written corrective feedback on L2 EAP students’ linguistic performance: A mixed-methods study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 49(101043): 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.101043.