1. Yue Lu
Article Critiquing

2. Introduction Title of the article:
“Face-to-face and Coputer-mediated Peer Review in EFL Writing”
(Published on CALICO Journal in 2007)
Ho, M., and S. J. Savignon “Face-to-face and computer mediated peer review in EFL writing”. CALJCO Journal 24/2:  
(CALICO: Computer-Assisted Language Instruction Consortium)
Authors: Mei-Ching Ho The Arizona State University
Sandra J. Savignon The Pennsylvania State University

3. Introduction Aim of the study:
The study investigated the attitudes of the research respondents toward the use of FFPR and CMPR in composition classes. Then, some pedagogical implications are drawn.

4. Literature Review
A brief review of several key empirical studies of both FFPR and CMPR in the field is displayed.
Problem: this part lacks certain review of relevant underpinning learning theories

5. Setting and participants of the research:
The participants were 33 English majors from a university of science and technology in Taiwan, a new type of school offering 2-year associate degree programs in foreign language studies. The primary objective of the program is to prepare the students for working in English environment. They have academic English writing classes, and peer review activity is a part of their compulsory assignment.
Problems:
The factors that the participants are students from science and technology college are not highlighted.
Too many effect factors:
The participants are of different level, different classes, tutored by different teachers, which might have effects on the research results.

6. Methodology and Procedure
1. interview with tutors
Problem: profound face-to-face interviews would be more effective and productive.
2. Conduction of CMPR
Exchange drafts by s.
Application of the ‘Track Change’ function in Microsoft Word 
Problem: senior class: outside of the class; junior: inside the class
3. Questionnaires with the participant students:
A) several biographical questions: prior major and English learning experience
B) point Likert scale items: measure learners’ attitudes toward both peer review modes
C) 5 open-ended questions: elicit reasons for the preference for a certain peer review mode

7. Data collection and analysis:
The 30 Likert-scale items were tested for reliability coefficients in advance.
Problem: no description of the way of testing.
Questionnaire responses were encoded and analyzed statistically.
Responses to Open-ended questions were categorized and summarized.

8. Results:
Results:
The statistical results show that the learners had more favorable attitudes toward FFPR than CMPR.
Explanation offered by responses to open-ended questions:

9. Attitudes toward FFPR:
Opportunities for expression, negotiation and clarification of meanings are provided.
Time limitation
Some learners reported they felt uncomfortable to point out their peer’s problems face to face.

10. Attitudes toward CMPR:
Time and place flexibility
More comfortable and less stressful when giving feedback on the computer
Lack of verbal communication
Time delay of the feedback
Some reported their problems of screen reading

11. Many reported that it would be better to combine both modes of peer review.
CMPR+FFPR

12. Main Pedagogical Implications:
A combine of two modes of peer review.
Proper training before peer review

13. Further research suggestions:
How to combine the FFPR and CMPR
How do students negotiate meanings?
Some other software that facilitates peer reviews.
Synchronous: online chat
Asynchronous: emal, discussion forum, or software such as Turnitin, Sword, etc.