Comparing trained EFL peer reviewers’ feedback: From claim to reality

Abstract

Comparing trained L2 writing student reviewers’ feedback behaviors as well as examining the extent to which their claims are aligned with their actual evaluation practices have received limited scholarly attention. Employing think-aloud protocols, one cause and one effect essays evaluated by five upper-intermediate L2 learners, and follow-up semi-structured interviews, this case study research aimed to explore trained L2 peer reviewers’ feedback behaviors and the matches and mismatches between their claims and evaluation practices. While the first and the second data source compared the participants’ actual feedback practices in terms of nature, type, and validity, the last source probed their claims on peer evaluation. The findings contribute to peer feedback research by emphasizing on the need for individual, customized, and constant peer review training sessions rather than general, all-purpose, and decontextualized instructions which can consequently improve peer feedback quality in L2 writing contexts.