Integrating students’ peer feedback strategy into the EFL writing classes: Practices and orientations

This study aims at investigating practices and beliefs of teachers regarding the use of peer assessment in EFL writing in Jimma Seto Semro and Jiren preparatory and high schools in South Western Ethiopia. In this study, a descriptive survey based on both qualitative and quantitative data were used. To achieve the objective, all (13) EFL instructors in Seto Semro and Jiren high schools and participated in the study. Questionnaire consisting of closed and open-ended questions were utilized as a main data collection tool which was substantiated by an interview. The findings of the study showed that the majority of teachers are practising peer assessment in EFL writing. The findings of this study revealed that peer feedback was found to be beneficial, for it increased teachers’ positive beliefs and motivation in English writing class. Participants also liked peer review and the majority liked to carry out this peer assessment. Peer evaluation was helpful for improving students’ writing in lay out, content, organization, language use, spelling, capitalization, mechanics, grammar and vocabulary. Based on the findings, it was recommended that teachers of writing should use peer assessment to help students improve their writing in the areas of spelling, mechanics and grammar. It is further recommended, that there is a need to train EFL teachers to make them aware of the idea that peer assessment develops students’ writing skills. Key words: Second language (L2) writing, peer feedback, teachers’ practices, teachers’ beliefs, benefits of peer assessment.

Background StudyPeer feedback has been used as an effective instructional strategy to enhance students' learning in higher education.ObjectivesThis paper reports on the findings of an explorative study that aimed to increase our understanding of the nature and role of peer feedback in the students' learning process in a computer‐supported collaborative learning (CSCL) setting. Exploring what types of feedback are used, and how they relate to each other and are related to academic performance has important implications for students and teachers.MethodsThis study was conducted in the higher education setting. It used a dataset consisting of student peer feedback messages (N = 2444) and grades from 231 students who participated in a large engineering course. Using qualitative methods, peer feedback was coded inductively. Epistemic network analysis (ENA) was used to analyse the relation between peer feedback types and performance.ResultsBased on the five types of peer feedback (i.e., ‘management’, ‘cognition’ ‘affect’, ‘interpersonal factors’ and ‘suggestions for improvements’), the results of the ENA showed that student feedback categories ‘management’, ‘cognition’ and ‘affect’ were positively related to student performance at the formative assessment phase.ConclusionsThe findings and the ENA visualizations also show that ‘suggestions for improvement’ and ‘interpersonal factors’ were not a significant part of student learning in peer assessment and feedback in the studied context.

Peer assessment is a common pedagogical practice for evaluating students' writing in college English classrooms. However, in-depth research on the learning outcomes after peer assessment is scarce and inconsistent; how peer feedback is used has not been fully explored either. This study compared peer feedback to teacher feedback and explored the different features of feedback and its impact on draft revision. Two specific research questions were answered in this study: (1) In which aspects can peer feedback supplement teacher feedback in improving the linguistic features in writing? (2) What are the differences in features of peer feedback versus teacher feedback? And how do they connect to feedback take-in? Two writing tasks were assigned to 94 students. One received teacher feedback and the other peer feedback. Pre-feedback and post-feedback writings in both tasks (4 sets in total) were scored and human ratings were adjusted using Many-Facet Rasch modeling to control for differences in leniency. Drawing on three natural language processing (NLP) tools, this study also assessed writing qualities by comparing 22 selected indices related to the scoring rubrics for human raters, which involve three dimensions: cohesion, lexical quality and syntactic complexity. Peer and teacher feedback was then coded based on features of feedback to explore their influence on draft revision. The results showed that both peer and teacher feedback had positive effects on rating scores. We confirmed peer feedback as an effective classroom approach to improve writing, though limited compared to teacher feedback as reflected in the indices. In terms of feedback features, students often stopped at identifying the language problems, while the teacher provided more explanations, solutions or suggestions regarding the problems identified. Implications for peer feedback research and implementation of peer assessment activities are provided.

Social science research methods can help shed light on students' peer feedback performance. They can also help enlighten researchers on students' reception and repercussion to feedback tasks. The operationalizability of these methods for future peer activities in Translation Didactics is examined in this chapter. Multiple peer feedback data from undergraduate Business Communication students is compared with questionnaire and interview data. The data derives from peer feedback loops and provides insights into the students' perception of working with peer feedback on a web-text localization and translation commentary task performed to mirror professional practice. The analysis of the wording of student feedback, of the revisions suggested and the analysis of whether or not—and how—students implement their peer's suggestions, allows qualitative evaluation and interpretation. The methods applied are compared and their feasibility for further research into peer feedback in Translation Studies is explored.

Peer-feedback efficiency might be influenced by the oftentimes voiced concern of students that they perceive their peers’ competence to provide feedback as inadequate. Feedback literature also identifies mindful processing of (peer)feedback and (peer)feedback content as important for its efficiency, but lacks systematic investigation. In a 2 × 2 factorial design, peer-feedback content (concise general feedback [CGF] vs. elaborated specific feedback [ESF]) and competence of the sender (high vs. low) were varied. Students received a scenario containing an essay by a fictional student and fictional peer feedback, a perception questionnaire, and a text revision, distraction, and peer-feedback recall task. Eye tracking was applied to measure how written peer feedback was (re-)read, e.g., glance duration on exact words and sentences. Mindful cognitive processing was inferred from the relation between glance duration and (a) text-revision performance and (b) peer-feedback recall performance. Feedback by a high competent peer was perceived as more adequate. Compared to CGF, participants who received ESF scored higher on positive affect towards the peer feedback. No effects were found for peer-feedback content and/or sender’s competence level on performance. Glance durations were negatively correlated to text-revision performance regardless of condition, although peer-feedback recall showed that a basic amount of mindful cognitive processing occurred in all conditions. Descriptive findings also hint that this processing might be dependent on an interaction between peer-feedback content and sender’s competence, signifying a clear direction for future research.

Peer assessment is increasingly being encouraged to enhance dental students' learning. The aim of this study was to evaluate the educational impact in terms of academic achievements and reflective thinking of a formative prospective peer assessment and feedback protocol. Volunteer final-year dental students at King's College London Dental Institute, UK, received training on peer assessment, peer feedback, and self-reflection. At the beginning (baseline) and end (resultant) of the 2012-13 academic year, 86 students (55% of the year group) completed a reflection questionnaire (RQ). Sixty-eight of those students used a modified Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) as a framework for peer assessment and peer feedback during a complete academic year. End-of-year, high-stakes examination grades and RQ scores from the participants and nonparticipants were statistically compared. The participants completed 576 peer DOPS. Those 22 students who peer assessed each other ≥10 times exhibited highly statistically significant differences and powerful positive effect sizes in their high-stakes exam grades (p=0.0001, d=0.74) and critical reflection skills (p=0.005, d=1.41) when compared to those who did not assess one another. Furthermore, only the same 22 students showed a statistically significant increase and positive effect size in their critical reflection skills from baseline to resultant (p=0.003, d=1.04). The results of this study suggest that the protocol used has the potential to impact dental students' academic and reflection skills, provided it is practiced in ten or more peer encounters and ensuring peer feedback is provided followed by self-reflection.

Refining the definition of student peer feedback in text production pedagogy and extending the definition to include the concept of peer-feedback roles, this article roots in higher education and explores definitions of peer feedback based on multiple characteristics. Its primary objective is to contribute to the landscape of student peer-feedback research in writing and translation studies. Its secondary objective is to provide a discourse-sensitive definition of student peer feedback at the crossroads of symbolic interactionism and social constructivism. This article reconceptualizes the role that peer-feedback roles play in student peer-feedback settings, drawing on peer-feedback research to cut across the disciplines. It broadens the perspective on the perceived dichotomy of the roles of feedback provider and receiver, based on role theory as a critical framework to synthesize theoretical approaches. This article suggests future conceptualization and theorization of roles as a framework for educators and researchers.

Internationalisation and assessment and feedback are one of the main research agenda in the UK higher education. The study reports the Higher Education Academy Economics Network-funded research for international students’ experience with peer assessment and feedback innovation. The Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) theoretical framework is used to analyse students’ experience. The finding demonstrates that peer assessment practice enhances assessment and feedback experience for international students. However, the heterogeneity in assessors’ ability levels may affect the confidence of students in peer assessment. Independent justification for providing peer assessment or making sense of received feedback is necessary. The model of PeerMark’s ZPD is suggested to become part of the peer assessment for learning ecosystem in order to empower learning experience rather than to provoke diffidence.

Phenomenon : Increasingly, peer feedback and assessment exercises are being introduced into health professional degree programs with many proposed benefits including the unique feedback received from peers and development of clinical education skills. However, studies investigating the bidirectional significance of peer feedback in workplace-based assessments (WBAs) are limited. The peer assessed mini-clinical evaluation exercise (peer mini-CEX) is a WBA conducted as part of The University of Melbourne Doctor of Medicine course, which involves peers assessing one another in a clinical setting. Approach : This research investigated students’ perceptions of the bidirectional effects of peer feedback on medical students undertaking peer mini-CEXs. Between August and October 2023, we conducted semi-structured interviews of penultimate and final year medical students. We undertook an exploratory qualitative study based on social constructivist theory. We transcribed the interviews and analyzed them via inductive thematic analysis, which led to the development of themes and the thematic map. Findings : Fourteen students, including eight third-year and six fourth-year students, participated in the study. Students appeared to engage in two general approaches to the peer mini-CEX: a mastery approach or a compliance approach. These themes encapsulated a tension between the desire to achieve deeper learning versus a strategic approach to assessment. When students took a mastery approach, perceived bidirectional benefits clustered around improvements in feedback provision and reception, more intentional observation and reflection leading to enhanced clinical skills, and development of professional communication skills. If students took a compliance approach, the reported outcomes were limited or undesirable with students viewing the assessment as a tick box exercise and identifying the limitations of peer feedback. A third theme, the social milieu, illustrated the influence of the social context on peer interactions and whether a mastery or compliance approach was undertaken. Insights : This study is the first to explore students’ perceptions of the nuanced bidirectional effects of peer feedback in a WBA. Participants report benefits of the peer mini-CEX in domains such as clinical skills, professionalism, communication, and feedback provision and reception. However, even engaged students often described adopting a superficial approach to the peer mini-CEX, resulting in minimal learning. Our findings indicate the influence of the social milieu on peer assessment and feedback processes. With contemporaneous feedback training and priming, peer assessment and feedback can be a valuable exercise for medical students. Further research into peer feedback in WBAs is required.

The paper provides a detailed discussion of the design, application, and results of a computer-based approach used to solicit student self and peer assessment and feedback on nine learning outcomes linked to ABET 2000. Several issues are addressed including: the efficacy of student self and peer review, correlation with faculty ratings, faculty and student acceptance, and process management.

Peer assessment and feedback is encouraged to enhance students' learning. The aim of this study was to quantitatively and qualitatively analyse pre-clinical and clinical dental students' written peer feedback provided as part of a continuous, formative and structured peer assessment protocol. A total of 309 Year-2 and Year-5 dental students were invited to participate in a peer assessment and peer feedback protocol. Consenting volunteer students were trained to observe each other whilst working in the skills laboratory (Year-2) and in the dental clinic (Year-5). Subsequently, they followed a structured protocol of peer assessment and peer feedback using specially designed work-based forms during a complete academic year. The content of their written feedback was coded according to the UK General Dental Council domain, sign (positive or negative), specificity (task specific or general), and grouped into themes. A total of 108 participants (40 Year-2 and 68 Year-5) completed 1169 peer assessment work-based forms (516 pre-clinical and 653 clinical); 94% contained written feedback. The large majority (82%) of Year-2 feedback represented the clinical domain, 89% were positive, 77% were task specific, and they were grouped into 14 themes. Year-5 feedback was related mostly to Management and Leadership (37%) and Communication (32%), 64% were positive, 75% task specific, and they were clustered into 24 themes. The content of the feedback showed notable differences between Year-2 and Year-5 students. Senior students focused more on Communication and Management and Leadership skills, whilst juniors were more concerned with clinical skills. Year-5 students provided 13% negative feedback compared to only 2% from Year-2. Regulatory focus theory is discussed to explain these differences. Both groups provided peer feedback on a wide and different range of themes. However, four themes emerged in both groups: efficiency, infection control, time management and working speed. A structured peer assessment framework can be used to guide pre-clinical and clinical students to provide peer feedback focused on different domains, and on contrasting signs and specificities. It can also present an opportunity to complement tutors' feedback.

Quality assurance in radiology: peer review and peer feedback

ESP classes in subjects such as business are popular in Asia, especially at the tertiary level. Collaborative groupwork and pairwork in these classes is used, not only to practice presented language, but also to facilitate peer feedback (which may include peer assessment) and critical thinking skills. However, many teachers believe that active participation and accurate, appropriate and meaningful feedback in Asian cultures is constrained by fear of mistakes, politeness norms, and the belief that peer feedback lacks credibility. This paper describes the attitudes of 217 Chinese students to extended pairwork (same pair over a term) and peer assessment in eleven task-based ESP business classes in a Hong Kong university. The patterns and perceived usefulness of peer interaction, feedback and peer evaluation are discussed in terms of the cultural values of Chinese learners. The findings suggest that peer feedback was generally perceived as useful and occurred often although about five percent of students did not enjoy the collaborative learning arrangement, and in these cases there was less interaction. The overall response to peer assessment as a learning experience was favourable, but students were unsure about its fairness and felt less comfortable about it as an assessment exercise than as a learning exercise. Possible guidelines for the successful use of collaborative learning arrangements in Asian cultures are suggested.

This study examines whether peer feedback can be a substitute for teacher feedback and which measures can be taken to improve its effectiveness. A pre‐test post‐test control group design examined the long‐term learning effects of individual peer feedback and of collective teacher feedback on writing assignments in secondary education. Moreover, it examined the added value of a priori question forms and a posteriori reply forms aimed at supporting the assessee's response to peer feedback. The study supports the ‘non‐inferiority’ hypothesis of there being no significant difference in students’ progress after plain substitutional peer feedback or teacher feedback. Both groups (plain peer feedback and teacher feedback), however, improved significantly less than the groups that worked with question or reply forms, confirming the added‐value of these forms. Almost half of the students found the received peer feedback helpful, but less than a quarter considered giving feedback an aid in their own learning process.

Peer assessment has proven to have positive learning outcomes. Importantly, peer assessment is a social process and some claim that the use of anonymity might have advantages. However, the findings have not always been in the same direction. Our aims were: (a) to review the effects of using anonymity in peer assessment on performance, peer feedback content, peer grading accuracy, social effects and students’ perspective on peer assessment; and (b) to investigate the effects of four moderating variables (educational level, peer grading, assessment aids, direction of anonymity) in relation to anonymity. A literature search was conducted including five different terms related to peer assessment (e.g., peer feedback) and anonymity. Fourteen studies that used a control group or a within group design were found. The narrative review revealed that anonymous peer assessment seems to provide advantages for students’ perceptions about the learning value of peer assessment, delivering more critical peer feedback, increased self-perceived social effects, a slight tendency for more performance, especially in higher education and with less peer assessment aids. Some conclusions are that: (a) when implementing anonymity in peer assessment the instructional context and goals need to be considered, (b) existent empirical research is still limited, and (c) future research should employ stronger and more complex research designs.