Search

As a vital learning activity in second language (L2) writing classrooms, peer feedback plays a crucial role in improving students' writing skills. However, student reviewers face challenges in providing impactful feedback on peers' essays. Low‐quality peer reviews emerge as a persistent problem, adversely affecting the learning effect of peer feedback. To enhance students' peer feedback provision, this study introduces EvaluMate, an AI‐supported peer review system, which incorporates a chatbot named Eva, designed to evaluate and provide feedback on student reviewers' comments on peers' essays. Forty‐four Chinese undergraduate students engaged with EvaluMate, utilising its features to generate feedback on peers' English argumentative essays. Chat log data capturing the students' interactions with the chatbot were collected, including the comments they wrote on peer essays and the feedback offered by the chatbot on their comments. The results indicate that the integration of AI supervision improved the quality of students' peer reviews. Students employed various strategies during their comment revision in response to AI feedback, such as introducing new points, adding details, and providing illustrative examples, which helped improve their comment quality. These findings shed light on the benefits of AI‐supported peer review systems in empowering students to provide more valuable feedback on peers' written work. Practitioner notes What is already known about this topic Scholars have extensively investigated diverse pedagogical strategies to enhance students' peer feedback provision skills in second language (L2) writing classrooms. Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have been utilised to monitor and evaluate the peer feedback generated by student reviewers. AI‐enabled peer feedback evaluation tools have demonstrated the ability to provide valid assessments of student reviewers' peer feedback. What this paper adds In the context of L2 writing, there is a lack of bespoke AI‐enabled peer feedback evaluation tools. To address this gap, we have developed an AI‐supported peer review system, EvaluMate, which incorporates a large language model‐based chatbot named Eva. Eva is designed to provide feedback on L2 students' comments on their peers' writing. While previous studies have primarily focused on assessing the validity of AI‐enabled peer feedback evaluation tools, little is known about how students incorporate AI support into improving their peer review comments. To bridge this gap, our study examines not only whether using the system (EvaluMate) can enhance the quality of L2 students' peer review comments but also how students respond to Eva's feedback when revising their comments. Implications for practice and/or policy The development of the AI‐supported peer review system (EvaluMate) introduces an innovative pedagogical approach for L2 writing teachers to train and enhance their students' peer feedback provision skills. Integrating AI supervision into L2 students' peer feedback generation improves the quality of comments provided by student reviewers on their peers' writing. Students employ various strategies when revising their comments in response to Eva's feedback, and these strategies result in varying degrees of improvement in comment quality. L2 writing teachers can teach effective revision strategies to their students. What is already known about this topic Scholars have extensively investigated diverse pedagogical strategies to enhance students' peer feedback provision skills in second language (L2) writing classrooms. Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies have been utilised to monitor and evaluate the peer feedback generated by student reviewers. AI‐enabled peer feedback evaluation tools have demonstrated the ability to provide valid assessments of student reviewers' peer feedback. What this paper adds In the context of L2 writing, there is a lack of bespoke AI‐enabled peer feedback evaluation tools. To address this gap, we have developed an AI‐supported peer review system, EvaluMate, which incorporates a large language model‐based chatbot named Eva. Eva is designed to provide feedback on L2 students' comments on their peers' writing. While previous studies have primarily focused on assessing the validity of AI‐enabled peer feedback evaluation tools, little is known about how students incorporate AI support into improving their peer review comments. To bridge this gap, our study examines not only whether using the system (EvaluMate) can enhance the quality of L2 students' peer review comments but also how students respond to Eva's feedback when revising their comments. Implications for practice and/or policy The development of the AI‐supported peer review system (EvaluMate) introduces an innovative pedagogical approach for L2 writing teachers to train and enhance their students' peer feedback provision skills. Integrating AI supervision into L2 students' peer feedback generation improves the quality of comments provided by student reviewers on their peers' writing. Students employ various strategies when revising their comments in response to Eva's feedback, and these strategies result in varying degrees of improvement in comment quality. L2 writing teachers can teach effective revision strategies to their students. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role of peer feedback in academic writing has garnered increasing attention from educators and research supervisors in recent years. Nevertheless, limited information exists about the perceptions and experiences of international doctoral students concerning the learning outcomes derived from giving and receiving feedback on research synopsis writing. This case study employs a variety of data sources, including research synopsis drafts, written peer evaluations, and semistructured interviews, to explore how 11 junior and seven senior doctoral candidates at Chinese universities benefit from receiving and providing feedback on their peers' research synopses, respectively. Through the analysis of the interview data, four emergent themes related to student learning were generated through the exchange of peer feedback: (1) enhancing research synopsis writing awareness, (2) progressing in synopsis writing drafts, (3) improving research skills with peer feedback, and (4) fostering reflective and critical learning. These findings contribute to a deeper understanding of the potential educational opportunities that arise from exchanging peer evaluations in scholarly work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This teaching note describes the use of a pilot peer feedback assignment in an undergraduate BSW Interviewing Skills Course. Two cohorts of students over two years (n = 47) answered a brief questionnaire and/or participated in a small focus group inquiring about their experience of this assignment and its impact on their learning. Student reflections in the assignment were also reviewed to understand their experience. Three themes were identified: (a) giving peer feedback deepened student learning of specific communication skills; (b) receiving constructive feedback from peers strengthened elements of professionalism; and (c) the peer feedback process increased confidence in self-evaluation skills. Implications for changes to our teaching based on this experience are offered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite its popularity as a recommended practice in the literature of writing instruction, peer review training seems to be more of an idea promoted than a common practice in the classroom. The reason is obvious: review training often requires considerable time and effort from the instructor and students. This study seeks to examine whether and to what extent a review training intervention as brief as two hours promotes student feedback literacy, specifically in relation to feedback provision. A quasi-experiment was conducted with two groups of Chinese undergraduate students with a follow-up interview. Results showed a positive effect on the provision of global feedback comments and an increasing focus on elaborate, constructive feedback after the training. Findings from the interview revealed students’ positive perceptions of training activities. The present study makes an empirical contribution to the literature and advances conversation in the area of peer review training and student feedback literacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the importance of feedback in education is well established, the effects of structured knowledge in collaborative academic writing remains uncertain. This study introduces an academic writing feedback tool that combines structured knowledge mining, analysis, and visualization. An empirical experiment was conducted in a second-year university class with fifty-five students to examine the impact of the tool on different writing phases. Multiple data sources (i.e., scores, peer comments, discussions, surveys, and interviews) are collected and analyzed using a mixed-method approach. The findings demonstrate that structured knowledge feedback significantly improves specific metrics used to assess academic writing, leading to an overall enhancement in writing quality. The intervention also influences students' engagement, both behaviorally and cognitively, during online discussions and peer comment phases. Moreover, all students exhibited a positive perception of the writing feedback tool and considered peer comments as the most beneficial collaborative phase when structured knowledge intervention was employed. However, their preferences regarding the presentation form of feedback varied. Finally, the study provides implications for the development and research of NLP-powered (Natural Language Processing) feedback tools. These insights aim to inspire future studies on collaborative academic writing, emphasizing the potential of structured knowledge feedback in fostering effective writing practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Teacher networks and communities have played an important role in teacher professional development. In such contexts, teachers often receive extensive feedback from peers as part of social learning. However, many teachers have difficulty identifying essential information from a large amount of peer feedback, which may impede self-reflection and peer learning. This study proposes the use of computer-assisted visual analytics of peer feedback to address this challenge. A visualisation-based analytical dashboard was designed and applied to help teachers analyse and reflect on peer feedback in a lesson study community for Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) development. Primary school teachers participated in the lesson study, in which they collaborated to discuss lesson plans, observe recorded lessons, and give peer ratings and comments using an online platform. By comparing the performance between those using the analytical dashboard and others not using it, the results show that the approach has promising effects on improving teachers' TPACK as reflected in the lesson plans and their perceived confidence in TPACK. The implications of the findings are also discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Medical students benefit from direct observation of clinical performance and timely feedback from multiple sources. While self and peer feedback have been the focus of numerous research studies, how they influence feedback engagement and receptivity in medical students of varying achievement levels in the clinical skills laboratory setting remains relatively unexplored. Methods: We conducted an exploratory qualitative study to investigate students' engagement and receptivity to self and peer feedback across academic performance levels at a medical teaching institution. Data from five focus groups with third-year medical students(n = 25) were thematically analysed. Results: The ways in which low and high performing students engaged with self-assessment and peer feedback were divided into three categories: affective (or interpersonal), orientational, and transformational. Lower achievers believed they lacked the necessary skills to effectively engage in self and peer feedback interventions, but they agreed with higher achievers who recognized that peer feedback combined with prior knowledge of learning objectives allowed them to take ownership of monitoring their own development over time. Learners' emotional maturity in response to feedback ratings and feedback from activities testing clinical cognition had an impact on self-regulated learning. Conclusions: Creating a trusting environment is critical for improving the acceptability of peer feedback. It is also critical to provide multiple opportunities for self-assessment in order to improve one's judgment. Giving learners the ability to actively seek and engage with feedback encourages participation in the feedback cycle, focusing on self-regulation rather than reliance on feedback providers. Feedback and action plan development can be improved by teaching students how to understand criticism, manage emotions constructively, and practice developing evaluative judgment and self-regulation skills. Based on the study findings an integrated three stage training model is recommended for effective self- and peer feedback practice for undergraduate medical education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractPeer feedback has been recognized as a crucial strategy in enhancing L2 writing skills and performance. It addresses common challenges faced by students, such as grammar and spelling errors, limited expression ability, and cultural differences. Peer feed-back and feed-forward are two major approaches to providing peer feedback. However, existing teaching practices overlooked the distinction between peer feed-back and feed-forward, both of which convey different information about students’ learning statuses and may have varying influences on L2 writing. Therefore, this research compared the effects of peer feed-back and peer feed-forward on students’ L2 writing. 44 international students participated in this research and their essays, the results of the domain knowledge understanding test, the content of peer feed-back and peer feed-forward, and self-reported data were collected. Overall, the findings showed that there were no significant differences between peer feed-back and peer feed-forward conditions on students’ L2 writing performance and domain knowledge understanding. Students performed better in producing peer feed-back content than peer feed-forward content. Based on the results, pedagogical implications were proposed to promote peer feedback practices and harness its potentials to improve students’ L2 writing quality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the widespread use of Learner-Oriented Assessment (LOA) in (English as a Foreign Language EFL classes, concerns persist regarding its suitability for contexts such as Iran. Drawing on Carless's (SHE, 31:219-233, 2006) criteria for LOA, the present study examined the effectiveness of peer and teacher feedback in an academic writing course. To this aim, a total of 124 intermediate language learners who were homogenized in terms of language proficiency, based on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), were randomly assigned to an experimental and a control group. A 12-session writing instruction course with specific writing tasks was developed. One group received feedback from peers, while the other group received feedback from the teacher. Findings revealed that peer feedback resulted in better writing in terms of language, content, and organization. It was also found that the peer feedback group could retain their learning in the long run. These findings underscore the effectiveness of peer feedback within the framework of LOA, particularly in teacher-directed settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Teamwork and effective communication between all health care staff members are essential to providing safe, high‐quality patient care. High‐reliability organizations align behavioral expectations with organizational values and prioritize safety over other performance metrics and pressures. Communication breakdowns, such as inadequate or incomplete information shared between caregivers, continues to be an issue that is linked to errors and staff member dissatisfaction. Initiatives to improve health care communication and improve patient outcomes are well documented, yet communication issues in the health care setting continue. An organization's credo defines its values and behavioral expectations. Educating team members on an organization's credo creates accountability among those teams to align their behavior with the organization's values, policies, and professional commitment. A Coworker Observation Reporting System offers a communication method for providing meaningful feedback on behaviors inconsistent with an organization's credo. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Digital Education is the property of Haiyan Publishing Co. Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Purpose – This study aims to examine Saudi female students' attitude toward peer feedback activity in writing classes with a list of questions for the students to follow during the activity, and to investigate the challenges that may prevent the use of such activity in Saudi EFL classes. Design/methodology/approach – This study used a mixed-methods to ensure the credibility of the data and obtain clear descriptions about the topic. The study instruments are (1) Writing Essays, (2) Writing Checklist, (3) Questionnaire and (4) Semi-structured interview. The data were analysis with SPSS and o 10 software. Findings – The study results indicated that students had a positive attitude toward peer feedback with a checklist in EFL writing class. For instance, their second written essay (post) has improved and has fewer mistakes than the first one. Also, most of the participants stated that peer feedback has improved their writing quality and has enhanced their writing awareness of their weaknesses and mistakes. Moreover, the interview had highlighted the main challenges that could affect using peer feedback in writing class. Finally, the results indicate the efficiency of peer feedback with a checklist in similar teaching contexts. Research limitations/implications – The study focused on a small number of participants (30 students). Besides, the study dealt with students at university level only and the study focused on female students. Practical implications – Based on the study finding, it is recommended that peer feedback should be integrated in all EFL writing classes at all levels. Based on the study finding, it is recommended that peer feedback should be incorporated in all EFL writing classes at all levels. Using checklist can help the students to become more independent learners and in time they will be able to correct their own mistakes. Originality/value – This paper fulfills an identified need to identify how integrating peer feedback activity in writing class can improve the students' writing performance and help them to be independent learners.

Summary writing can be challenging for Japanese EFL learners, who tend to have difficulty with over-copying from source texts, reaching appropriate lengths, and choosing information for inclusion. This study reports on three interventions taken in tandem in an academic writing class: note-taking, peer feedback, and automated feedback. The results suggest that combining these interventions into process-writing-based practice effectively enhanced students’ summary writing ability; text-length and content scores increased from a pre- to post-test and the amount of source text copying decreased. Furthermore, we found that students who had higher language ability and more of a tendency to over-copy initially were more likely to improve. Finally, students reported that they preferred the automated feedback and the greatest change in learners’ writing was observed after the automated feedback, so we think that plays an important role in improving summary writing ability. This article was published open access under a CC BY-NC-ND licence: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Abstract Background Medical students benefit from direct observation of clinical performance and timely feedback from multiple sources. While self and peer feedback have been the focus of numerous research studies, how they influence feedback engagement and receptivity in medical students of varying achievement levels in the clinical skills laboratory setting remains relatively unexplored. Methods We conducted an exploratory qualitative study to investigate students’ engagement and receptivity to self and peer feedback across academic performance levels at a medical teaching institution. Data from five focus groups with third-year medical students(n = 25) were thematically analysed. Results The ways in which low and high performing students engaged with self-assessment and peer feedback were divided into three categories: affective (or interpersonal), orientational, and transformational. Lower achievers believed they lacked the necessary skills to effectively engage in self and peer feedback interventions, but they agreed with higher achievers who recognized that peer feedback combined with prior knowledge of learning objectives allowed them to take ownership of monitoring their own development over time. Learners' emotional maturity in response to feedback ratings and feedback from activities testing clinical cognition had an impact on self-regulated learning. Conclusions Creating a trusting environment is critical for improving the acceptability of peer feedback. It is also critical to provide multiple opportunities for self-assessment in order to improve one's judgment. Giving learners the ability to actively seek and engage with feedback encourages participation in the feedback cycle, focusing on self-regulation rather than reliance on feedback providers. Feedback and action plan development can be improved by teaching students how to understand criticism, manage emotions constructively, and practice developing evaluative judgment and self-regulation skills. Based on the study findings an integrated three stage training model is recommended for effective self- and peer feedback practice for undergraduate medical education.

Abstract Despite the widespread use of Learner-Oriented Assessment (LOA) in (English as a Foreign Language EFL classes, concerns persist regarding its suitability for contexts such as Iran. Drawing on Carless’s (SHE, 31:219-233, 2006) criteria for LOA, the present study examined the effectiveness of peer and teacher feedback in an academic writing course. To this aim, a total of 124 intermediate language learners who were homogenized in terms of language proficiency, based on the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR), were randomly assigned to an experimental and a control group. A 12-session writing instruction course with specific writing tasks was developed. One group received feedback from peers, while the other group received feedback from the teacher. Findings revealed that peer feedback resulted in better writing in terms of language, content, and organization. It was also found that the peer feedback group could retain their learning in the long run. These findings underscore the effectiveness of peer feedback within the framework of LOA, particularly in teacher-directed settings.

Background: Critical thinking is one of the 21st Century competencies for students. While previous research acknowledges the potential of peer feedback to enhance critical thinking skills, particularly within computer‐supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environments, there is limited understanding of which specific aspects of critical thinking are improved through peer feedback and how various components of critical thinking are interrelated within a CSCL environment in K‐12 education contexts. Objectives: This study aims to investigate how peer feedback affects secondary school students' critical thinking skills within a computer‐supported collaborative argumentation (CSCA) environment. It explores the specific aspects of critical thinking that were enhanced and examines the relationships among different critical thinking indicators using Epistemic Network Analysis (ENA) to provide a deep understanding of these skills' development before and after peer feedback. Methods: This study adopted a mixed‐method approach. Qualitative content analysis was conducted to explore the effect of peer feedback on students' depth of critical thinking by adopting Newman's framework. Quantitative ethnographic method known as ENA was employed to analyse the co‐occurrence patterns of critical thinking influenced by peer feedback. Results and Conclusions: This study found that peer feedback was effective in promoting students' critical thinking measured by Newman's framework (Justification, Ambiguities, Importance, Novelty, Relevance, Width of understanding, and Linking ideas, factors, and interpretation). However, the study noted a lack of improvement in the dimensions of Bringing Outside Knowledge/Experience to Bear on the Problem (O), Critical Assessment (C), and Practical Utility (P). Peer feedback significantly influenced the co‐occurrence patterns of critical thinking. Before peer feedback, students' arguments were characterized by confusion and narrow viewpoints, despite containing important and relevant points. After peer feedback, there was a marked improvement, with students presenting their arguments with greater clarity, breadth of information, and creativity. This suggests that peer feedback helped students refine their argumentation skills, making their points clearer and more comprehensive. Lay Description: What is currently known about this topic?: Peer feedback has the potential to enhance students' critical thinking skills, especially when integrated into computer‐supported collaborative learning environments. What does this paper add?: Peer feedback is effective in promoting students' critical thinking in the following dimensions: Justification, Ambiguities, Importance, Novelty, Relevance, Width of understanding, and Linking ideas, factors, and interpretation.Peer feedback significantly influences the co‐occurrence patterns of critical thinking. Implications for practice/or policy?: Peer feedback activities have impact on students' depth and patterns of critical thinking skills.Peer feedback should be considered when designing a CSCA learning environment to promote students' critical thinking skills. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Study: Peer feedback has been used as an effective instructional strategy to enhance students' learning in higher education. Objectives: This 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. Methods: This 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. Results: Based 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. Conclusions: The 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. Lay Description: What is currently known about the topic?: Peer feedback is important for the student's success in the CSCL setting.Different types of online peer feedback lead to different learning outcomes.There is a need to better understand the underpinning reasons for heterogeneity. What does this paper add?: The findings reveal how different types of peer feedback relate to each other in then CSCL setting.Peer feedback focusing on 'management', 'cognition' and 'affect' is predictive of student success at the formative assessment phase.Peer feedback focusing on 'suggestions for improvement' and 'interpersonal factors' is not significant to student success. Implications for practice: Teachers should guide students on how to provide peer feedback leading to improved learning outcomes.Practitioners are recommended to support students by offering them with relevant instructions on how to provide feedback focusing on affect, management and cognition in an interrelated way in CSCL settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents an action research whose aim was to implement the peer feedback activity in EFL writing in primary school contexts in Croatia. The study follows the methodology of action research conducted in five stages. The study aims to answer the following research questions: 1. Can the activity of peer feedback in writing be tailored to primary school students? 2. Can peer feedback activity be successfully implemented in primary educational contexts? The action research provided valuable insights into the complex area of teaching writing in the context of EFL, proving that its successful implementation will largely depend on the willingness of teachers to re-think their feedback-giving practice and embrace peer feedback as a part of their teaching routine.

Abstract This study investigated the effectiveness and dynamics of peer feedback in online and offline learning environments, focusing on English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students’ affective engagement and its impact on learning outcomes. Utilizing an explanatory sequential mixed methods design, the research divided participants into groups that studied through Zoom and traditional classrooms over 12 weeks, analyzing their engagement with peer feedback. Data were gathered from Likert-scale and open-ended questionnaires, along with performance scores on key tasks, and analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-tests, linear regressions, and thematic analysis. The findings indicated that students valued peer feedback in both settings, with online learners showing higher engagement levels. However, this engagement did not translate into improved writing skills, highlighting the need for further research into other factors that could enhance EFL writing proficiency.

Abstract While peer-editing is considered an important part of developing students’ academic writing, questions remain about how different types of peer-editing affect subsequent student performance. The present study looked at a group of university students (N = 149) engaged in peer editing of one another’s essays in an online security studies course. The analysis was conducted from two perspectives: feedback givers and feedback receivers. More specifically, the relationships between the giving of comments and tracking changes in peer’s work and writing score on essays were explored. The results showed that there was a positive correlation between the total number of received comments and the student's writing score, whereas there was no correlation for the number of tracked changes (neither words deleted, nor words added). Surprisingly, students who assume that peers provide high quality tracked changes demonstrate worse writing performance. This research shows the importance of nuance in understanding peer editing types and their influence on students’ performance, as well as highlighting potential complexities of the interplay between students’ collaborative activities, their performance, and their attitudes.

Research on students’ perceptions of feedback in higher education has largely focused on students’ general preferences, with little insight into the kind of feedback that students experience. Against this backdrop, the current study investigates students’ reactions to a specific intervention which aimed, using research-informed strategies, to promote teacher and peer formative feedback with two groups of students at a teacher education institution in Norway. The qualitative analysis of 188 written reflections revealed that the students were overwhelmingly positive towards teacher feedback. Peer feedback was valued, though less favourably, suggesting that the role of peer feedback in higher education may need to be reconceptualised to recognise its strengths and acknowledge its limits. Opportunities to engage in feedback dialogue with their instructors were not exploited by the students, leading to the conclusion that such processes may need to be more formally structured and initiated by course instructors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While peer feedback has been a staple in second and foreign language (FL) writing for decades, most research explicitly examines the role of second language (L2) proficiency in written feedback among reviewer–writer pairs. The impact of L2 proficiency pairing in oral peer feedback remains under‐researched as does research on peer review among writer–reviewer triads, a commonly practiced peer review activity in FL classrooms. In the present study, 62 undergraduates participated in an oral peer feedback group discussion in an English as an FL writing context, providing and receiving oral peer feedback on two drafts of an argumentative essay topic. A rotary triadic role design was adopted to allow each group member to experience the role of both writer and reviewer, receiving two reviewers’ oral feedback as a writer and giving feedback for two writers as a reviewer in the same group. Self‐initiated L2 proficiency pairing was then examined from a reviewer–writer perspective in relation to the quantity and quality of oral feedback given and incorporated. Results showed significant differences in feedback quantity and uptake between different reviewer–writer pairings. Writers of high proficiency levels would receive and incorporate significantly more oral feedback when paired with reviewers of the same proficiency levels, compared to when paired with reviewers of different proficiency levels. Low‐level reviewers offered significantly more total oral feedback for low‐level writers than high‐level writers. Pedagogical implications could then be drawn as to how to pair learners of different L2 proficiency levels in oral peer feedback activity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous research on providing feedback on public speaking has investigated the effectiveness of feedback sources, namely teacher feedback, peer feedback, and self-feedback, in enhancing public speaking competence, predominantly individually. However, how these sources of feedback can be collectively harnessed to optimize learner engagement and public speaking performance still warrants further investigation. Adopting a pre- and post-test quasi-experimental design, this study randomly assigned four classes to four feedback conditions: Group 1 received teacher feedback, Group 2 self-feedback and teacher feedback, Group 3 peer and teacher feedback, and Group 4 feedback from all three sources. Both student engagement, measured using the Public Speaking Feedback Engagement Scale (PSFES), and their public speaking performance ratings, assessed using the Public Speaking Competency Instrument (PSCI), were validated using Rasch analysis. The inferential statistics revealed that Group 3 showed significant improvements across nearly all three dimensions of engagement, whereas Group 2 experienced significant declines in all dimensions of engagement except behavioral engagement. Group 3 demonstrated significantly greater engagement gain compared to Groups 2 and 4, indicating the synergistic effect of peer and teacher feedback in contrast to the limited impact of self-feedback. Additionally, all groups demonstrated significant improvements except for Group 2, which showed significantly lower improvement compared to Group 4. The following correlation analysis identified a significant correlation between the gain of students' behavioral engagement and the gain of public speaking performance, whereas such association was absent between cognitive or emotional engagement and public speaking competence. This study suggests that peer feedback should be preceded by group discussion and supplemented with teacher feedback in classes for enhancing the teacher–student dialog, while self-feedback should be conducted after class to improve student engagement and public speaking performance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study mainly explored the effects of teacher feedback, peer feedback and automated feedback on the use of metacognitive strategies in EFL writing. Ninety-seven participants were recruited and divided into three groups, who received two months of feedback from teachers, peers and an automatic writing evaluation system, respectively, and then completed English writing tasks. Metacognitive strategies in this study entail planning strategies (including language knowledge accumulation strategies and pre-planning strategies), monitoring strategies (including selective attention strategies and self-monitoring strategies), and self-evaluation strategies. By conducting repeated-measures ANOVA on three groups of participants' use of metacognitive strategies before and after receiving different feedbacks, it was found that there were statistically significant differences in the effects of teacher feedback, peer feedback, and automated feedback on the use of selective attention strategies, whereas there were no statistically significant differences in the impact of those aforementioned types of feedback on other metacognitive strategies. It was also found that automated feedback had a hindrance effect on the use of monitoring strategies, whereas teacher feedback and peer feedback had a promotive effect on the use of all metacognitive strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examined students' experiences of peer feedback practices as related to awareness raising of learning goals, self-monitoring, self-efficacy, anxiety, and enjoyment in teaching English as a foreign language (EFL) and mathematics. Data consisted of student surveys from two data sets related to teaching in lower secondary school (n = 2,832). Students (13–15 years old) in both subjects reported being to a low extent involved in peer feedback practices, but to a lesser extent in mathematics. Awareness raising of learning goals was the most important variable for students' experiences of peer feedback practices, and even more important for students in mathematics teaching. Self-monitoring, self-efficacy, and enjoyment were positively associated with peer feedback practices. Enjoyment was positively associated with peer feedback practices, but a neglected dimension of teaching in the two subjects. Although students reported low degrees of anxiety, students also reported low levels of enjoyment in both subjects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The advent of the digital era has catalyzed transformative shifts in educational paradigms, seamlessly integrating sustainable education with innovative pedagogical approaches that cater to a broader spectrum of learners and educators. As the academic landscape evolves into an information-dense environment, traditional models of one-on-one feedback often fall short, resulting in delays and a lack of diverse intellectual engagement. This shift underscores the growing importance of peer feedback and asynchronous post-lesson feedback mechanisms, which have emerged as vital, process-oriented educational activities. Such mechanisms not only address the immediacy and diversity of feedback but also foster a sustainable, collaborative, and engaging learning environment that bolsters student autonomy and interaction. This study conducts a mapping review and synthesis of the literature on peer interaction, assessment, and participatory innovations in online and mobile learning within higher education, covering the period from 1993 to 2022. By employing topic modeling techniques to analyze a corpus of 485 articles, the literature was initially segmented into 19 distinct issues. These were subsequently consolidated into three major thematic models, thereby highlighting significant themes, research focal points, and prospective trends. This analytical process not only enriches the understanding of peer dynamics in digital learning settings but also integrates sustainable educational practices by promoting resource efficiency and inclusivity. The findings serve as a robust reference for future researchers aiming to explore the intersections of technology, peer interaction, and sustainability in educational settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the potential of group awareness (GA) tools on triggering student engagement has been recognized in literature, little is known about the effects of GA tools on student engagement with peer feedback in the context of online collaborative language learning. This quasi-experimental study with 86 college students explored how GA tools influenced student engagement with peer feedback in an authentic learning environment. The results showed that GA tools had positive effects on students' behavioral engagement. The analysis of dynamic engagement progression across three rounds of peer assessment revealed that GA tools helped stimulate and sustain students' continuous cognitive engagement in providing both surface-level and meaning-level feedback. However, GA tools had limited effects on triggering cognitive engagement in incorporating peer feedback into revisions, especially at the late stage of the learning activity. Additionally, the students supported by GA tools demonstrated higher emotional engagement than those without access to GA information but the difference was not statistically significant. Findings of this study provide important insights on using GA tools to enhance student engagement with online peer feedback in collaborative language learning activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigated the effectiveness and dynamics of peer feedback in online and offline learning environments, focusing on English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students' affective engagement and its impact on learning outcomes. Utilizing an explanatory sequential mixed methods design, the research divided participants into groups that studied through Zoom and traditional classrooms over 12 weeks, analyzing their engagement with peer feedback. Data were gathered from Likert-scale and open-ended questionnaires, along with performance scores on key tasks, and analyzed using descriptive statistics, t-tests, linear regressions, and thematic analysis. The findings indicated that students valued peer feedback in both settings, with online learners showing higher engagement levels. However, this engagement did not translate into improved writing skills, highlighting the need for further research into other factors that could enhance EFL writing proficiency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While peer-editing is considered an important part of developing students' academic writing, questions remain about how different types of peer-editing affect subsequent student performance. The present study looked at a group of university students (N = 149) engaged in peer editing of one another's essays in an online security studies course. The analysis was conducted from two perspectives: feedback givers and feedback receivers. More specifically, the relationships between the giving of comments and tracking changes in peer's work and writing score on essays were explored. The results showed that there was a positive correlation between the total number of received comments and the student's writing score, whereas there was no correlation for the number of tracked changes (neither words deleted, nor words added). Surprisingly, students who assume that peers provide high quality tracked changes demonstrate worse writing performance. This research shows the importance of nuance in understanding peer editing types and their influence on students' performance, as well as highlighting potential complexities of the interplay between students' collaborative activities, their performance, and their attitudes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the effects of teacher peer feedback have been previously examined, peer feedback is implemented differently in continuous professional development (CPD) programmes. Thus, a review of the implementation of teacher peer feedback can provide us with an integrated perspective of this activity, and it may further improve the practices of teacher CPD in the future. This study systematically reviewed 29 empirical articles in the last 20 years. Four implementation models of teacher peer feedback are distinguished: lesson study-based peer feedback, research-initiated peer feedback, supervisor-guided peer feedback, and self-regulated peer feedback. Additionally, five influential factors are found to affect teacher peer feedback: characteristics of participants, training and supervision, schedule and duration, support and tools, and characteristics of feedback. These findings imply that programme organisers should design peer feedback based on the precise analysis of the peer feedback model, influential factors, training goals, participants’ competencies, and learning needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractMeta-analyses suggest that peer feedback is particularly useful for learning, but additional research is needed to understand the large variation in effect sizes that is regularly seen. We examined the relationship between amount of provided and received feedback with growth in writing and reading performance in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners across multiple assignments. Only provided comments, and in particular comments on meaning-level issues, were consistently associated with growth in writing performance. These types of comments were also associated with growth in reading performance, but less consistently so. Comments provided at the surface level were either uncorrelated or negatively correlated with growth in writing performance; follow up analyses suggest that the nature of the comments provided in response to training can explain the changes in effectiveness over assignments. Amount of comments received was never associated with growth in writing or reviewing skills. These findings highlight the value of peer feedback assignment focused on meaning-level issues, even for EFL learners. Further, these findings add to the growing literature that suggest that extensive opportunities to provide meaning-level feedback, especially when it is detailed, is critical for student learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Current literature recommends assessment of communication skills in medical education combining different settings and multiple observers. There is still a gap in understanding about whether and how peers assessment facilitates learning in communication skills training. We designed a qualitative study using focus group interviews and thematic analysis, in a medical course in the Netherlands. We aimed to explore medical students' and teachers' experiences, perceptions, and perspectives about challenges and facilitating factors in PACST (Peer assessment in medical communication skills training). Most of the participants reported that peer feedback was a valuable experience when learning communication skills. The major challenges for the quality and credibility of PACST reported by the participants are the question whether peer feedback is critical enough for learning and the difficulty of actually engaging students in the assessment process. Teachers reviewing students' peer assessments may improve the quality and their credibility and the reviewed assessments can best be used for learning purposes. We suggest to pay sufficient attention to teachers' roles in PACST, ensuring a safe and trustworthy environment and additionally helping students to internalize the value of being vulnerable during the evaluation process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Though implementing feedback provided by peers has been an essential step for learning efficiency in peer feedback activities, it remains challenging for students. This study aims to explore the inner structure patterns of students' peer feedback and how they are related to feedback implementation. Sixty-nine engineering students from a Singapore university participated in the peer feedback activity. Content analysis was conducted to analyse the inner structure of feedback as well as the implementation status of each feedback. Sequential mining was applied to investigate the sequential patterns of the various feedback components. The results show a variation of inner structures in the implemented feedback and unimplemented feedback. The implemented feedback tended to be sequenced with an evaluation or a standpoint before seeking clarification or suggestions for improvement. It was also likely to contain continuous questions seeking clarifications. In comparison, the unimplemented feedback was likely to continuously indicate positive evaluations or agreements. By understanding the inner structure of peer feedback with different implementation statuses, researchers and educators can fine-tune design and instructions to support peer feedback practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dialogic peer feedback has been recommended and increasingly used in English as a foreign language writing context, yet the specific effects of peer-to-peer written dialogue about feedback remain under-researched. Using a quasi-experimental design, this empirical study investigated the effects of the presence/absence of written dialogue between the peer feedback provider and receiver on students' provision of feedback, adoption of received feedback, improvements in writing quality, and attitudes towards feedback dialogue across a four-week writing program. The study drew on several data sources including feedback texts, revision texts, a questionnaire survey and monthly reflection journals of forty-one students. Results showed that students involved in the written dialogue demonstrated a generally positive attitude towards it and outperformed those without such a process by generating more accurate adoption, focusing comments to a greater extent on higher-order dimensions of writing (unity, support and coherence), and implementing better revisions. The dialogic process enhanced students' feedback literacy and engagement by improving their understanding of feedback, their linguistic and subject knowledge, and their agentic clarification and negotiation of revisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the provision of peer feedback has been widely recommended to enhance learning, many students are inexperienced in this area and would benefit from guidance. This study therefore examines the impact of instructions and examples on the quality of feedback provided by students on peer-developed learning resources produced via an online system, RiPPLE. A randomised controlled experiment with 195 students was conducted to investigate the efficacy of the approach. While the treatment group had access to instructions and examples to support their provision of feedback, the control group had no such assistance. Students' feedback comments were coded using an adaptation of the S.P.A.R.K. (Specific, Prescriptive, Actionable, Referenced, Kind) model. The results indicate that the instructional guide and examples led to students writing more comprehensive comments. The intervention notably enhanced the presence of feedback traits matching the S.P.A.R.K. model and increased instances where multiple traits of quality were observed in a single comment. However, despite the guide's impact, the students' ability to provide actionable feedback was limited. These findings demonstrate the potential of developing and integrating structured guidance and examples into online peer feedback platforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this research, we developed and empirically tested a dialogic writing intervention, an integrated language approach in which grade 5/6 students learn how to write, talk about their writing with peers, and rewrite. The effectiveness of this intervention was experimentally tested in ten classes from eight schools, using a pretest–posttest control group design. Classes were randomly assigned to the intervention group (5 classes; 95 students) or control group (5 classes; 115 students). Both groups followed the same eight lessons in which students wrote four argumentative texts about sustainability. For each text, students wrote a draft version, which they discussed in groups of three students. Based on these peer conversations, students revised their text. The intervention group received additional support to foster dialogic peer conversations, including a conversation chart for students and a practice-based professional development program for teachers. Improvements in writing were measured by an argumentative writing task (same genre, but different topic; near transfer) and an instructional writing task (different genre and topic; far transfer). Text quality was holistically assessed using a benchmark rating procedure. Results show that our dialogic writing intervention with support for dialogic talk significantly improved students' argumentative writing skills (ES = 1.09), but that the effects were not automatically transferable to another genre. Based on these results we conclude that a dialogic writing intervention is a promising approach to teach students how to talk about their texts and to write texts that are more persuasive to readers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Studies have documented that utilizing peer feedback can enhance students English academic writing skills. Little is known, however, about the effects of incorporating peer feedback to enhance English as a second language (L2) medical students academic writing performance. METHODS: This longitudinal interventional study examines Chinese medical students English academic writing skills development via peer feedback in four parallel classes over an 18-week semester between the experimental and control groups (n = 124). RESULTS: Significant increases in the experimental groups performance in the post-test were found after 18-week instructions (pre- vs. post-test: overall score, p

Academic writing is paramount to students’ academic success in higher education. Given the widely acknowledged benefits of peer feedback in diverse learning contexts, such as fostering a positive psychological mindset, there has been a growing interest in applying this approach to facilitate the development of academic writing. This study is launched to examine the primary features and findings of the studies that have investigated the benefits and challenges of the utilization of peer feedback in academic writing development. The methodology of this study incorporates a rigorous literature search methodology, encompassing database search, reference search, and manual search, which is subsequently followed by a content analysis of the selected studies. With the guidance of PRISMA 2020, a total of 60 related articles, spanning the period from 2014 to 2024, are selected through title screening, abstract screening and content screening, adhering to strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. The findings of this study reveal a growing global interest in peer feedback in academic writing, and highlight the need for future research on masters’/doctoral students and quantitative approaches to deepen understanding of its effects. Moreover, 16 distinct benefits of peer feedback in the academic writing context were delineated and subsequently categorized into five categories: affective benefits, cognitive benefits, behavioral benefits, social benefits, and meta-cognitive benefits. Furthermore, an analysis of the implementation challenges revealed 13 types of obstacles, which were traced to three primary sources: challenges originating from feedback receivers, those posed by feedback providers, and those stemming from the peer feedback settings. Based on these findings, several pedagogical and future research suggestions are proffered to guide both the practitioners and researchers.

Digital peer feedback is one of the valuable instructional activities that can enhance students' critical thinking abilities. Yet, knowing it is an urge, the discussion about this has not been much quantitatively checked by some scholars.Therefore, the purpose of this research is to investigate the relationship between the qualification of perceived of providing digital peer feedback and students' critical thinking. In amplifying the purpose, this current research utilized a quantitative approach with a correlational design. The result shows an overall rating of 3.55 out of 4, indicates that students show a high perception of providing digital peer feedback. The critical thinking score of the students was indicates in the second result (3.82 out of 5), which shows that it is high level of critical thinking. The last finding examines the relationship between students' critical thinking and their perception of the advantages of providing digital peer feedback. The correlation test's significant (2-tailed) value is found to be 0.000 < 0.05 in the result, indicating that the alternative hypothesis (H1) is accepted. The relationship was classified as weak level since the Pearson correlation result (r-value) was 0.358. It concludes that students applied critical thinking skills when providing digital peer feedback, and they also believed that providing digital peer feedback had various benefits for them. The result, it can be used to gain a greater understanding on how students view digital peer feedback, their critical thinking, and the relationship between qualification of perceived of providing digital peer feedback and students' critical thinking.

The absence of instructional support during peer feedback prevents students from engaging with peer feedback. This study adopted regulated dialogic feedback as the instructional foundation and investigated its impact on students’ engagement using an experimental research design. Students in the experimental group (n = 26) performed the feedback practice with a regulated dialogic feedback approach through three phases, each involving a different regulation type: 1. negotiation and coordination of feedback activities involving shared regulation of learning (SSRL); 2. feedback provision and discussion to support its uptake involving co-regulation of learning (CoRL); and 3. translation of feedback into task progress involving self-regulation of learning (SRL). Students in the control group (n = 25) performed the feedback practice without the regulated dialogic feedback approach in an online discussion forum. The study lasted for 10 weeks for both groups. The research data included students’ responses to peer feedback engagement surveys, students’ learning behaviors, and the transcripts of interviews with students. The survey results show that the regulated dialogic feedback led to a higher cognitive, emotional, and behavioral engagement with the feedback practice. Based on the feedback-related learning behaviors, this study found that the SSRL, SRL, and CoRL processes can potentially promote cognitive, emotional, and behavioral engagement. Extreme case analysis demonstrated how the support for SSRL, SRL, and CoRL promoted engagement in all three areas (cognitive, behavioral, and emotional). Pedagogical implications were provided for creating engaging dialogic feedback practices.

Abstract Peer feedback is introduced as an effective learning strategy, especially in large-size classes where teachers face high workloads. However, for complex tasks such as writing an argumentative essay, without support peers may not provide high-quality feedback since it requires a high level of cognitive processing, critical thinking skills, and a deep understanding of the subject. With the promising developments in Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly after the emergence of ChatGPT, there is a global argument that whether AI tools can be seen as a new source of feedback or not for complex tasks. The answer to this question is not completely clear yet as there are limited studies and our understanding remains constrained. In this study, we used ChatGPT as a source of feedback for students’ argumentative essay writing tasks and we compared the quality of ChatGPT-generated feedback with peer feedback. The participant pool consisted of 74 graduate students from a Dutch university. The study unfolded in two phases: firstly, students’ essay data were collected as they composed essays on one of the given topics; subsequently, peer feedback and ChatGPT-generated feedback data were collected through engaging peers in a feedback process and using ChatGPT as a feedback source. Two coding schemes including coding schemes for essay analysis and coding schemes for feedback analysis were used to measure the quality of essays and feedback. Then, a MANOVA analysis was employed to determine any distinctions between the feedback generated by peers and ChatGPT. Additionally, Spearman’s correlation was utilized to explore potential links between the essay quality and the feedback generated by peers and ChatGPT. The results showed a significant difference between feedback generated by ChatGPT and peers. While ChatGPT provided more descriptive feedback including information about how the essay is written, peers provided feedback including information about identification of the problem in the essay. The overarching look at the results suggests a potential complementary role for ChatGPT and students in the feedback process. Regarding the relationship between the quality of essays and the quality of the feedback provided by ChatGPT and peers, we found no overall significant relationship. These findings imply that the quality of the essays does not impact both ChatGPT and peer feedback quality. The implications of this study are valuable, shedding light on the prospective use of ChatGPT as a feedback source, particularly for complex tasks like argumentative essay writing. We discussed the findings and delved into the implications for future research and practical applications in educational contexts.

AbstractPeer feedback can enhance learning but may introduce issues like peer pressure and distrust, particularly with professional competencies like teamwork. This jeopardizes the feedback process and skill development crucial for undergraduate students’ career preparation. To address this, two approaches are generally used: anonymizing feedback or incorporating feedback dialogue. However, the impact of anonymity on trust and safety is unclear due to a loss of dialogue. Additionally, the effect of feedback dialogue in the context of competencies remains largely unexplored. Employing a mixed-methods approach, we divided sixty-three participants into an experimental group receiving identifiable online peer feedback with dialogue and a control group receiving anonymous feedback only. We measured students’ psychological safety and trust in giving feedback on teamwork competencies, feedback quality and perceptions of the feedback process. Quantitative results showed no significant differences in safety and trust perceptions between groups, indicating that anonymity and feedback dialogue contribute to a comparably safe environment. However, the qualitative results indicated that the experimental group held more positive attitudes toward the feedback process and their feedback seemed more nuanced. This suggests that dialogue-enhanced peer feedback is preferred for fostering a safe and effective peer feedback exchange that supports professional competency development.