Peer Feedback in

Writing Somayyeh Pedram

University Putra Malaysia

2013

Teacher Review on Students’ WritingsDifficultTime-consumingBased on ONLY one point of viewHas Only one reader... Writing will become boring Students will only rely on the grades They will not tend to be creative Their writing will remain of low quality They cannot develop critical thinking Students’ brain will remain passive in writing

activity because it’s not pleasurable for them

Peer Feedback, Peer Response, Peer review“A group of students work with each other to give a

qualitative evaluation on peer’s work through words or verbal interaction or give a quantitative evaluation through sets of scores, rankings, etc”. Topping, 1998.

Liu and Hansen (2002:1) define peer feedback as the use of learners as sources of information and interactants for each other in such a way that learners assume roles and responsibilities normally taken on by a formally trained teacher, tutor, or editor in commenting on and critique each other’s drafts in both written and oral formats in the process of writing.

1. On Peer Feedback in English Writing Classes in ChinaBy Shaojun Jiang, 2011

In China’s EFL classroom contexts, peer feedback can be employed in three forms :

Pre-peer feedback While-peer feedback Post-peer feedback

Pre-peer feedbackPre-Training

Teacher clarifying the benefits of peer feedback Grouping the students and keeping fixed ones Training: Teacher may show how to give feedback by

doing an example. Organization: It can help students to structure their

papers more clearly.

While-peer feedbackStudents begin their peer feedbackTeacher is a monitor

Post-peer feedbackStudents reflect on what they did during peer feedback They write about their experienceThe teacher evaluates students’ works

Conclusion: It is beneficial to do peer feedback in L2

writing Students should be trained how to do it Students improve their writing ability It makes the writers autonomous

2. ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedbackBy Martin Guardado and Ling Shi, 2007

Participants: 22 Japanese ESL students from a western-Canadian university

Method: One-hour activity of online peer feedback on Backboard application. Data: 1. 22 students’ interview comments

2. their peer feedback, 3. their initial and revised essays ( three 500-word essays)

After the online feedback they had two weeks to do the revision and submit the assignment.

Blackboard : 1. Asynchronous electronic discussion boards2. Synchronous chat3. Assignment drop box4. Email5. Assessment tools

Analysis of data:

The researcher analyzed the revised version of essays by Microsoft Word’s Compare and Merge Documents tool.

Analyzed whether revisions were made based on peer comments or they were self-generated.

Students’ comments from interviews were analyzed: whether they followed or ignored their peer feedback

Findings128 positive, 93 negative comments

All students started with positive comments: “I think your essay is well organized. But I found some points that you can improve”.

13 students made revisions based on peer feedback.9 students ignored peer feedback.

Language and cultural background influenced students to ignore some comments.

“it was not good to say your opinion [directly] as a Japanese.”

Some students needed more clarification about their peer feedback and some didn’t ask for any.

3. Graduate students’ self-reported perspectives regarding peer feedback and feedback from writing consultants.

By Cheryl Wei-yu Chen, 2010

Participants: 10 Taiwanese Master’s students of TESOL

Research design: The study was done during a “Thesis Writing” course The final draft of students’ proposals are read by 2 peers and one writing

consultant. All students and consultants were called by their pseudonyms.

Data: 1. the first draft of their final paper 2. comment sheet completely by the writing consultant 3. peer feedback sheets completely by two peers 4. a completed revision feedback sheet 5. a revised version of the final paper 6. other assignments written over the course of the semester 7. A semi-structured interview

Findings

Peers feedback focused on content.Consultant feedback focused on surface-level and

structure.Students had generally positive feelings about peers

and consultants’ feedback.Two types of feedback were found to complement

each other.Students held a more cautious attitude toward

comments made by their peers, especially comments on surface-level

General conclusion based on the research studies:

1. Peers feedback is effective2. It builds critical thinking and skills3. It makes the students more creative4. Students benefit from interaction and communication 5. All articles insist that students should be trained before

giving feedback6. It makes the writers autonomous7. Improves writing ability8. Students were generally honest in their comments9. Students had positive feelings and attitudes towards peer

feedback10. Students enjoyed writing because it was more exciting that

they had more than one reader. 11. Peers and teachers’ feedback should come together because

they complement one another.

My personal view Based on the findings of these articles and my

personal experience, I agree that it is an effective way of improving writing.

I feel very positive towards peer and teacher feedback It helps me obtain very new and interesting ideas It helps me improve the surface-level as well as content of my writing I am very welcoming towards my Lecturers’ feedback because I learn a

lot from them. My writing abilities have improved a lot based on my supervisor’s

feedback. Peer feedback is very enjoyable, because it gives me a sense of self-

expression and I feel confident when my friends accept my ideas during such activities

It is very motivating when my supervisor encourages me after I revise my writings.

Peers and teacher feedback should complement each other.