No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
Peer review as a strategy for improving students writing process
Abstract
Peer review is an established strategy for improving the quality of students’ writing. This study moves beyond the focus on outcomes to assess the peer-review process. In particular, this study focuses on the timing of the peer review, a highly structured feedback form, and student writers’ revisions after engaging in peer review. This study draws from a peer-review assignment conducted over 3 years in upper-division, discipline-specific courses. The data reveal these strategies force students to begin writing earlier in the semester, help the students offer formative feedback to their peers, and encourage students to substantially revise their drafts before submitting the final paper. This study reveals the importance of assessing the peer-review process.
... PA has been demonstrated to offer numerous benefits for learners, such as improving the overall learning experience, increasing participation, particularly from low-achieving students (Li & Gao, 2016), and fostering active learning (Baker, 2016;Li & Gao, 2016). Additionally, feedback from peers is generally more abundant and immediate than teacher feedback (Topping, 2009). ...
... Student evaluators also gain advantages from the peer-assessment process, as it enhances their understanding of other students' ideas (Butler & Hodge, 2001;Falchikov, 1995) and develops their abilities as logical thinkers and writers. This, in turn, improves evaluators' capacity to provide effective feedback (Baker, 2016) and contributes to enhancements in their writing skills (Miao, Badger, & Zhen, 2006). ...
Peer assessment (PA) has long been a prominent educational tool in higher education. However, there is limited evidence regarding technology-facilitated PAin Translation studies. This study addresses this gap by examining students perceptions and motivation toward a fve-week online PAactivity in a Translation course. It further explores the correlation between students intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and their perceived skill enhancement. Thirty-six third-year students participated, responding to Likert-type scale questionnaires. Both quantita-tive and qualitative methods were used for data analysis. The fndings reveal a highly positive perception and motivation among students in the online task. Intrinsic motivational factors were valued more than extrinsic ones, with intrinsic motivation being a signifcant predictor of self-perceived translation skill improvement. The study suggests potential implications for translation pedagogy and research. This pioneering effort contributes to the limited literature, proposing an alternative to face-to-face peer assessment and paving the way for future research in blended learning courses.
... (Excerpt 5) As was mentioned above, one of the strategies used by students to overcome challenges in writing English texts is peer review. There are numerous earlier studies pertaining to this (Baker, 2016;Loretto, et al, 2016;Lundstrom & Baker, 2009;and Yalch, et al, 2009). Similar to Baker (2016), these techniques encourage students to revise their drafts extensively before submitting the final product, force them to start writing earlier in the semester, and enable them to provide formative comments to their peers. ...
... There are numerous earlier studies pertaining to this (Baker, 2016;Loretto, et al, 2016;Lundstrom & Baker, 2009;and Yalch, et al, 2009). Similar to Baker (2016), these techniques encourage students to revise their drafts extensively before submitting the final product, force them to start writing earlier in the semester, and enable them to provide formative comments to their peers. According to Loretto, et al. (2016), additional opportunities for students to provide and receive feedback on academic writing would be beneficial because the advantages of reviewing have been grossly undervalued in previous studies. ...
This study aimed to discover the EFL students' viewpoints on the difficulties they encountered when writing in English, as well as their strategies for overcoming these hurdles. This study was conducted on EFL students in a senior high school in Medan. This research involved the involvement of twenty-nine eleventh-graders. The researchers utilized a questionnaire and an interview to collect data following their research themes. The questionnaire aims to identify the barriers students face when writing in English. The questionnaire was sent using a Google form with closed-ended questions based on Bryne's (1988) categories and a five-point Likert scale (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree). Subsequently, an interview was conducted with a subset of participants (n = 5) specifically chosen to elicit further information about their strategies for overcoming writing difficulties. The interview was recorded using a cell phone by the researchers. Before data processing, the audio cassette was transcribed word-for-word. Thus, data collected with three instruments were analyzed using three approaches: frequency count for questionnaire data and content analysis for interview data. According to the findings, students encountered linguistic (grammar, vocabulary, language use, sentence construction) and psychological issues when composing English texts (lack of teacher instruction and feedback). There are no cognitive appearance issues. The students use mind mapping, translating materials from Indonesian to English, maintaining practice, and peer evaluation to overcome their writing difficulties. This research was expected to contribute to minimizing the difficulties experienced by students in writing English through the strategy revealed in this study
... Feedback plays a crucial role in improving writing skills and has a significant impact on the teaching and learning of writing (Ji, 2018). Peer feedback has become a significant teaching practice in various fields, including native or second language writing, oral presentation of projects, physics modeling, and so on (Baker, 2016;Tsivitanidou et al., 2017). In the field of second language teaching, especially in EFL writing, more and more teachers and researchers are focusing on peer feedback. ...
... Peer feedback can help students have a better understanding of writing requirements, thus deepening the depth of their composition content, peer feedback activities can promote the improvement of students' writing ability (Hu & Lam, 2010). Compared with teacher's feedback, peer feedback can help students examine the writing content from the readers' perspective (Baker, 2016). There has been quite a notable benefit of peer feedback. ...
... As far as L2 wiring is concerned, teachers of foreign languages should be able to train their learners with good writing habits so that they can produce high-quality written drafts (Baker, 2016). One such good habit is the fact that longer pieces of writing should be divided into smaller pieces for each of which the learners receive continuous feedback (Bean, 2011). ...
... One such good habit is the fact that longer pieces of writing should be divided into smaller pieces for each of which the learners receive continuous feedback (Bean, 2011). Although such regular feedback provision can be very helpful for students' planned writings and thoughtful revisions, providing continuous feedback is demanding and timeconsuming for teachers as they should devote much time to reading the learners' drafts carefully and expressing their opinions on various mechanical, rhetorical, and linguistic dimensions of the writing tasks (Baker, 2016;Herrington & Cadman, 1991). ...
This study was a mixed-method design to explore the efficiency of alternative assessments in boosting language performance. To achieve this objective, 60 Iranian Language learners participated in the study. The participants were advanced students of three intact classes in an Iranian online language center in Sirjan, Kerman (A province in South East Iran). The study focused on the effect of Self-and Peer-Assessment versus Teacher-Assessment on enhancing the Writing Skill of Iranian EFL Learners in the online context. To conduct the quantitative (true-experimental) phase, the three classes were randomly assigned to two experimental groups (N= 19, N=19) and a control group (N=22). The classes were randomly chosen to be studied as self-, peer-and teacher-assessment groups. To answer the research questions of the quantitative phase of the study, a mixed design ANCOVA with one within-subject variable (writing performance), one between-subject variable (group), and two covariates (OOPT and Pre-test scores) were launched. According to the results, the self-assessment group in both ratings obtained higher post-test scores compared with peer-and teacher-assessment groups. All groups showed significant gains from pre-test scores to post-test scores. However, the self-assessment group showed higher gains compared to the other two groups. The results of the qualitative (exploratory, descriptive, and interpretive) phase of the study revealed that nearly all the students believed that self-assessment processes in the light of the teacher's guidance led to their improvement in writing. The results indicated that students did better in realizing their problems and improving their writing when they received their peers' feedback.
... Feedback focusing on meaning/content, or high-level and low-level writing issues varies both in cognitive load and feedback implementation rate of feedback, as well as in the effect to improve revision quality (e.g., Baker, 2016;Patchan et al., 2016). Patchan et al. (2016) reported that a writer tended to improve revision quality by implementing high-level feedback. ...
... Patchan et al. (2016) reported that a writer tended to improve revision quality by implementing high-level feedback. Although implementing high-level feedback is more beneficial to learning cognitively, it usually requires more learner effort (Ene and Upton, 2014;Baker, 2016). Additionally, learners tend to implement more form focus or low-level feedback and less high-level feedback (e.g., Tsui and Ng, 2000;Allen and Mills, 2014;Gao et al., 2019). ...
Introduction
Although it is commonly acknowledged that peer feedback quality is crucial to the success of peer review, there is a lack of consensus on how it could be determined. More importantly, how feedback quality interacts with other factors like feedback features and focus, and ultimately influences peer feedback implementation remains insufficiently investigated.
Methods
The present study examined peer feedback quality and its impact on Chinese students’ feedback implementation in two argumentative writing tasks. Peer feedback quality was measured according to a self-designed two-dimensional measurement scale: accuracy and revision potential.
Results
Quantitative analyses of 5,606 implementable idea units of feedback and 440 writing drafts by 110 students revealed that feedback accuracy was at a medium level and revision potential was at a low level, with accuracy demonstrating stronger predictive power on implementation; the predictive strengths of feedback accuracy and revision potential were strongest when feedback features and focus were considered; the overall peer feedback quality was low and medium-quality feedback was implemented most frequently; feedback quality significantly and most strongly predicted implementation in combination with feedback features and focus.
Discussion
The study highlights the importance of future instructions in training students to provide and implement high-quality feedback with good accuracy and high revision potential.
... Although the uptake of feedback is not equivalent to the acquisition of writing skills, it indicates that learner do actively and positively participate in revising their texts and making effort to improve their compositions. Baker (2016) finds that in English writing teaching practices, with the combination of different types of feedback, students start writing their compositions earlier and abundantly revise their drafts due to the formative feedback they have received. Therefore, they can consciously pay attention to the structure, spelling and grammar of their texts and try to improve text quality. ...
... Thirdly, this study also revealed that some students don't actively engage in revising their texts and perfecting their compositions, which was partly inconsistent with Baker (2016). However, some students abundantly and consistently incorporated feedbacks and revised their drafts due to the formative feedback they have received in order to improve text quality, which was in line with Kellogg, Whiteford and Quinlan (2010). ...
The Automated Writing Evaluation (AWE) system has garnered growing attention in recent years. It is a powerful complement to traditional teacher feedback. Drawing on the data collected from student written texts, AWE feedback, teacher feedback and student interviews in a Chinese university, this study aims to investigates the impact of man-machine feedback on the practice of teaching English writing in an online English as a foreign language (EFL) context as well as students’ engagement with it. The results show that compared with teacher, AWE provides more feedback items and focuses on surface-level such as vocabulary, mechanics and grammar, while teacher pays attention to both surface-level and meaning-level, including organization, content, coherence, etc. Although there is not much difference in the uptake rate between teacher feedback and AWE feedback, the uptake rate of meaning-level feedback is much higher than surface-level feedback. Furthermore, students believe that uptake rate is influenced by various factors such as English competence, feedback quality, score, available time, personal preference, motivation, interest in English learning, and so on. Additionally, students deem that the combination of AWE feedback and teacher feedback has a positive impact on stimulating their writing enthusiasm and improving their writing abilities.
... In the specific case of teachers in training, it is imperative that they understand the feedback they receive from their teachers or, in other words, be literate in feedback; they must also learn how to give feedback to their students. In this sense, the need arises to have opportunities to practice how to deliver constructive feedback, which can be solved through peer review or peer feedback (Baker, 2016;Ula, 2022). These are formed as instances of student participation, moving away from the teacher's mandatory discourse or assessment modes. ...
Teacher training involves the acquisition of not only disciplinary knowledge but also pedagogical and evaluative knowledge. In this context, providing feedback is crucial for trainee teachers to interpret the information that they receive from their teacher, and apply best practices in their future teaching. This study examines peer feedback among student teachers in primary education at a Chilean university. Eighteen students were given feedback after submitting an initial writing task and then were trained in three types of feedback: knowledge of results, knowledge of the correct response, and elaborated feedback. Finally, they provided feedback to their peers based on these categories. The results indicate that most of the feedback received and given by the students was of the KR type and that the training was effective, as the students provided feedback that helped their peers improve their grades. This underlines the importance of feedback training for future teachers and emphasises the need for several feedback strategies in teacher education.
... Peer feedback has been extensively recognized as an alternative teaching strategy to enhance students' writing and grammar mastery. Studies suggest that involving in the peer review process can foster students' language comprehension by giving students exposure to a variety of writing styles and grammatical structures (Baker, 2016;Yalch et al., 2019;Zhao et al., 2024). Besides giving benefits for students' writing improvement, peer feedback is also advantageous for other learning aspects. ...
... According to Baker (2016), the students' writing achievement improved because they were challenged to analyze their peers' compositions using peer-review techniques. They could evaluate sentences in the texts written by their peers using grammar knowledge and assess the organization of ideas with their writing knowledge. ...
... The instructional approach used in this study incorporated several strategies within the teacher-prepared materials, following the adapted process genre writing model (see Figure 2). These strategies included pre-writing activities, composing, re-reading and revising, peerediting, and teacher feedback (Baker, 2016). Each session was designed to engage students actively, with writing assignments on various topics and group work sessions where students brainstormed essay topics and received guidance from instructors during the pre-writing stage. ...
Teaching academic writing to English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students poses significant challenges, often requiring instructors to adapt their instructional strategies to effectively meet learners' diverse needs and contexts. This study investigates the impact of an adapted process genre writing model, enhanced with teacher-prepared materials, on improving the academic writing proficiency of tertiary-level students at a public university in Thailand. A quantitative research method was employed for this study, involving a sample of 48 participants selected through convenience sampling. Over one semester, these students received intensive instruction based on the adapted process genre writing model. Data collection involved administering pre-and post-tests to measure changes in writing performance, with statistical analyses conducted using descriptive statistics and paired-sample t-tests to determine the significance of any improvements. The results revealed statistically significant improvements (p < .05) in participants' writing proficiency, demonstrating the effectiveness of the adapted process genre writing model. The results suggest that integrating customized instructional resources into this framework can significantly support the academic writing development of Thai EFL undergraduates. The study's implications for EFL instruction are substantial, suggesting that a well-structured, genre-based approach, supplemented with tailored instructional materials, can significantly elevate students' writing proficiency in academic contexts. Recommendations for further research include exploring the long-term effects of this instructional model on students' writing abilities and investigating its applicability across different language proficiency levels and cultural settings.
... for improving text quality and fostering learning, as highlighted in traditional writing research [7,60]. Interestingly, the negative effects of T1 and T2 suggest that over-reliance on GAI suggestions for generating ideas and text may be detrimental to students' learning. ...
Students are increasingly relying on Generative AI (GAI) to support their writing-a key pedagogical practice in education. In GAI-assisted writing, students can delegate core cognitive tasks (e.g., generating ideas and turning them into sentences) to GAI while still producing high-quality essays. This creates new challenges for teachers in assessing and supporting student learning, as they often lack insight into whether students are engaging in meaningful cognitive processes during writing or how much of the essay's quality can be attributed to those processes. This study aimed to help teachers better assess and support student learning in GAI-assisted writing by examining how different writing behaviors, especially those indicative of meaningful learning versus those that are not, impact essay quality. Using a dataset of 1,445 GAI-assisted writing sessions, we applied the cutting-edge method, X-Learner, to quantify the causal impact of three GAI-assisted writing behavioral patterns (i.e., seeking suggestions but not accepting them, seeking suggestions and accepting them as they are, and seeking suggestions and accepting them with modification) on four measures of essay quality (i.e., lexical sophistication, syntactic complexity, text cohesion, and linguistic bias). Our analysis showed that writers who frequently modified GAI-generated text-suggesting active engagement in higher-order cognitive processes-consistently improved the quality of their essays in terms of lexical sophistication, syntactic complexity, and text cohesion. In contrast, those who often accepted GAI-generated text without changes, primarily engaging in lower-order processes, saw a decrease in essay quality. Additionally, while human writers tend to introduce linguistic bias when writing independently, incorporating GAI-generated text-even without modification-can help mitigate this bias.
... Research by Jensen and Fisher (2005) further supports this, demonstrating that the process of peer review improved student performance in technical writing and based on surveys, "the majority of students thought the additional time and effort were well spent in learning to write more effectively". The timing of peer review is also important with Baker (2016) noting that peer review can be used to encourage students to begin working on assignments earlier in the semester. Therefore, consideration should be given to the timing of when peer review should be incorporated into the learning journey. ...
... Peer feedback holds great potential to enhance learning and performance of students: Research indicates a wide range of positive effects of peer feedback on learning processes, for example to enhance writing skills (Baker, 2016;Huisman, Saab, Van Driel, & Van Den Broek, 2018;Nelson & Schunn, 2009;Noroozi et al., 2023;Shang, 2022), improve argumentation skills (Noroozi & Hatami, 2018), and learning performance in general (Double, McGrane, & Hopfenbeck, 2020). In this respect, research suggests that students' knowledge acquisition is more strongly linked to providing feedback rather than receiving it (Yu & Schunn, 2024;Zong, Schunn, & Wang, 2021). ...
Computer-supported peer feedback offers great potential to enhance students' learning. Yet, students sometimes do not use computer-supported peer feedback opportunities, which partially can be the result of low technology acceptance. The UTAUT-model specifies performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and facilitating conditions as decisive factors for the intention to use a technology. From a motivational perspective, however, it can be expected that also students' achievement goals have an impact on the intention to use an online peer feedback tool. Therefore, we investigated the effects of learning approach, appearance approach, appearance avoidance, work avoidance and relational goals (besides performance expectancy, effort expectancy and facilitating conditions) on 155 computer science students' intentions and actual use of an online peer feedback tool and their performance in an end-of-course exam. Results of path modelling the longitudinal, student and log-data informed data showed that students' intentions predicted actual use, which predicted exam performance. Learning approach goals positively predicted the intention to use the tool, while performance and work avoidance goals did not predict intentions. Relational goals, however, negatively predicted intentions and end-of-course performance, shedding light on the importance of students' social motivations when using online peer feedback tools in their studies (e.g., peer feedback might be perceived as a social threat). Thus, the results point to the importance of an appropriate framing of online peer feedback tool use in educational settings as a learning opportunity and to reduce students’ possible concerns about their social relationships when using online peer feedback tools.
... este quien proporciona "un juicio constructivo sobre un texto: una evaluación que apunta a la escritura futura del alumno y al desarrollo de sus procesos de escritura" (Hyland y Hyland, 2019, p. 1). Por otra parte, en otros tipos de RCE como la revisión entre iguales son los estudiantes quienes revisan sus propios escritos, lo cual fomenta una reflexión más crítica por parte de los mismos (Baker, 2016). Asimismo, el uso de textos modelo, que consiste en comparar un texto propio con textos escritos por hablantes nativos, permite al alumnado notar las similitudes y diferencias entre ambos y, en consecuencia, facilita la detección de sus propios errores y el desarrollo de su interlengua (Sachs y Polio, 2007). ...
This exploratory study examines the written corrective feedback (WCF) practices of English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers in the context of upper secondary school in Spain. Research on such practices within such context has been less common in comparison with studies on the effectiveness of WCF in students’ second or foreign language (L2) writing and learning. This study thus modestly aims to fill this gap by scrutinizing the types of WCF offered by four EFL teachers in the
two upper Secondary Education courses of a Spanish state high school. To this end, a total of 60 texts written by students of the two courses that are part of this educational stage in Spain were collected, and analyzed using Ellis’ (2009a) classification of WCF types and strategies as a starting point. Results indicate teachers’ general preference for negative, unfocused, local, and direct WCF in line with similar studies of EFL teachers’ WCF. These findings point to some possibilities and limitations of WCF for EFL upper Secondary school teachers and learners in Spain.
... Students' writing skills have a positive impact on their overall academic ability. Students can gain knowledge by writing while also enhancing their intelligence, initiative, and creativity, as well as their courage and willpower (Baker, 2016;Li et al., 2022;Myhill, 2018). Therefore, teaching stu-dents to write is crucial to the learning process in the classroom, even though, in reality, teaching students to write is an activity that neither teachers nor students enjoy. ...
Introduction: Students' writing skills positively impact their overall academic ability. Writing allows students to gain knowledge while enhancing their intelligence, initiative, courage, and willpower. Moreover, it fosters creativity, inspiring students to think outside the box. Therefore, it can be said that teaching students to write is crucial to the learning process in the classroom, even though, in reality, teaching students to write is an activity that neither teachers nor students enjoy. It seems contradictory that writing is both necessary and undesirable simultaneously. Purpose: This study investigates research trends in students' writing skills through bibliometric analysis recorded on the Scopus database from 2014 to 2023. Method: The study identified 7650 publications in the Scopus database when searching for the keyword "students, writing, and skills." Using the Prisma model, it selected 2214 publications as the sample. The data were analyzed using bibliometric analysis. Results: The analysis has revealed that Graham (f= 105), Hwang (f= 102), and Kent (f= 84) were the top three authors who investigated students' writing skills in their studies, showcasing the diversity of research in our field. Meanwhile, Reading and Writing, Asian EFL Journal, and International Journal of Instruction are the top three publishers with the most publications, further highlighting the breadth of our field. At the country level, the United States is the most productive country, with Arizona State University being the most productive university in research about students' writing. The study also found that writing in higher education contexts is the most widely researched area. Conclusion: More importantly, the bibliometrics analysis has also revealed that argumentative writing skills, collaborative writing, EFL learners, and writing attitude are some areas that need more research.
... While feedback in writing refers to constructive comments, suggestions, and evaluations provided to a writer regarding their written work, peer feedback is widely used as a collaborative learning strategy for developing writing skills. It involves offering constructive input on peers' work, either orally or in writing, while also receiving feedback from peers (Baker 2016, Yang & Carless 2013. It can be considered as an alternative to teacher feedback, as it is a formative assessment provided by peers of equal status (Topping, 1998). ...
Peer feedback of writing involves writers receiving constructive criticism and suggestions on their work from peers, typically from classmates to improve the quality of their writing. It is widely used as a collaborative learning strategy for developing writing skills. The purpose of this study is to explore the perceptions of first-year students regarding peer feedback. The researcher used a volunteer sampling technique; the participants were from two universities, one located in Dhaka, the capital city, and another in Chittagong, a large city in Bangladesh. The interview data revealed that participants have positive perceptions toward peer feedback. Although there are some challenges with peer feedback, the study found that to gain the highest benefits, students need to be educated regarding its benefits and develop a multicultural setting in the class where everyone’s voice will be respected.
... Recent research has highlighted the cognitive demands associated with mindful processing of feedback for learners (Kim & Ryu, 2013;Patchan et al., 2016;Wichmann et al., 2018). However, there is a lack of studies exploring how to facilitate feedback giving while improving psychological factors, such as cognitive load (Baker, 2016;Gikandi & Morrow, 2016). Therefore, it is critical to address this issue by examining potential solutions available in interactive learning environments. ...
The emergence of digital game types has opened up significant opportunities to facilitate language acquisition through feedback provision, attracting diverse research strands to explore their potential as arenas for technology-assisted language learning. This study investigates the effects of learner-, peer-, and collaborative-regulated feedback on writing task completion and cognitive load management among Chinese EFL learners. The sample consisted of 44 female and 38 male students, aged 21 to 36 years (mean age = 24.28 ± 3.8 years). A mixed methods research design was employed to concurrently triangulate different strands of data on the effects of feedback regulation types on EFL learners. Methodological triangulation of quantitative and qualitative data was utilized to interpret the intervention results. Quantitative results indicate that learners who rely on collaborative-regulated feedback, combining both learner- and peer-regulated feedback, outperform those using a single feedback type in isolation. This is evidenced by a 15% improvement in writing performance, illustrating a direct correlation with a 20% reduction in cognitive load, thereby suggesting practical strategies for educators in digital learning environments. Qualitative data further support these findings, highlighting the benefits of combining feedback types to enhance self- and peer-regulated learning. The findings endorse the interchangeable use of learner- and peer-regulated feedback to consolidate the coordination between self-regulated and other-regulated feedback exchanges, thereby enhancing writing performance and lowering extraneous cognitive load during CALL courses.
... Based on these findings, instructors should consider supplementing peer review with other methods of feedback or dedicate class time to provide instruction on how to give formative feedback during the peer review process. The latter has been shown to improve the comments provided by peer reviewers and encourage students to substantially revise their drafts (Baker, 2016). Students often feel overwhelmed by academic writing (Itua et al., 2014). ...
Background
Students in research methods courses often engage in the research process and write about their findings in an APA Style report. This process can be intimidating and challenging for students.
Objective
The purpose of this preliminary study was to examine the use of writing workshops in teaching students to write research reports.
Method
The Writing Workshop Model included pre-writing worksheets, in-class writing, peer review, and self-evaluation. This method was compared to a more Standard Model that included writing instruction and peer review.
Results
Students under the Writing Workshop Model had higher scores on the research report than those under the Standard Model. The pre-writing worksheets, in-class writing, and self-evaluation were rated higher than the peer review component of the Writing Workshop Model.
Conclusions
The Writing Workshop Model may be an effective way to provide support for students during the writing process, thereby enhancing the quality of APA Style research reports.
Teaching Implications
Instructors of psychology courses could consider incorporating writing workshop components such as pre-writing worksheets, self-evaluations, and in-class writing opportunities to support student writing. Although peer review may be helpful, it is generally unpopular among students.
... The nature of EFL writing assessment. EFL writing assessments encompass both scoring and providing qualitative feedback on EFL essays (Baker, 2016;Lei, 2017;Li & Huang, 2022;Liu & Huang, 2020;Niu & Zhang, 2018;Wu et al., 2022;Yao et al., 2020;Yu & Hu, 2017;Zhao & Huang, 2020). The scoring of EFL essays typically involves one or more human raters, who are invited to score the essays either holistically or analytically (Huang, 2008(Huang, , 2012Lee et al., 2002;Li, 2012;Zhang, 2009). ...
Using generalizability (G-) theory and qualitative feedback analysis, this study evaluated the role of ChatGPT in enhancing English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL) writing assessments in classroom settings. The primary objectives were to assess the reliability of the holistic scores assigned to EFL essays by ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4 compared to college English teachers and to evaluate the relevance of the qualitative feedback provided by these versions of ChatGPT. The study analyzed 30 College English Test Band 4 (CET-4) essays written by non-English majors at a university in Beijing, China. ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4, along with four college English teachers, served as raters. They scored the essays holistically following the CET-4 scoring rubric and also provided qualitative feedback on the language, content, and organization of these essays. The G-theory analysis revealed that the scoring reliability of ChatGPT3.5 was consistently lower than that of the teacher raters; however, ChatGPT4 demonstrated consistently higher reliability coefficients than the teachers. The qualitative feedback analysis indicated that both ChatGPT3.5 and 4 consistently provided more relevant feedback on the EFL essays than the teacher raters. Furthermore, ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4 were equally relevant across the language, content, and organization aspects of the essays, whereas the teacher raters generally focused more on language but provided less relevant feedback on content and organization. Consequently, ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4 could be useful AI tools for enhancing EFL writing assessments in classroom settings. The implications of adopting ChatGPT for classroom writing assessments are discussed.
... Also, feedback plays an important role in this process Increasing Interaction through Peer-Learning 5 approach to writing. For instance, Baker (2016), Berg (1999) and Zhang (1995), among others, highlighted the importance of peer-feedback in the process approach to writing. Hence, substantive, supportive, immediate, specific and timely feedback helps learners produce a better product as Hattie and Timperley (2007) and Topping (1998) argued. ...
Collaborative action research was conducted using mixed methods approach to enhance interactive learner participation through group-based peer-learning in an English essay writing class employing one hundred and sixty-eight (N-168) learners who follow a diploma in English course at a university in Sri Lanka. Two teachers teaching on this course also participated in the study. Each student of this program produces a four-thousand word extended essay. Traditionally, the students developed the essay independently. As this proved to be less interactive, the students were asked to work in small groups in the class, obtain feedback from peers and develop the essay. After conducting four such sessions, the learners were asked to share their views regarding the interactive group-based peer-learning experience. A questionnaire was also shared among the participants. Two teachers were interviewed to obtain their views. The reflective essay and interview data revealed that the majority of learners held positive perceptions regarding the experience as it helped them to improve the quality of the essay (90.5%) and enhance interaction (88.3%). Qualitative data suggested that interactive group-based essay writing was enjoyable and useful to develop the students' speaking skills. Teachers claimed that learners displayed an increased interaction during the class.
... Overall, research on peer-feedback is positive (Wen and Tsai, 2006;McGarr and Clifford, 2013). Peerfeedback can help students better understand the assignment (Cho and MacArthur, 2011), identify strengths and weaknesses (Ashenafi, 2017) develop ideas for improving their own drafts (Lundstrom and Baker, 2009), foster self-regulation and critical thinking (Baker, 2016) increase autonomy, selfconfidence and reflection (Dochy, Segers and Sluijsmans, 1999) and promote deep learning (Brew, Riley and Walta, 2009). Furthermore, a meta-analysis by Huisman et al. (2019) found a significant improvement in students' academic writing when they engaged in peer-feedback compared to when they did not provide/receive any type of feedback and compared to self-assessment. ...
One way of actively engaging students with the feedback process and enhancing feedback literacy is through peer-feedback. However, there is little research to date in Ireland on undergraduate students’ beliefs and attitudes towards peer-feedback. All participants completed a validated questionnaire, ‘Beliefs about Peer-feedback Questionnaire’, to explore their beliefs about and attitudes towards peer-feedback, before and after a peer-feedback intervention. Both before and after the intervention, approximately 80% of respondents valued peer-feedback as an instructional method and as an important skill, while 87% of these first-year students engaged with the peer-feedback intervention. A clear implication for teaching is that peer-feedback can and should be further utilised to address the feedback problem in Ireland. Prior to the intervention, approximately 60% of students were confident in their ability to generate peer-feedback while approximately 80% were confident in their peers’ ability to generate feedback. The intervention changed these attitudes with confidence in their own ability growing slightly (10%) and confidence in their peers’ ability decreasing substantially (by 20%). Developing students’ evaluative judgement and the capacity to generate high-quality feedback through training and repeated opportunities to practise is a key recommendation. A longitudinal study, exploring beliefs and confidence with cumulative experiences over time, is also highly recommended.
... Pedagogical research in the EFL context underscores the profound significance of feedback in engaging students and fostering revision practices (Zhang and Hyland, 2022). Whether originating from instructors, peers (Ravand and Rasekh, 2011;Ruegg, 2015;Baker, 2016;Zhang, 2020;Zhang and Cheng, 2021), or automated systems (Xu, 2019;Zhang and Cai, 2019;Lin et al., 2020;Alharbi, 2022), such feedback substantially enhances writing skills (Li et al., 2010). However, the availability of constructive peer critique often remains limited in many learning environments, contributing to a notable gap in learning outcomes. ...
This research explores the innovative integration of OpenAI’s GPT-3.5 within a university-level English as a Foreign Language (EFL) writing course, illustrating a novel approach to academic instruction. The course follows the ADDIE instructional design model, encompassing five systematic stages: analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. This model serves as the backbone of the course structure, ensuring a comprehensive educational experience. The incorporation of the Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) framework in this course facilitates the effective integration of GPT-3.5 by enabling instructors to align advanced AI capabilities with appropriate pedagogical strategies, thereby enhancing the learning experience. TPACK guides educators in applying GPT-3.5’s features in a manner that is contextually relevant and pedagogically sound, ensuring the technology’s use complements the course content. The findings from this research are significant. They reveal that GPT-3.5 addresses three fundamental challenges often encountered in academic writing courses. Firstly, it enhances efficiency by providing immediate feedback and generating content ideas, accelerating the writing process. Secondly, GPT-3.5 ensures cohesive organization within students’ writing, guiding them to structure their thoughts more logically. Lastly, it serves as a reliable substitute for traditional peer reviewers, offering critical and objective feedback that students can use to refine their drafts. As students engage with AI, they enter a dynamic partnership. This collaboration with GPT-3.5 fosters critical thinking and empowers students to develop a distinctive writing voice. Through this interaction, students are not merely passive recipients of knowledge but active participants in a learning process that is augmented by cutting-edge technology. This study not only provides insight into the potential of AI-augmented academic writing but also highlights GPT-3.5’s role in promoting writing proficiency. It demonstrates that the application of AI in education can enhance the learning experience without compromising the individuality of student expression.
... Motivation is a crucial topic of common concern in multiple disciplines, such as sociology and sociolinguistics [1]. As one of the elements beginners want, motivation is essential to learning English [2]. A massive variety of empirical research domestic and overseas has proven that writing motivation can effectively impact writing [3][4][5][6]. ...
In recent years, teachers have gradually been returning the classroom to students, requiring students to change their learning styles and transform passive learning into active learning. Allowing students to self-assess and peer-to-peer feedback in the teaching process and building a good classroom environment can help promote active learning. Based on L2 Motivational Self System (L2MSS) and cooperative learning theory[15, 16], this paper makes a comparative experiment and questionnaire survey on a total of 90 students from two parallel classes in the second grade of a key middle school and then the data obtained were statistically analyzed using SPSS. Then to examine the role of peer feedback and classroom environment in increasing motivation to write in middle school English. The results show that peer feedback is an effective way for students to learn. Additionally, peer feedback can effectively encourage middle school students to improve their motivation to write in English and encourage them to learn writing more effectively. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implication of these results.
... At this juncture, in light of the urgent necessity to implement a new strategy to assist students in improving their writing skills, this study focused on a couple of areas by engaging them in serious yet enjoyable learning synchronously and asynchronously through essay writing. The thrust areas include the incorporation of Cambridge English 'Write & Improve' synchronously in the classroom to help the experimental group self-correct and analyze the errors in their essay writing, and the other is the employment of Padlet asynchronously out of the classroom to help enhance the experimental group's collaborative learning and thus improve their writing through peer review which is a proven strategy for improving the students" quality of writing (Baker, 2016). ...
This study was carried out to improve the undergraduates’ writing skills through essay writing via Cambridge English 'Write & Improve' synchronously in the classroom for error analysis and 'Padlet' asynchronously outside the classroom for collaborative writing and peer review. However, previous research proved that Cambridge English 'Write & Improve' and Padlet could enhance students' engagement in mastering writing skills. It also recommended that the students be allowed to self-correct the most recurring errors in their writing tasks through error analysis using 'Write & Improve', and the students should go through peer review by writing collaboratively using Padlet. In this study, the researchers employed a quantitative and cross-sectional study by gathering and evaluating the results of two research groups, the control and experimental groups, both in the pre-test and the post-test. The experimental group pursued the training through digital learning, while the control group used traditional learning. However, after the post-test, the researchers administered the Paired t-test, as the sample size is 30 ( ), as part of the statistical analysis. The results showed that the calculated t (10.66) tabulated t (1.740) proved that the writing assessment training was effective. The Null Hypothesis , which said that the training had no significant effect because there was no significant improvement in the experimental group after the training, was rejected, and the Alternative Hypothesis (H1), which said that the training was effective because there was significant improvement in the experimental group after the training was accepted. Therefore, the findings demonstrated a subtle growth in the experimental group's writing skills in the post-test after three months of training.
... Subsequently, Fletcher and Paul (2004) find that peer review develops teaching strategies while Martin and Double (1998) discover that peer observation is a chance to refine teaching skills through supportive collaboration. In the true sense of the term, peer observation is not for developing teachers' performance only, it also engages students with the learning process as the teachers' focus point is the students' improvement (Baker, 1998). ...
The current study aimed at exploring the effectiveness of peer
observation in enhancing teachers’ performance. The study
applied qualitative methodology for the study as it provided
detailed information to explain complex issues. In order to collect
data, the study interviewed five teachers; arranged a focus group
discussion (FGD) with 15 students of intermediate level.
Interviews were conducted in sound proof room with prior consent
of the interviewees and the conversations were recorded. The
major findings of the study showed that peer observation of
teaching was effective in professional development; peer
observation promoted active learning environment along with
interpersonal skills which removed monotony in the teaching and
learning process. This study also revealed that peer observation of
teaching and learning was cheap and easily accessible. It
constructs students’ knowledge and makes them independent.
Keywords: peer observation, performance, effectiveness
... • Peer Feedback = reziproker Prozess, bei dem die Lernenden anderen Lernenden Informationen über einen oder mehrere Aspekte der Leistung geben (Baker, 2016;Hattie & Timperley, 2007) • Vorteile von Peer-Feedback: ...
... These tools come in different genres that enable a variety of delivery methods and formats such as multimedia, games and simulations. These environments are characterised by a wide range of pedagogical practices with active learning and student-centred techniques (Baker 2016). Flexibility, anytime and anywhere is a feature that makes online learning different from f2f learning, given the diverse circumstances of university students. ...
... Con el tiempo se ha venido advirtiendo la creciente necesidad de formar a los estudiantes universitarios de pre y posgrado con respecto a la redacción científica, el reconocimiento de revistas científicas y la postulación de sus trabajos de investigación para publicación (Baker, 2016). Pareciera ser un paso natural en el avance de la ciencia y la misma institución universitaria como casa de formación y como soporte de la sociedad (Reyes, 2022b). ...
The review systems ofscientificjournals decide onpapers that representscientific con tribu tions. In this context, it happens that, after receiving and reading the referees' comments, and when processing this information emotionally some new authors either do not find the right way to respond, or when doing so, they divert their focus, generating a sterile discussion with the reviewer, minimizing the chances of acceptance of a text that could have been published. Therefore, this article presents suggestions for a reading focused on the technical-scientific scope of the text, and how to respond to the referees by qualifying the article in question
... In some schools, peer review activities have been used. According to some researchers' findings (Gielen et al., 2010;Bijami et al., 2013;Farah, 2012;Baker, 2016), these activities can help students write better. Peer review is also intended to encourage the writer to reevaluate the entire document (Chisholm, 2006). ...
... In the literature, peer learning was found as one of the most relevant instructional practices to improve students' essay-writing capacities (Baker, 2016;Boud et al., 1999;Topping, 2005). In peer learning "students learn with and from each other without the immediate intervention of a teacher" (Boud et al., 1999, p. 413). ...
This study explored the effects of directed and undirected online peer feedback types on students’ peer feedback performance, argumentative essay writing skills, and acquisition of domain-specific knowledge. The study used a pre-test and post-test design with four conditions (feedback, feedforward, a combination of feedback and feedforward, and undirected feedback). In this exploratory study, 221 undergraduate students, who were randomly assigned to dyads, engaged in discussions about the pros and cons of “Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs)”, provided feedback to peers, and wrote an argumentative essay regarding the topic. Results indicated significant differences among the conditions in terms of the quality of provided feedback. This implies that the peer feedback quality can be enhanced or diminished depending on its type. Results also revealed a significant improvement in students’ argumentative essay performance and domain-specific knowledge acquisition without significant differences among conditions. We discuss how the such increase in the quality of essays and learning outcomes might be related to the power of peer feedback regardless of the feedback type. We also discuss why using multiple instructional scaffolds may result in over-scripting that may diminish the power of peer feedback and the effects of the scaffolds themselves in online learning environments.
... Con el tiempo se ha venido advirtiendo la creciente necesidad de formar a los estudiantes universitarios de pre y posgrado con respecto a la redacción científica, el reconocimiento de revistas científicas y la postulación de sus trabajos de investigación para publicación (Baker, 2016). Pareciera ser un paso natural en el avance de la ciencia y la misma institución universitaria como casa de formación y como soporte de la sociedad (Reyes, 2022b). ...
Los sistemas de revisión de las revistas científicas deciden sobre trabajos que representan aportes científicos. En ese contexto, ocurre que, tras la recepción y lectura de observaciones arbitrales, y al procesar emocionalmente esta información, algunos autores nóveles, o no encuentran una forma acertada de responder, o al hacerlo, desvían su foco generando una discusión estéril con el evaluador, minimizando las posibilidades de aceptación de un texto que pudo haberse publicado. Por ello, este artículo presenta sugerencias para hacer una lectura centrada en el ámbito técnico-científico del texto, y cómo responder a los árbitros cualificando el artículo en cuestión.
This study includes interviews with 70 undergraduate students enrolled in online or hybrid first-year composition (FYC) classes at one of four universities in the United States and analyzes students’ perceptions of digital peer review. Arguing that the Community of Inquiry (CoI) Framework is a logical heuristic for examining writing studies research, this study finds that synchronicity might be more significant than modality with respect to the ways that peer review is able to achieve social, teaching, and cognitive presence. Overall, this study suggests that synchronicity is a common thread woven throughout each of the CoI presences as a potential way of alleviating negative evaluations of and achieving a learning community through peer review. Data further suggest that hybrid and online students conceptualize relationships as creating a sense of community that is work-based rather than friendship-based, that students might not be aware of or able to foresee ways that peer review applies to other writing contexts or classes, and that instructors could better prepare students for peer review in classrooms and beyond.
This Instructional Note is designed to assist students with using the rhetorical skills they already have as a bridge to writing rhetorical analysis essays.
ارزشیابی از درس بهعنوان یکی از ابزارهای بسیار ارزشمند ارتقاء کیفیت تدریس و یادگیری محسوب می¬شود، زیرا می¬تواند بازخورد مفیدی برای استادان و دانشگاه در مورد کیفیت عناصر برنامه درسی فراهم ¬سازد. ازاین رو هدف پژوهش حاضر بررسی دلایل، ضرورت و چگونگی ارزشیابی از درس و موانع آن در دانشگاه¬های ایران است. بدین منظور با 20 نفر از متخصصان و اعضای هیئتعلمی دانشگاه¬های کشور که در حوزه ارزشیابی و برنامه درسی اهل نظر هستند، مصاحبه نیمه ساختاریافته به عمل آمد. مصاحبه¬ها، پس از پیاده شدن، بهصورت مقوله¬بندی باز تجزیهوتحلیل شدند. یافته¬ها حاکی از آن است که ارزشیابی از درس به چهار دلیل انجام و به سه دلیل جانیفتادن فرهنگ صحیح نقد و مطالبه، نگرانی و دلهره برخی از دانشجویان از بازخورد استادان و نگرانی مدیران دانشگاه، دانشکده و گروه و استادان از بازخورد دانشجویان در دانشگاه¬ها انجام نمی¬شود. یافته¬ها همچنین نشان داد ارزشیابی از درس می¬تواند بهوسیله دانشجویان فعلی، دانش¬آموختگان، همکاران و ذی¬نفعان خارج از دانشگاه و از طریق مشاهده، مصاحبه، رایانه¬ای، پرسشنامه و روش¬های خلاقانه انجام شود.
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.
This Element traces the evolution of peer assessment in writing instruction and illustrates how peer assessment can be used to promote the teaching and learning of writing in various sociocultural and educational contexts. Specifically, this Element aims to present a critical discussion of the major themes and research findings in the existing studies on peer assessment regarding the three assessment paradigms (assessment of, for, and as learning), and to identify whether and how peer assessment has served the purposes of assessment of, for, and as learning, respectively in writing instruction. This Element highlights the contextual factors that shape the effect of peer assessment in writing instruction and concludes with directions for future research and implications regarding how peer assessment can be successfully used to improve students' writing development.
З метою розвитку самостійності ІТ (інформаційні технології) студентів та їх ефективної взаємодії, раціональним є впровадження контрольних листів для взаємооцінювання іншомовних усних і письмових робіт в умовах диференціації. Контрольний лист є інструментом чи засобом контролю якості сформованості професійно орієнтованої англомовної компетентності ІТ студентів у письмі та говорінні. У статті проаналізовано переваги контрольних листів, зокрема, вони: оптимально систематизують роботу студента, структуруючи його дії; допомагають знайти й уникнути помилок; алгоритмізують процес перевірки усного та письмового продукту; спрощують процедуру перевірки; мотивують студентів брати активну участь в оцінюванні; дозволяють студентам сконцентруватися на завданні; допомагають якісно оцінити роботу; дозволяють набувати та вдосконалювати іншомовні навички й уміння у процесі контролю; активізують процеси саморегуляції, соціально розподіленої регуляції / співрегуляції ІТ студентів; посилюють індивідуальну і групову автономію; заощаджують час виконання завдання; сприяють розвитку співпраці та кооперації; розвивають критичне мислення; дозволяють отримати збалансований зворотний зв’язок; сприяють активному навчанню; посилюють відповідальність студентів. Основні недоліки включають: недостатній рівень володіння професійно орієнтованою англомовною компетентністю в письмі і говорінні, недостатній рівень володіння фаховими компетентностями; недостатній досвід в оцінюванні; часозатратний процес; ускладнення керування освітнім процесом викладачем; різний темп виконання взаємооцінювання; нерівномірний розподіл робіт серед студентів, упередженість до оцінювання студентів. Також розглянуто основні вимоги до укладання контрольних листів, серед яких: окреслити мету контрольного листа, виділити основні етапи чи рубрики, алгоритмізувати процес оцінювання, чітко й ясно сформулювати питання, дотримуватися логічної послідовності запитань. Окреслено особливості впровадження контрольних листів для взаємооцінювання в умовах диференціації. Наведено приклади контрольних листів для взаємооцінювання.
This study aims to obtain descriptive data on the scoring behaviours of foreign language teachers in the assessment of writing. In this case study, data related to the demographic characteristics of the teachers, the score they gave and the discourse describing their scoring process were obtained with the help of an interview form through the semi-structured interview technique. At the end of the descriptive analysis of data, it was revealed that the scoring behaviours of the teachers varied greatly, that most of the teachers did not use a scale during scoring, that the teachers who used a scale developed various scales with different sections and points, which indicates that teachers are indecisive, and that teachers mostly focused on the formal-grammatical- dimension of the written product. The study also revealed that there was a significant relation between the scores of the raters and their gender, between their scores and their institution. Keywords: foreign language teaching, writing assessment, scoring, raters
This study investigates students’ perception of peer review as an online learning activity specifically focused on essay writing in the context of upper secondary education. The research aims to provide insights into students’ understanding, experiences, and attitudes towards peer review. The study was conducted among first-year students in writing classes at a public institution in Brazil, in which students used RevisãoOnline, a specific tool to write and review essays. Participants were students who had written at least 2 essays and completed 4 reviews using the aforementioned tool, totaling 47 students. After engaging in writing and reviewing activities, these students were administered a questionnaire about their perception of the peer review process. Results showed that overall, students expressed positive perceptions regarding the value of giving and receiving feedback from their peers in essay writing activities. This may have been influenced by the use of RevisãoOnline, which provided step-by-step guidance during the review process, offering support and identifying areas for improvement in the reviewed essays. Students also reported a strong sense of comfort in both providing and receiving feedback. Regarding the incorporation of peer feedback by teachers in the evaluation process, a significant majority of students agreed with the approach. However, a notable percentage of students indicated the need for further exploration of the teacher's role in integrating peer feedback into their evaluation process.
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 group’s performance in the post-test were found after 18-week instructions (pre- vs. post-test: overall score, p < .001; task response, p < .001; coherence and cohesion, p < .001; lexical resource, p < .001; grammatical range and accuracy, p < .001), and the effects were retained in the delayed post-test 6 weeks later (post- vs. delayed post-test: overall score, p = .561; task response, p = .585; coherence and cohesion, p = .533; lexical resource, p = .796; grammatical range and accuracy, p = .670). Little improvement was found in the control group in the post-test (pre- vs. post-test: overall score, p = .213; task response, p = .275; coherence and cohesion, p = .383; lexical resource, p = .367; grammatical range and accuracy, p = .180) or the delayed post-test (post- vs. delayed post-test: overall score, p = .835; task response, p = .742; coherence and cohesion, p = .901; lexical resource, p = .897; grammatical range and accuracy, p = .695). Between-group comparisons indicate that the experimental group outperformed the control group in the post- and the delayed post-tests, as shown in their overall score and scores on the four components.
Conclusions
Incorporating peer feedback into process-oriented medical English writing classroom teaching can effectively enhance Chinese medical students’ English academic writing skills over time, while the traditional product-oriented writing instructions had little help in improving Chinese medical students’ academic writing skills. This longitudinal intervention study develops our understanding of the effectiveness of peer feedback in L2 academic writing pedagogy. It offers instructional implications for L2 writing teachers to teach English academic writing among medical students in China and beyond. Limitations and suggestions for future studies are discussed.
1. Introdução O estudo apresentado inscreve-se no âmbito do desenvolvimento da competência de escrita académica como um trabalho processual e recursivo (Flower & Hayes, 1977; Roussey & Piolat, 2005; Grupo Didactext, 2015), baseado num movimento pendular entre leitura-escrita-revisão-reescrita (Pinto, 2013, 2014). Tem por objeto os efeitos gerados pelos comentários de revisão dos professores na reescrita dos textos dos estudantes universitários. Foi realizado um estudo empírico conduzido por dois objetivos prin-cipais: (i) analisar as instruções de revisão efetuadas pelos professores nos textos dos estudantes; (ii) aferir o grau de in uência destes comentários de revisão na reescrita-reformulação dos estudantes. A partilha dos resultados obtidos e da re exão consequente está orga-nizada do seguinte modo: na secção 2, é explicitado o enquadramento teó-rico; na secção 3, é descrito o estudo desenvolvido ao nível da análise de instruções de revisão fornecidas por professores, nos textos dos estudantes 149
Investigated the frequency of 342 college students' procrastination on academic tasks and the reasons for procrastination behavior. A high percentage of Ss reported problems with procrastination on several specific academic tasks. Self-reported procrastination was positively correlated with the number of self-paced quizzes Ss took late in the semester and with participation in an experimental session offered late in the semester. A factor analysis of the reasons for procrastination Ss listed in a procrastination assessment scale indicated that the factors Fear of Failure and Aversiveness of the Task accounted for most of the variance. A small but very homogeneous group of Ss endorsed items on the Fear of Failure factor that correlated significantly with self-report measures of depression, irrational cognitions, low self-esteem, delayed study behavior, anxiety, and lack of assertion. A larger and relatively heterogeneous group of Ss reported procrastinating as a result of aversiveness of the task. The Aversiveness of the Task factor correlated significantly with depression, irrational cognitions, low self-esteem, and delayed study behavior. Results indicate that procrastination is not solely a deficit in study habits or time management, but involves a complex interaction of behavioral, cognitive, and affective components. (16 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)
I describe and evaluate an exercise in which graduate students provide blind reviews of each other's term papers. Besides helping students with their own papers, the exercise seems to help them learn to give constructive, substantive feedback to colleagues. Student ratings of the educational value of peer review are high, but a hoped-for effect of increasing interest in publishing papers has not emerged. A study of reviews from three courses suggested that students' reviews show higher interrater reliability than do professional peer reviews of journal manuscripts. Implications of this finding are discussed in relation to some of the explanations offered in the literature for the low reliability of professional peer reviews.
Assessment in higher education is commonly held to contribute to feedback to students on their learning and the certification of their achievement. This paper argues that this short‐term focus must be balanced against a longer‐term emphasis for learning‐oriented assessment to foster future learning after graduation. The paper proposes that students need to become assessors within the context of participation in practice, that is, the kinds of highly contextualised learning faced in life and work. It discusses the kinds of practices that are needed to refocus assessment within higher education courses to this end.
This paper focuses on peer feedback in relation to assessment processes. It examines the rationale for peer feedback, emphasizing its potential for enhanced student learning. We draw on relevant literature to argue that the dominance of peer assessment processes using grades can undermine the potential of peer feedback for improving student learning. The paper throws further light on the issue by drawing on a large-scale questionnaire survey of tertiary students (1740) and academics (460) in Hong Kong, supplemented by interview data. The findings indicate that a significant number of academics and students resist peer assessment using grades and that the majority report that students never or rarely grade each other in assessment activities. This paper explores why there is resistance, in particular, by academics to peer assessment and argues the case for a peer feedback process as an end in itself or as a precursor to peer assessment involving the awarding of marks. It also recommends some strategies for promoting peer feedback, through engaging students with criteria and for embedding peer involvement within normal course processes.
Instructors use peer feedback to afford students multiple assessments of their work and to help them acquire important lifelong skills. However, research finds that this type of feedback has questionable validity, reliability, and accuracy, and instructors consider much of it too uncritical, superficial, vague, and content-focused, among other things. This article posits that the typical judgment-based feedback questions give students emotionally charged tasks that they are cognitively ill equipped to perform well and that permit laxness. It then introduces an alternative that encourages neutral, informative, and thorough responses that add genuine value to the peer feedback process.
The literature is increasingly drawing attention to the gap between feedback given to students and feedback used by students. This paper reflects on the beginnings of an evaluation into the potential of peer assessment to act as a vehicle to enable students to make use of the feedback they receive. A case study is presented within an action research paradigm outlining the introduction of a peer formative assessment process. Current findings highlight the importance of appreciating the emotional as well as the cognitive aspects of peer learning and suggest that cultural shifts at programme level may be required for peer assessment to be most effective.
We examined the effects of peer feedback on subsequent behavior using a four-dimensional model of team behavior. Participants (N= 75) were randomly assigned to teams, and teams were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions: feedback, exposure, or control. In the feedback condition, participants rated themselves and each other using a 24-item behavioral observation scale after completing the first of two decison-making tasks. Before performing the second task, they received individualized feedback reports summarizing their self- and peer ratings. Those assigned to the exposure condition completed the behavioral observation scale after the first task but did not receive feedback. The second task was videotaped and rated by experts blind to experimental condition. Results showed significantly higher ratings for participants in the feedback and exposure conditions. The findings extend previous research on multisource feed-back by isolating exposure to key behaviors as an important variable in behavioral improvement.
Writing is one of the most important and useful pedagogical tools available to instructors to help students achieve a variety of goals central to sociological instruction, including critical thinking and the development of students' sociological imaginations. This article provides specific guidelines for creating writing-intensive courses and writing assignments that are integral to achieving pedagogical goals. it also includes some strategies for managing and teaching such courses.
Assessment of oral presentation skills is an underexplored area. The study described here focuses on the agreement between professional assessment and self- and peer assessment of oral presentation skills and explores student perceptions about peer assessment. The study has the merit of paying attention to the inter-rater reliability of the teachers. Comparison of the teacher and peer assessment rubric scores points at a positive relationship, but also at critical differences. The lower intra-class correlation suggests that peers and teachers still interpret the criteria and indicators of the rubric in a different way. With regard to the comparison of self-assessment scores and teacher scores, we have to conclude that there are significant differences between these scores. Self-assessment scores are, for the most part, higher than the marks given by teachers. The results also reflect a very positive attitude of students towards peer assessment as a relevant source of external feedback.
A peer review process similar to that used by scientific journals which can be applied to class work is presented. Stressed is the advantage of using peer review when writing skills are a priority but instructor time is limited. Guidelines and examples of comments are provided. (CW)
This paper raises issues concerning the relationship between student assessment and the values which academic institutions propagate. It argues that many current assessment practices are incompatible with the goals of independence, thoughtfulness and critical analysis to which most academics would subscribe; that forms of assessment which are commonplace are not consistent with the behaviour of academics in their own contributions to knowledge; and that there is evidence to suggest that the assessment policy of many departments undermines deep approaches to learning on the part of students. Some indications are given of possible strategies to address the problems which have been identified, drawing upon ideas from academic and professional practice in general and self-assessment and peer review in particular.
Investigated the frequency of 342 college students' procrastination on academic tasks and the reasons for procrastination behavior. A high percentage of Ss reported problems with procrastination on several specific academic tasks. Self-reported procrastination was positively correlated with the number of self-paced quizzes Ss took late in the semester and with participation in an experimental session offered late in the semester. A factor analysis of the reasons for procrastination Ss listed in a procrastination assessment scale indicated that the factors Fear of Failure and Aversiveness of the Task accounted for most of the variance. A small but very homogeneous group of Ss endorsed items on the Fear of Failure factor that correlated significantly with self-report measures of depression, irrational cognitions, low self-esteem, delayed study behavior, anxiety, and lack of assertion. A larger and relatively heterogeneous group of Ss reported procrastinating as a result of aversiveness of the task. The Aversiveness of the Task factor correlated significantly with depression, irrational cognitions, low self-esteem, and delayed study behavior. Results indicate that procrastination is not solely a deficit in study habits or time management, but involves a complex interaction of behavioral, cognitive, and affective components. (16 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
The research on formative assessment and feedback is reinterpreted to show how these processes can help students take control of their own learning, i.e. become self-regulated learners. This refor-mulation is used to identify seven principles of good feedback practice that support self-regulation. A key argument is that students are already assessing their own work and generating their own feedback, and that higher education should build on this ability. The research underpinning each feedback principle is presented, and some examples of easy-to-implement feedback strategies are briefly described. This shift in focus, whereby students are seen as having a proactive rather than a reactive role in generating and using feedback, has profound implications for the way in which teachers organise assessments and support learning.
Using a Web-based, conferencing system, we required students to electronically post draft answers to take-home essay questions. Students then produced peer reviews of each other's answers. Regression analyses indicated that the higher the quality of the review students gave their peers, the higher their own grades for revised essays. The pedagogical structuring of this activity draws heavily on the theoretical concept of 'scaffolding' or 'assisted performance.'
Sociologists and scholars of composition have long argued that in order to get students to improve the
quality of what they write, they need to change how they write. Here, the authors assess whether students’
participation in writing-intensive first-year seminars leads to changes in their writing process. Data
collected via pretest and posttest interviews of 34 students show that writing-intensive seminars help firstyear
students become better planners and revisers yet have little effect on the ways that they prewrite and
draft. Additionally, students in their first semester of college demonstrate higher order writing processes
at the beginning of their seminar than their second-semester counterparts and show more improvement
over the course of the semester as well. We analyze the conditions that foster these patterns and suggest
that increasing quantitative course requirements (i.e., page counts) may hamper students’ ability to adopt
qualitatively better writing strategies.
Although feedback has a great potential for learning, students do not always make use of this potential. This article therefore reviews research literature on students’ use of feedback in higher education. This is done in order to find answers as to why some students do not use the feedback they receive and which factors are important in influencing students’ use of teacher feedback. Findings show that utility is not only a key feature for students’ use of feedback but also that some factors, such as lack of strategies for productively using feedback or lack of understanding of academic discourse, may hinder students’ possibilities to use the information formatively.
This study contributes to scant empirical investigation of peer critique of writing among heterogeneously grouped native and nonnative speakers of English, now commonplace in higher education. This mixed-methods study investigated the use of directed peer review to improve writing among graduate students, the majority of whom were nonnative speakers of English. Following a modified version of the Optimal Model of peer critique of university coursework, statistically significant gains were realized between the initial draft of a business proposal and its final submission for each of the measured items: support, audience focus, writing conventions, and organization. In addition, during the qualitative phase, students were observed to identify how peer editors naturally engaged in probing and collaborative styles of feedback known as discovery mode interactions. Approximately 80% of the students engaged in interactions to clarify the text and align it with the author’s intentions, and approximately 37% sought to enhance and develop the text. Finally, the results suggest that the face-to-face peer review did improve the quality of a business communication assignment and implies a number of essential instructional practices toward improved writing and collaboration.
Student peer review has proven an effective technique for improving student writing in both English and business communication classes, yet the technique is not widely used in business courses other than business communication. In this article, the author discusses using student peer review in business classes to improve students' final written submissions. In doing so, the author discusses the definition of peer review, the benefits of peer review, the reasons peer review helps improve student writing, the common peer review methods, the ways to incorporate peer review into business courses, and the disadvantages of peer review. Samples of different types of peer review are also included.
Individual students in two different sections of an undergraduate civil engineering laboratory were tasked with preparing three professional-quality laboratory reports. The teaching assistant and/or instructor used established criteria to grade the first two reports prepared by students in one section. The first two reports prepared by students in the other section were peer evaluated by assigned fellow students within the same laboratory section using identical grading criteria. The peer evaluated section had a higher class average than the teaching assistant/instructor graded section on the fist two reports. The third report prepared by students from both sections was graded by a professional educator/architect without knowledge of a student's class section. The peer evaluation students also had a higher class average on the third report, suggesting that the peer evaluation process may have positively contributed to those students' writing skills.
The author reviews traditional beliefs about creative illness and suggests that their endorsement of euphoric bingeing misleads writers. Productive creativity seems to occur more reliably with moderation of work duration and of emotions, not with the fatigue and ensuing depression of binge writing. The author compares binge writers to a matched sample of novice professors who wrote in brief, daily sessions and with generally mild emotions. Binge writers (a) accomplished far less writing overall, (b) got fewer editorial acceptances, (c) scored higher on the Beck Depression Inventory, and (d) listed fewer creative ideas for writing. These data suggest that creative illness, defined by its common emotional state for binge writers (i.e., hypomania and its rushed euphoria brought on by long, intense sessions of working—followed by depression), offers more problems (e.g., working in an emotional, rushed, fatiguing fashion) than magic. The example of Joseph Conrad supports these findings.
Process-oriented writing instruction stresses the value of between-draft revision.Yet current literature and traditional pedagogy have provided little guidance for motivating student writers to look beyond surface errors to develop and to refine their communicative intentions. Based on the assumption that this deep-level revision is most productive in terms of writing skills development, this paper suggests that teacher feedback with an inquiring stance engages student writers in negotiation over the emerging meaning of their texts. Sample draft compositions are used to explore the assumptions and implications of this instructional stance to studentwriting. Acknowledging the instructional context framing any assignment, the authors argue that addressing developing writers' communicative purposes through an inquiring stance to early drafts motivates revision and thus creates opportunities for writing skills development. © The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
A collaborative peer, self and tutor assessment scheme in which the students themselves defined the marking schedule for a scientific report of a laboratory experiment within the biological sciences, is evaluated in terms of correlations between sets of marks. The issues addressed in this report include: (1) the reliability of student-derived marks, with particular emphasis on perceived tendencies of high achieving students to underestimate their performance and low achieving students to overestimate their performance; (2) the use of student-derived marks in formal grading procedures; and (3) the learning benefits which accrue for students participating in peer and self-assessment procedures. The results of this study undertaken within the context of a clearly defined, carefully monitored assignment indicate that students have a realistic perception of their own abilities and can make rational judgements on the achievements of their peers. The positive implications of introducing peer and self-assessment schemes into undergraduate courses are discussed.
This study examined the relation between academic procrastination tendency and student writing success. We found that the tendency to procrastinate on writing tasks was associated with general anxiety, anxiety about writing the paper, writing the paper later than usual, less satisfaction with writing the paper, and lower grades. Additionally, receipt of feedback on writing was associated with better writing outcomes for high procrastinators. These results have implications for understanding academic procrastination and the use of academic interventions to address procrastination.
Introduction 1. What is peer tutoring? 2. Beneficial effects: why teachers use peer tutoring 3. Theoretical frameworks for peer tutoring 4. How theory can inform practice 5. Planning and promoting peer tutoring 6. Helping students become peer tutors 7. Evaluation of peer tutoring schemes 8. Problems associated with peer tutoring 9. Technology-supported collaborative learning 10. Benefiting from hindsight: practitioners reflect on peer tutoring 11. Reflections and prospects
A definition and typology of peer assessment between students in higher education is proposed, and the theoretical underpinnings of the method are discussed. A review of the developing literature follows, including both process and outcome studies. This indicates that peer assessment is of adequate reliability and validity in a wide variety of applications. Peer assessment of writing and peer assessment using marks, grades, and tests have shown positive formative effects on student achievement and attitudes. These effects are as good as or better than the effects of teacher assessment. Evidence for such effects from other types of peer assessment (of presentation skills, group work or projects, and professional skills) is, as yet, more limited. Computer-assisted peer assessment is an emerging growth area. Important factors in successful implementation are summarized, and recommendations for future research and practice are made.
Reciprocal paired qualitative formative peer assessment of academic writing was undertaken by 12 postgraduate students of educational psychology. Overall, staff and peer assessments showed a very similar balance between positive and negative statements, but this varied according to assessment criterion. However, only half of all detailed formative assessment statements made showed some degree of correspondence between staff and peers. Nevertheless, there was very little evidence of conflict between the views of staff and peers-rather, they focused on different details. Subjective feedback from students indicated that most found the process time consuming, intellectually challenging and socially uncomfortable, but effective in improving the quality of their own subsequent written work and developing other transferable skills. The reliability and validity of this type of peer assessment thus appeared adequate, and the partiality of overlap in detail between staff and peer assessments suggested that the triangulation peer assessment offers is likely to add value. However, caution is indicated regarding the generalisation of this finding. Implications for action are outlined.
One approach for grading papers in large business classes is to require students to evaluate each other's work. Both students and instructors can gain much in such peer review processes, but can students be trusted to grade each other's papers? This article describes an experiment in which term projects, a preprinted evaluation form, and generalizability theory were used to judge the reliability of student grading. The results suggest that students can be both consistent and fair in their assessments. These findings, along with mostly favorable student reactions and the fact that employee valuation is an important management skill, create a strong case for peer review when evaluating student papers.
Any student assessment procedure should meet a number of criteria. It should be -valid, reliable, practicable and fair, and useful to students. The prevailing authoritarian model of assessment in higher education is examined and its disadvantages elaborated. Results of some previous studies of self assessment are discussed. The present study attempts to meet Percival and Ellington's criteria, and addresses itself to a number of important questions concerning the comparability of self and peer group assessment with traditional methods; the extent of over‐ or undermarking by students, the relationships between accuracy of grading and age or overall ability, and the possible effects on learning or personal development of self and peer group assessment procedures. Details of the implementation of the scheme are recorded, and results presented and discussed. In terms of both product (the correspondences between self or peer and tutor assessment) and process (the evaluation by students of the effects of the scheme), the scheme appears to be successful. Implications and plans for future studies are elaborated.
The effect of three approaches to revision instruction on 61 college students' revision behavior and writing quality was investigated for this article. Students wrote three 5-page papers and received one of three instructional approaches: Formal Peer Review (n = 19), Formal Self-Review (n = 20), or No Formal Review (n = 22). Formal Peer Review students had to outline and critique a peer's first draft, Formal Self-Review students had to outline and critique their own first draft, and No Formal Review students were simply instructed to revise their own first draft to improve clarity and completeness. No difference in writing quality was detected based on instructional approach. No Formal Review students made more revisions from first to final drafts than students in the other two groups, at both the global (summary) and local (sentence) levels of meaning. Students in the No Formal Review condition had the most positive attitude toward the instruction they received. Results suggest that using peer review in college psychology classes, and a formal approach to reviewing, may not improve the quality of students writing but does affect the timing of students' revision behavior (before, rather than after, handing in the first draft) and students' attitudes toward instruction.
The advantages of using students to grade one another's papers are compelling. But can students perform such evaluation tasks honestly and efficiently? This article examines the peer evaluation process undertaken by 60 undergraduate students to determine whether students are consistent graders for both total scores and selected disaggregate evaluation criteria. The overall conclusion is that students are able to grade papers efficiently and consistently.
Summary Student assessment of other students' work, both formative and summative, has many potential benefits to learning for the assessor and the assessee. It encourages student autonomy and higher order thinking skills. Its weaknesses can be avoided with anonymity, multiple assessors, and tutor moderation. With large numbers of students the management of peer assessment can be assisted by Internet technology.
Much evaluation of teaching focuses on what teachers do in class. This article focuses on the evaluation of assessment arrangements and the way they affect student learning out of class. It is assumed that assessment has an overwhelming influence on what, how and how much students study. The article proposes a set of 'conditions under which assessment supports learning' and justifies these with reference to theory, empirical evidence and practical experience. These conditions are offered as a framework for teachers to review the effectiveness of their own assessment practice.
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 was introduced into the assessment strategy of two marketing modules on two undergraduate programmes at Manchester Metropolitan University. A questionnaire was used to elicit responses from a sample of 80 students concerning their attitudes to and experience of, the peer assessment exercise. Students felt that the benefits of peer assessment were: the increase in personal motivation as a result of their active involvement in the assessment process; the opportunity to compare and discuss the assignment, and the opportunity to gain knowledge and develop a greater understanding of the assignment content and assessment process. Criticisms included the effects of personal bias on the marks awarded, the interpretation of criteria and the ability of the students to assess. Some students regarded peer assessment as an incentive to perform, while others saw it as an unfair system that lacked objectivity. Over half the sample regarded assessment as solely a role for the tutor. The research found that peer assessment made a valuable contribution to the variety of assessment and it enabled students to better understand the assessment process, however, it was a time consuming process for tutors
The implementation of peer assessment receives much attention in teacher education. This paper reports the effects of peer assessment training on the performance of student teachers. Ninety-three student teachers were randomly assigned to control groups and experimental groups. The experimental groups were trained in defining performance criteria, giving feedback and writing assessment reports. This was done through peer assessment tasks that were embedded in a redesigned course. Analyses of data derived from peer assessment reports written by the students showed that the experimental groups surpassed the control groups in the quality of the assessment skill. As a result of the training, students from the experimental groups also scored significantly higher grades for the end products of the course than students from the control groups. The results of the questionnaire showed that all students were significantly more satisfied with the redesigned course.
Undergraduate students, and their class teachers, assessed the performance of their peers in three oral and written tasks as part of a group project. The two sets of marks awarded by peers and teachers were subsequently compared to find out whether the students were competent to assess their peers alongside their class teachers and whether this competence, or lack of it, was partly determined by the nature of the task being assessed. A number of statistical tests were run to establish the levels of agreement, the ranges, differences and relationship between peer and teacher assessments. The results have led us to conclude that the peer assessments are not sufficiently reliable to be used to supplement teacher assessments. Students’ competencies in peer assessment do not appear to be dependent on the nature of the task being assessed, but there is some evidence that practical experience of assessing a particular task type can lead to an improvement in students’ assessment skills when they assess a similar task. The paper also discusses possible improvements in peer assessment procedures based on the experiences gained.
This study investigated the relationship between the quality of peer assessment and the quality of student projects in a technology application course for teacher education students. Forty-three undergraduate student participants completed the assigned projects. During the peer assessment process, students first anonymously rated and commented on two randomly assigned peers' projects, and they were then asked to improve their projects based on the feedback they received. Two independent raters blindly evaluated student initial and final projects. Data analysis indicated that when controlling for the quality of the initial projects, there was a significant relationship between the quality of peer feedback students provided for others and the quality of the students' own final projects. However, no significant relationship was found between the quality of peer feedback students received and the quality of their own final projects. This finding supported a prior research claim that active engagement in reviewing peers' projects may facilitate student learning.
Research on peer reviewing has revealed that comments received from peer reviewers are helpful when it comes to making revisions
in an individual’s writing, but the role of providing comments to peer writers has been little explored despite the potential
value of such research. In this study, we explored how student reviewers learn by reviewing peer drafts in the context of
reciprocal peer reviewing. Undergraduate students in an introductory physics course participated in this study as part of
their course activities. Participants wrote technical research drafts, reviewed three or four peer drafts, and revised their
own drafts in the SWoRD system. A total of 3,889 comment segments were analyzed in two dimensions: (a) evaluation (strength
vs. weakness) and (b) scope (surface, micro-meaning, and macro-meaning). We found that providing weakness comments for micro-meaning
and strength comments for macro-meaning improved the reviewers’ writing qualities. In addition, reviewers’ initial writing
skills and the quality of reviewed peer drafts influenced the types of comments given. The results are discussed, along with
their implications for improved writing through reviewing.
KeywordsPeer comments–Peer review–Writing–Learning
This preliminary classroom study aims to examine the impact of trained responders’ feedback on EFL college students’ revisions, both in terms of revision types and quality. After a 4-hour in-class demonstration and a 1-hour after-class reviewer-teacher conference with each student (n = 18), the instructor/researcher collected students’ first drafts and revisions, as well as reviewers’ written feedback, and compared them with those produced prior to training. Results show that students incorporated a significantly higher number of reviewers’ comments into revisions post peer review training. The number of peer-triggered revisions comprised 90% of the total revisions, and the number of revisions with enhanced quality was significantly higher than that before peer review training. The researcher concludes that with extensive training inside and outside of class, trained peer review feedback can positively impact EFL students’ revision types and quality of texts directly.
This paper explores the relationship between teacher feedback and student revision in two academic writing classes. The study adopts a case study approach and looks at all the feedback given to six students over a complete course. Using data from teacher think aloud protocols, teacher and student interviews and student texts, it examines the extent to which teachers focused on formal language concerns when they gave feedback and the use that students made of this feedback in their revisions. Findings suggest that despite the teachers’ beliefs and teaching approaches, language accuracy was a very important focus for their feedback. While most of the students engaged with this feedback when revising their drafts, the extent to which they used it varied among the case study subjects. Two case studies who made consistent and sustained use of form-focused feedback are discussed in greater detail to examine student engagement with form-focused feedback over a complete course.