Content uploaded by Junjie Gavin Wu
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Junjie Gavin Wu on May 21, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688219895335
RELC Journal
2020, Vol. 51(1) 168 –178
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0033688219895335
journals.sagepub.com/home/rel
Improving English Learners’
Speaking through Mobile-
assisted Peer Feedback
Junjie Gavin Wu and Lindsay Miller
City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR
Abstract
In this article, we report on an action case study on the use of mobile-assisted peer feedback to
improve second language (L2) speakers’ English performance. Drawing on the learning-oriented
assessment (LOA) framework (Carless, 2007), the study made in-class use of a newly developed
mobile app with the provision of peer feedback. The study was conducted with 25 Business School
students in an English for Specific Purposes course at a Hong Kong university. A mixed-methods
approach was adopted, including a questionnaire survey, a focus group discussion after the class and
a teacher journal. In addition to the participants’ general attitudes, two broad themes were found in
relation to the participants’ learning experience, namely the use of peer feedback and the affordances
and constraints of technology. Results showed that students generally agreed on the positive effects of
mobile-assisted peer feedback (e.g. real-time and anonymous feedback), while they recognized some
limitations such as the small screen size of their phones and the limited number of given rubrics. Finally,
we discuss the implications from different perspectives based on the reported themes.
Keywords
Speaking, mobile-assisted learning, peer feedback, learning-oriented assessment, classroom
based learning
‘in its early days, such research [technology] points to fresh possibilities for enhancing the
teaching of speaking’ (McCarthy and O’Keeffe, 2004: 36).
In 2004, McCarthy and O’Keeffe called for a closer integration of technology and
speaking practice in second language learning. Although we have witnessed a rising
interest in improving students’ speaking performance with the development of advanced
technologies, such as artificial intelligence and augmented reality (Zhang et al., in
press), speaking has been the least explored basic language skill, compared with
Corresponding author:
Junjie Gavin Wu, Department of English, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR.
Email: junjiewu4-c@my.cityu.edu.hk
895335REL0010.1177/0033688219895335RELC JournalWU and Miller
research-article2020
SI: English for Academic and Professional Purposes in the Digital Era
WU and Miller 169
listening, reading, and writing (Kessler, 2018). Part of the reason for this dearth of
investigation is that speaking is not a key component in many countries’ secondary
school testing systems, and therefore does not receive the in-class attention given to the
other language skills (Black and William, 2018).
Notwithstanding the above, English speaking skills have become crucially important
for English as a Second Language (ESL) users. Academically, scholars have to effec-
tively present their findings via English at international conferences. Professionally,
Business English as a Lingua Franca has become commonplace. Socially, social com-
munication now extends beyond national boundaries and many platforms (e.g. Instagram,
Twitter) offer ESL speakers multimodal ways of communicating with each other.
To these ends, it has become clear that speaking in English as a second or foreign lan-
guage deserves wider research attention. This article explores the perceptions students
and their teacher have when using mobile technology in class in an attempt to give feed-
back on, and hence improve, students’ speaking performance. As part of a larger research
project, this article has one overarching research question: How can mobile-assisted peer
feedback enhance ESL students’ learning experience in relation to their speaking skills?
Learning-oriented Assessment
There has been a long-running debate regarding how we can assess students’ oral lan-
guage skills. This debate centres on the issue of whether we should promote assessment
for learning or assessment of learning. Instead of treating these concepts as incompatible,
Carless (2007) argued that both types of assessment should be used to reach our ultimate
teaching goal – to enhance student learning. Against this backdrop, Carless (2007) sug-
gested the learning-oriented assessment (LOA) framework which emphasizes the goal of
supporting learning by engaging learners actively in assessment activities.
One of the key constructs of LOA is feedback: the provision of constructive feedback
from students (peer and self) and teachers, and the uptake of feedback in a feed-forward
process (e.g. use the feedback to improve speaking). In this process, students are encour-
aged to not only be consumers of language knowledge but producers of language and
actively take responsibility for their learning. Furthermore, peer feedback can address
the limitations of restricted class time and large-size classes (Lam, 2010). Yet, we must
acknowledge that there are still voices challenging the effectiveness of peer feedback and
who caution against this as being a magic wand to improve language skills (see Lam,
2010; Xu and Carless, 2017; Yu and Lee, 2016).
Despite research that has been done into L2 writing (e.g. Yu and Lee, 2016), our
understanding of peer feedback in L2 speaking especially within the technology-
enhanced language learning (TELL) context remains limited (Xu and Carless, 2017).
This article, as an exploratory project, aims to cast light on the use of mobile-assisted
peer feedback to promote L2 speaking in an English for Specific Purposes (ESP) course.
Technological Assessment Tools
Although there are a number of apps on the market that students can use to improve their
English speaking outside the classroom (e.g. Duolingo and Busuu), most of them are not
170 RELC Journal 51(1)
designed specifically for use in the traditional classroom context. One exception is
PeerEval. PeerEval is available from the Apple App Store and can be accessed through
the webpage https://peereval.mobi/ using any technical device. It is a simple-to-use app:
after downloading the app, the teacher first needs to set up an online class register by
importing students’ names and creating an assessment rubric. Then, with an access code
generated from the teacher’s side, students can log into their accounts. After that, stu-
dents can choose their peer’s name and mark his/her performance based on the set of
rubrics (e.g. on a speaking task, as described here). Apart from the marking scale of one
to five, an optional comment column is provided. Students complete their marking and
hit submit (Figure 1). Once the marking has been done, each student can see their indi-
vidual feedback from their peers and his/her mark will be compared with the average
mark of the entire class (Figure 2). All feedback and students’ marks are available in the
teacher’s account so that the teacher can use this information when making a general
analysis of his/her students’ speaking performance.
Figure 1. The basic interface of PeerEval.
WU and Miller 171
The study
Participants
The project was conducted with 25 students from an ESP course offered to the Business
School at a public university in Hong Kong. The participants included 10 first-year,
12 second-year and three fourth-year learners (15 females, 10 males). Apart from two
Mainland Chinese, the other students were all from Hong Kong, aged from 18–22. Their
English language proficiency levels were assessed as intermediate to upper-intermediate
based on their previous school examination results and corroborated by the teacher’s
assessment and observations.
Course
English for Business Communication aims to improve students’ communication skills by
way of a semi-authentic business context. The course is 13 weeks long and the class
meets for three hours each week. The syllabus for the course is guided by five assign-
ments and this study reports the results from the business meeting speaking assignment.
To help students get more individual feedback and have a better idea of the assessment
criteria, the teacher decided to use PeerEval in Week 5 of the course to see if the app
might enhance students’ in-class practice.
Project
The basic steps of the use of PeerEval are illustrated in Figure 3. The pedagogical structures
were designed based on the LOA framework to motivate students’ learning through their
involvement as peer evaluators and to make use of this feedback as a source to improve their
performance in the upcoming teacher-assessed assignment. In Week 4, the basics of the
assignment and the app were introduced to the students. Apart from a simple description of
the assessment rubric, exemplars of different levels of performance were analysed with the
students to better prepare them for the activity. In Week 5, students were organized into
groups of five and provided with one business meeting case study, similar to the upcoming
Figure 2. Students’ peer feedback.
172 RELC Journal 51(1)
assessed assignment. The teacher circulated and acted as a facilitator and provided feedback
while the students practised their meetings in class. After their meetings, each student was
required to use the app to give feedback on their peers’ oral performance. Then, one group
was randomly chosen to present their mock meeting in front of the whole class, during
which the rest of the students marked this performance with PeerEval. This practice activity
acted as a type of standardization for the whole class in how they might use the grading
rubric. To conclude the practice session, the teacher synthesized all student comments from
each group’s feedback and discussed these with the class. The students were then encour-
aged to use the feedback they had received in order to improve their performance in their
Week 6 teacher-based assessment.
Data Collection and Analysis
Data were gathered in the following ways:
Quantitative data were collected by an attitudinal questionnaire (adapted from Patri,
2002) from one class (N=25) of students at the end of the Week 5 lesson. The question-
naire, containing five 5-point Likert items and five open-ended questions, was used to
get students’ feedback regarding their Week 5 learning experience. The Likert questions
provided a quantitative snapshot of the students’ perceptions of using the app through a
descriptive analysis with a calculation of Mean and Standard Deviation.
Qualitative data were gathered from the open-ended questions in the questionnaire
and from an interview with volunteer students. The five open-ended questions (e.g. Did
you find it difficult to assess your classmates’ talk? If YES, why?) in the questionnaire
were utilized to gain further personalized insights of the mobile-assisted learning experi-
ence. After that, a post-class group interview (e.g. What do you like/dislike about this
app?) was conducted in English with a focus group of four students. These students, from
four different in-class groups, volunteered for the interview and as such can be consid-
ered willing participants who wanted to share their experiences. During the focus group
meeting, some prompts were given by the teacher to elicit students’ opinions regarding
Figure 3. Pedagogical structures of Weeks 4–6 (business meeting simulation).
WU and Miller 173
the app and the learning experience. Interview data were transcribed by the first author
and checked for accuracy by the second author. In addition to these students’ sources of
data, we also had the teacher/first author keep a research journal throughout the project
to reflect on his own use of the app and his observations of the students’ practice of giv-
ing peer feedback in class. Collectively, a thematic analysis was applied to the qualitative
data set. The first author adopted Braun and Clarke’s (2006) thematic analysis proce-
dures and found themes related to the research question. To enhance the validity of the
results, the second author then commented on the preliminary findings for further
improvement. Based on our research question, two broad themes emerged from the anal-
ysis of the student data: peer feedback and the use of technology.
Findings
The Provision of Peer Feedback
Students and the teacher held a positive orientation towards the use of mobile technol-
ogy as a way to improve English speaking performance with this in-class activity.
Students in the survey rated the question: ‘To what extent do you think this app helped
you improve your preparation for the assignment?’ as M=3.96 from 1=very little to
5=very much with a SD=0.79. This may not be surprising as all our students were tech-
savvy and willingly wanted to see if using their smartphones could assist in their lan-
guage improvement. In the open-ended questions, they listed several advantages,
including immediate and anonymous feedback, involvement of the entire class, and the
environmentally friendly and convenient-to-use app. Additionally, our interviewees
(pseudonyms were used) explained:
My group mates have more time to communicate with me. And it’s better than the teacher
because the teacher needs to allocate his time to other students. So I think peers can give more
detailed suggestions (Nam, Year 1)
My group mates may have different opinions about my performance and I can learn from them
(Lee, Year 2).
Yeah, I got to learn some speaking skills from the teacher or from my peers. And also I get a
chance to speak more English in my daily life. So, yeah (Shin, Year 2).
Because you guys as peers can talk equally, telling others what you want her or him to improve.
So I think it is a better way to give each other feedback (Park, Year 1).
Nam recognized the time limitation and appreciated the detailed and real-time feed-
back from his peers while Lee commented that he was able to receive more help from
different group mates. Shin believed that she had improved her speaking via observing
and assessing others’ speaking and getting peer feedback. Moreover, she was grateful for
the chances to make further use of her English skills. This might be considered a some-
what surprising finding since English is the official language in this English-medium
174 RELC Journal 51(1)
instruction (EMI) university, but in monolingual contexts it may not be that unusual to
find that students (and their teachers) often interact with their L1 even in EMI situations
(Hafner et al., 2015). Park, talking from a social power perspective, acknowledged the
equal status in class among peers. Having said that, Park went on to say she did not like
giving negative feedback as she believed, ‘I’ll try to be nice, because we are peers, and
I wouldn’t be so straightforward to point out the problems’. Lee and Nam, on the other
hand, were more direct regarding the provision of critical feedback.
It depends on the seriousness of the problem. If it’s too serious I will criticize it. (Lee).
If I provide suggestions through the app, I will criticize strictly (Nam).
In contrast to Lee and Nam’s directness, Park was held back by her affective con-
cerns. Nam explained his position further: it was because of the anonymity and the
reduced pressure of giving the feedback through a non-face-to-face medium that he
felt more secure about giving negative comments. According to the teacher’s journal,
Nam was a task-oriented and hard-working student while Park demonstrated more
relationship-oriented performance in class. These students grew up within a Chinese
cultural context, known for its face-saving ethos, which may account for some of their
perceptions on giving negative feedback (Wu, 2017). This point will be further dis-
cussed later.
The participants also encountered a number of challenges regarding peer feedback.
Not surprisingly, students expressed their desire for more feedback from the teacher (Xu
et al., 2017). Nam, for example, in the interview explained:
I think it’s better to add teachers’ advice rather than only students’. I think it’s not very
professional enough because there are only students’ suggestions.
Similar thoughts were mentioned in the interview with Park:
More comments from you maybe. I think because you [the teacher] can give us more concrete
advice and because you are the one who gives us marks. So I will bear your comments in mind
more than my peers’.
These comments indicated that students did not wholly trust their peers’ competence
in giving feedback and still heavily relied on their teacher for feedback. This, to some
extent, demonstrated the students’ failure of seeing the purpose of the mobile-assisted
learning activity.
Meanwhile, from the teacher’s observations, it was found that the comment column
was not salient or compulsory so many students did not go beyond the numerical feed-
back and did not offer concrete comments to their peers.
I noticed that, if it’s not compulsory, students (or even me!) will just submit the evaluation form
without filling in the Comment column. It saves time and efforts, but it also makes the app less
constructive and effective to students’ learning (Teacher journal).
WU and Miller 175
The Use of Mobile Technology
Regarding the technological mediation, students generally agreed that PeerEval was
user-friendly as Park remarked that ‘You can directly drop down the marks and com-
ments’. Lee appreciated that ‘The rating system is simple and easy to grade’. Likewise,
the teacher reflected on the usefulness of PeerEval as:
1) A simple interface to locate important information
2) A handy operating system for teachers not used to using technology
3) The synchronous view of scores and average marks for learners and the teacher
4) A useful overall display of marks and comments in the teacher’s account (Teacher
journal)
However, questionnaire respondents and the teacher mentioned some constraints of
PeerEval (Table 1). Among others, the trouble of finding their partners’ names due to
the small screen size on a phone seems to be a problem for most users. However, with
a list of only 25 students this was not considered a major issue. With much larger classes
the name search may become a problem and might frustrate students’ desires to make
use of the app.
Another issue was that the system only allows up to six marking criteria. This limited
what peers could make remarks on and according to the questionnaire survey most stu-
dents commented that the marking descriptions were not detailed enough for them to
accurately evaluate their peers’ speaking. It should, however, be stressed here that dis-
cussions of the rubrics and an exemplar activity had been conducted before the activity
in Week 4 with the students and they may have forgotten how to interpret the rubrics.
Discussion and Conclusion
This preliminary investigation attempts to move forward our understanding of mobile-
assisted peer feedback in L2 speaking. Although small in scale, in this last section, we
Table 1. Student Response to and Teacher Reflections on the Use of PeerEval.
Themes Student Responses (Questionnaire) Teacher Reflections (Teacher
Journal)
Technology ‘It automatically logged out when I
switched to other applications :(
I have to retype all the information.’
‘I need to find my group mate one by
one.’
‘It may set up a group for marking
easily. It is trouble to find out people
to mark one by one.’
‘Students, in a big class, had trouble
finding their partners, especially
when the screen size was not large
enough.’
‘The class was not as large as my
previous class in a Mainland Chinese
university. I wonder how easy it can
be when used in large-size classes.’
Rubrics ‘The marking criteria is too broad.’
‘Only 5 categories can be used.’
‘I couldn’t fit all my 14 marking items
into the system.’
176 RELC Journal 51(1)
are still able to make five points from our study related to the research question we set
out to answer.
First, the app used provided a user-friendly experience for the students and the teacher.
Spontaneity and anonymity of peer feedback were perceived as defining features of
PeerEval among the users. The provision of real-time feedback (as part of a feed-forward
process) to learners on their oral performance was somewhat achieved. Therefore, within
a limited time (3 hours) all students in the class received some feedback on their oral
performance and were expected to use this feedback in the final business meeting assign-
ment. Given the issues of large class size and insufficient class time for speaking practice
using mobile-assisted peer feedback in class may offer a way forward.
Second, involving students in giving peer feedback allowed them to become producers
of knowledge (the evaluator), rather than always relying on teacher feedback (Wu and
Miller, in press). This permitted students to transform their identities and participate more
fully in their speaking assignments. The questionnaire data and interviewee feedback
showed an appreciation to offer and receive peer feedback and due to the collaborative
manner of learning the whole class participated in the activity. This promotion of student
agency echoes Hafner and Miller’s (2019) idea that learners should be empowered in the
whole learning process, through which their learner autonomy will be gradually activated
to achieve better learning outcomes.
Third, the collaborative mode of learning, afforded by using the app, also reflects the
socio-cultural theory of learning in that the learning process is mediated by interactions
under specific social and cultural factors (Vygotsky, 1978). The findings show that affec-
tive concerns have both facilitated and hindered the effectiveness of peer feedback;
learners were more socially equal in providing comments. Yet, their provision of critical
feedback was influenced by the interpersonal relationship. Given that our participants
grew up in a Confucian culture, face and interpersonal values play a pivotal role in this
process and this is something technology, being culturally neutral, cannot account for
(Wu, 2018). However, the anonymity of the feedback makes this app useful, especially
in the Confucian heritage classroom where face-saving is a salient feature of the context
(Xu and Carless, 2017).
Fourth, even with a class size of 25 students, it is difficult for the teacher to constantly
give individual feedback to each student on their oral performance. Involving peers with
the use of technology helped the teacher significantly in this activity. Nonetheless, we
need to take account of the uniqueness of this experience for our students. Our students
still sometimes failed to recognize the usefulness of peer feedback as they lack sufficient
confidence in themselves and their peers to give such feedback. This may not simply be
a matter of training and having students use the app more often, but is also a matter of
building mutual trust through dialogue between teachers and students, and students
themselves. When learners become aware that they can assess their peers accurately, and
their comments can be consistent with the teacher’s, they may become more confident in
their evaluator abilities.
Fifth, although PeerEval is generally perceived as a useful feedback tool for use in
class, technological constraints (Table 1) pose some challenges for students. Feedback to
the app software designer may help with the student problems. From the teacher’s per-
spective, how to effectively train students to become comfortable and confident in giving
WU and Miller 177
critical feedback when using the app is the main issue. More in-class training time of
providing constructive feedback would be useful.
This study adds to the limited research into the use of cutting-edge technology in
helping L2 speakers learn from peer feedback. Drawing on the preliminary findings
from this report, the project is undergoing modifications with a view to implement it
with more students and monitor its use over a longer period of time. To finish, we return
to McCarthy and O’Keeffe’s (2004) quote, which heads the article, and call for teachers
and researchers to investigate the use of technology in class as a way to enhance the
teaching of speaking.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
ORCID iD
Lindsay Miller https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5961-2381
References
Black P, Wiliam D (2018) Classroom assessment and pedagogy. Assessment in Education:
Principles, Policy & Practice 25(6): 551–75.
Braun V, Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology 3(2): 77–101.
Carless D (2007) Learning-oriented assessment: conceptual bases and practical implications.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International 44(1): 57–66.
Kessler G (2018) Technology and the future of language teaching. Foreign Language Annals
51(1): 205–18.
Lam R (2010) A peer review training workshop: coaching students to give and evaluate peer feed-
back. TESL Canada Journal 27(2): 114.
McCarthy M, O’Keeffe A (2004) Research in the teaching of speaking. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics 24: 26–43.
Hafner CA, Li DCS, and Miller L (2015) Language choice among peers in project-based learning:
a Hong Kong case study of english language learners’ plurilingual practices in out-of-class
computer-mediated communication. Canadian Modern Language Review 71(4): 441–470.
Hafner CA, Miller L (2019) English in the Disciplines: A Multidimensional Model for ESP Course
Design. London and New York: Routledge.
Patri M (2002) The influence of peer feedback on self-and peer-assessment of oral skills. Language
Testing 19(2): 109–31.
Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wu JG (2017) Teacher’s presence in synchronous mobile chats in a Chinese university. The
Journal of AsiaTEFL 14(4): 778–783.
Wu JG (2018) Mobile collaborative learning in a Chinese tertiary EFL context. TESL-EJ 22(2):
1–15.
Wu JG, Miller L (in press) Raising native cultural awareness through WeChat: a case study with
Chinese EFL students. Computer Assisted Language Learning: 1–31. doi:10.1080/09588221
.2019.1629962
178 RELC Journal 51(1)
Xu Y, Carless D (2017) Only true friends could be cruelly honest: cognitive scaffolding and social-
affective support in teacher feedback literacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
42(7): 1082–94.
Yu S, Lee I (2016) Understanding the role of learners with low English language proficiency in
peer feedback of second language writing. TESOL Quarterly 50(2): 483–94.
Zhang D, Wang M, and Wu JG (in press) Design and implementation of augmented reality for
English language education. In: Geroimenko V (ed.) Augmented Reality in Education: A
New Technology for Teaching and Learning. Cham: Springer.
