Peer feedback has been widely used in English as a foreign language (EFL) writing classes, but its effect is highly variable and its quality and validity are often questioned by students as well as teachers. This research aims to explore the effects of teacher intervention on student use of different types of peer feedback and on their self-revision of writing texts. The study employed a quasi-experimental design with two experimental groups receiving either the teacher’s direct correction for erroneous peer feedback or indication of inaccurate peer feedback with symbols and a control group receiving no teacher intervention on peer feedback. One hundred and ten non-English major graduate students in three parallel writing classes participated in the study. The study lasted for one and a half months, during which the participants completed two essays, conducted peer feedback, and revised their essay drafts based on the peer feedback received. The adoption rates and accurate revision rates of different types of peer feedback as well as self-correction rates for the three groups were compared and analysed. It was found that the two groups with teacher intervention made significantly more accurate revisions in the subsequent revised essays higher than the control group. Additionally, the adoption rate and accurate revision rate of direct correction were significantly higher than the other two types of feedback. These results have implications for incorporating peer feedback in EFL writing class and for future peer feedback research.
AllenD.KatayamaA. (2016). Relative second language proficiency and the giving and receiving of written peer feedback. System, 56, 96–106.
2.
AllenD.MillsA. (2014). The impact of second language proficiency in dyadic peer feedback. Language Teaching Research, 20, 498–513.
3.
BergE.C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 215–241.
4.
BitchenerJ.KnochU. (2008). The value of written corrective feedback for migrant and international students. Language Teaching Research, 12, 409–431.
5.
BitchenerJ.KnochU. (2009). The relative effectiveness of different types of direct written corrective feedback. System, 37, 322–329.
6.
BitchenerJ.KnochU. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19, 207–217.
7.
BitchenerJ.YoungS.CameronD. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191–205.
8.
CarlessD.BoudD. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43, 1315–1325.
9.
ChandlerJ. (2003). The efficacy of various kinds of error feedback for improvement in the accuracy and fluency of L2 student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 12, 267–296.
10.
ChangC.Y.-H. (2016). Two decades of research in L2 peer review. Journal of Writing Research, 8, 81–117.
11.
ChenT. (2016). Technology-supported peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing classes: A research synthesis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29, 365–397.
12.
ChoK.MacArthurC. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20, 328–338.
13.
ConradS.M.GoldsteinL.M. (1999). ESL student revision after teacher-written comments: Text, contexts, and individuals. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 147–179.
14.
DresslerR.ChuM.-W.CrossmanK.HilmanB. (2019). Quantity and quality of uptake: Examining surface and meaning-level feedback provided by peers and an instructor in a graduate research course. Assessing Writing, 39, 14–24.
15.
FerrisD.R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315–339.
16.
GuardadoM.ShiL. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 24, 443–461.
17.
HattieJ.TimperleyH. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.
18.
HuG. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9, 321–342.
19.
HuG.LamS.T.E. (2010). Issues of cultural appropriateness and pedagogical efficacy: Exploring peer review in a second language writing class. Instructional Science, 38, 371–394.
20.
JacobsG.M.CurtisA.BraineG.HuangS.-Y. (1998). Feedback on student writing: Taking the middle path. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7, 307–317.
21.
LamR. (2010). A peer review training workshop: Coaching students to give and evaluate peer feedback. TESL Canada Journal, 27, 114–127.
22.
LamR. (2013). The relationship between assessment types and text revision. ELT Journal, 67, 446–458.
23.
LeeM.-K. (2015). Peer feedback in second language writing: Investigating junior secondary students’ perspectives on inter-feedback and intra-feedback. System, 55, 1–10.
24.
LiouH.-C.PengZ.-Y. (2009). Training effects on computer-mediated peer review. System, 37, 514–525.
25.
LiuJ.SadlerR.W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2, 193–227.
26.
LuJ.LawN. (2012). Online peer assessment: Effects of cognitive and affective feedback. Instructional Science, 40, 257–275.
27.
MinH.-T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33, 293–308.
28.
MinH.-T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 118–141.
29.
MinH.-T. (2016). Effect of teacher modeling and feedback on EFL students’ peer review skills in peer review training. Journal of Second Language Writing, 31, 43–57.
30.
MinH.-T. (2018). Trained peer written feedback and teacher written feedback: Similar or different?English Teaching and Learning, 42, 131–153.
31.
NelsonM.M.SchunnC.D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37, 375–401.
32.
PatchanM.M.SchunnC.D.CorrentiR.J. (2016). The nature of feedback: How peer feedback features affect students’ implementation rate and quality of revisions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 1098–1120.
33.
RahimiM. (2013). Is training student reviewers worth its while? A study of how training influences the quality of students’ feedback and writing. Language Teaching Research, 17, 67–89.
34.
RobbT.RossS.ShortreedI.A.N. (1986). Salience of feedback on error and its effect on EFL writing quality. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 83–96.
35.
RueggR. (2015). Differences in the uptake of peer and teacher feedback. RELC Journal, 46, 131–145.
36.
ShenB.BaiB.XueW. (2020). The effects of peer assessment on learner autonomy: An empirical study in a Chinese college English writing class. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 64, 100821.
37.
StorchN. (2019). Collaborative writing as peer feedback. In HylandF.HylandK. (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 143–162). Cambridge University Press.
38.
SuttonP. (2012). Conceptualizing feedback literacy: Knowing, being, and acting. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 49, 31–40.
39.
TaiJ.AjjawiR.BoudD.DawsonP.PanaderoE. (2018). Developing evaluative judgement: Enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. Higher Education, 76, 467–481.
40.
ToppingK.J. (2010). Methodological quandaries in studying process and outcomes in peer assessment. Learning and Instruction, 20, 339–343.
41.
TsuiA.B.M.NgM. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments?Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 147–170.
42.
Van BeuningenC.G.De JongN.H.KuikenF. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62, 1–41.
43.
Van der PolJ.Van den BergB.A.M.AdmiraalW.F.SimonsP.R.J. (2008). The nature, reception, and use of online peer feedback in higher education. Computers and Education, 51, 1804–1817.
44.
VillamilO.S.De GuerreroM.C.M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision on L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 19, 491–514.
45.
VygotskyL.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process. Harvard University Press.
46.
WärnsbyA.KauppinenA.AullL.L.LeijenD.A.J.MoxleyJ.M. (2018). Affective language in student peer reviews: Exploring data from three institutional contexts. Journal of Academic Writing, 8, 28–53.
47.
WuZ. (2019). Lower English proficiency means poorer feedback performance? A mixed-methods study. Assessing Writing, 41, 14–24.
48.
YangM.BadgerR.YuZ. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179–200.
49.
YuS.LeeI. (2016). Peer feedback in second language writing (2005-2014). Language Teaching, 49, 461–493.
50.
ZhaoH. (2010). Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: A comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 15, 3–17.
ZhuW. (2001). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 251–276.
53.
ZimmermanB.J.KitsantasA. (2002). Acquiring writing revision and self-regulatory skill through observation and emulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 660–668.
