Students’ Perspectives on the Use of Peer Feedback in an English … · 2014. 10. 14. · the use of peer feedback in an English as a Second Language (ESL) classroom or among second-language

27

Students’ Perspectives on the Use of Peer Feedback in anEnglish as a Second Language Writing Class

Journal of Interdisciplinary Research in Education Volume 4, Issue 1, 2014

AbstractPeer assessment and peer feedback are considered alternatives to teacher-based feedback and their effects on writing have been substantially researched. This study aims to examine the perspectives of a group of university students, who are mainly second language learners, on peer feedback in an English writing class. Many of the studies conducted on the perspectives of students regarding peer feedback provided conflicting findings. While some found that peer feedback was viewed with doubt and encouraged little revision, others found it helped learners to recognise their strengths and flaws in writing. This study aims to better understand students’ perspectives regarding peer feedback and to identify the concerns raised by students involved in the study. The findings from this study revealed that the participants of the study had a positive perspective on the use of peer feedback and on the use of an online peer feedback tool. The study also showed that past experience did not contribute towards a negative perspective of peer feedback among the participants. The findings from this study are useful for future research in designing a better peer feedback process and improve its implementation.

Key words: Peer feedback, online peer feedback, peer assessment, English as a second language learner, feedback tools

INTRODUCTIONThe use of peer assessment and peer feedback in English writing classrooms has been widely supported by many researches as a learning tool that holds a variety of benefits. However, the majority of the literature concerning peer feedback in English classrooms are focused on first-language learners (L1). Only a small number of research had studied the use of peer feedback in an English as a Second Language (ESL) classroom or among second-language learners (L2) of English. What is interesting to note is that research

Journal of Interdisciplinary Research in Education (JIRE) ISSN 2232-0180Vol. 4, Issue 1, 2014, pp. 27-40

Students’ Perspectives on the Use of Peer Feedback in an English as a Second Language Writing Class

Kavitha Sukumaran School of Hospitality, Tourism and Culinary Arts, Taylor’s University, Malaysia

Rozita DassSchool of Education, Taylor’s University, Malaysia

© The Author(s) 2014. This article is published with open access by Taylor’s Press.

* Corresponding author: Kavitha Sukumaran Email: [email protected]

JIRE is a publication of the Centre for Research in Education & InstructionalTechnologies, School of Education, Taylor’s University Sdn Bhd

28

Kavitha Sukumaran & Rozita Dass


regarding peer feedback on L1 and L2 writing classes provided conflicting findings. In the case of L1 writing, studies showed that peer feedback was as effective as teacher comments whereas studies on L2 writing revealed that students mainly had doubts regarding the value of peer feedback (Zhang, 1995; Cheng & Warren, 1997). On the other hand, Chaudron (1984) conducted an attitude survey and found that students had a more positive attitude if feedback was received from native speakers, suggesting that “foreign students are cautious about the value of peer feedback as a source of aid in revising their writing” (p.10). Smith, Cooper & Lancaster (2002) in their research on peer feedback in a L2 classroom highlighted that although students expressed a higher level of confidence in the peer feedback process over time and continual experience, there still remained within them an ‘‘unease about fairness and consistency regarding peer feedback’’ (p. 76).

Although these studies documented students’ attitudes toward peer feedback, they offered absolute no information on the factors that cause such negative attitudes. Most research provided a qualitative observation of what may have caused such perspectives, for example, Liu & Carless (2006) noted that one reason being that students doubt the expertise of their fellow students (as compared to their instructors) or the problematic power relations that students associate with assessing their peers (Falchikov, 2001; Liu & Carless, 2006; Smith et al., 2002). These studies indicate that students are not comfortable with the non-traditional idea of their peers assessing their writing in place of an instructor.

In order to encourage the use of peer feedback in an ESL classroom and recognise the benefits from using peer feedback, studies have been carried out to identify certain steps to alleviate students’ negative perspectives of peer feedback. Some have advocated for teachers to include more peer feedback experience (Wen & Tsai, 2006), to provide more clarity about peer feedback criteria (Falchikov, 2001; Smith et al., 2002) and to provide support and training with regards to the peer feedback process (Cheng & Warren, 1997; Falchikov, 2001). Liu, Chiu, Lin & Yuan (1999) also indicated that online feedback systems may reduce the negative perspectives of peer feedback because of the anonymity of the reviewer which reduces the problematic power relations that appear between peers when assessing. This method also frees writers and reviewers from time and location constraints to complete their work as well as facilitates an increased teacher-student and student-student interaction and feedback. However, these recommendations are not based on empirical evidence about the origins of students’ anxiety and negativity about peer feedback. As such, there is a need for further investigation into students’ perspectives on peer feedback and factors that influence such perspectives.

The main purpose of this study is to understand how students perceive peer feedback in an English writing class with mainly L2 users. This study makes use of an online peer feedback tool which takes into account the major concerns students had regarding peer feedback in previous studies. The concerns of students regarding the use of peer feedback

29



and the online peer feedback were also investigated. Information gathered would be used to create and implement a better peer feedback tool in the ESL writing class.

REVIEW OF LITERATUREPeer Assessment and Peer Feedback in GeneralPeer assessment and peer feedback have recently been used in higher education institutions as an alternative feedback method. Falchikov (1995) defined peer assessment and peer feedback as the practice through which groups of individuals provide formative reviews or summative grading for their peers. Falchikov (2001) further elaborated the concept of peer assessment:

In peer assessment, members of the class grade the work or performance of their peers using relevant criteria…In peer assessment, students engage in reflective criticism of the work or performance of other students using previously identified criteria and supply feedback to them…(pp. 2-3).

Therefore, a peer feedback exercise entails students using their knowledge and skills to review and clarify works of their peers (Ballantyne, Hughes & Mylonas, 2002). Due to the highly cognitive demand of these tasks, the quality of learning is improved and learners are empowered, especially the student assessors (McDowell, 1995; Topping, 1998). Student involvement can be directly seen not only in the final judgement of the student work but also in the selection of the achievement criteria (Biggs, 1999; Brown, Rust & Gibbs, 1994).

Thus the whole process of peer feedback inspires students to be critical, autonomous learners as they become more adept at using feedback criteria and developing a clearer notion of the topic that is assessed (Falchikov, 1995; Searby & Ewers, 1997). If peer feedback is thoughtfully carried out, it can assist the student in developing various learning and life skills, as in learner responsibility, thinking strategies and appraisal skills.

Studies on Students’ Perspectives of Peer FeedbackMany studies established that students view the use of peer feedback positively. Warkentin, Griffin, Quinn & Griffin (1995) explored peer and self-assessment in a study involving 83 undergraduate educational psychology students. The study showed that the students reacted significantly positive towards the peer and self-assessment process and they thought it contributed to their learning.

In Gatfield’s (1999) and Stefani’s (1994) studies, student attitudes regarding peer assessment were also explored. Gatfield (1999) utilised peer assessment in an international marketing management course and got students to provide feedback regarding their attitudes on the peer assessment that was conducted. Data analysis showed there was a

30



high level of student satisfaction. In Stefani’s study (1994), students revealed that peer assessment made them think more, and 85% of the students preferred peer assessment in the learning process in comparison to traditional assessment.

On the other hand, not all students who had to undergo peer assessment had positive views of the assessments. In several studies, the concerns and negative perspectives of students regarding peer feedback were explored. Lopez-Real & Chan (1999) carried out peer feedback with a group of students at Hong Kong University and assessed it using questionnaires and in-depth interviews. Their findings showed that, although most of the students revealed that the peer feedback had improved their contribution in the project, some of the students stated that they were uncomfortable when assessing their peers. They did not want to use comments like “Fair” or “Poor” on their peers because they believed this could affect the person’s feelings, spoil relationships, and make the student look bad to the teacher and other students.

Brindley and Scoffield (1998) studied a sample of 80 students regarding their attitudes and experience of a peer feedback exercise. Several students highlighted the limitations of peer feedback, such as personal bias on the feedback exercise, the interpretation of criteria, and the capacity of the students to be reviewers. Some students viewed peer feedback as a motivation to accomplish the task, while others saw it as an unfair system that lacked reliability. More than half the students considered feedback and marking as a role exclusively for the teacher.

In terms of studies regarding peer feedback in English writing classrooms, Zhang (1995) pointed out that ESL students generally favour feedback from their teachers rather than peers. Students are generally unclear about the objective and benefits of peer feedback. L2 learners generally feel that only a better writer or a native speaker is qualified to judge or comment on their written work and that feedback received from peers whose English level is approximately the same as theirs is a poor substitute to the teacher’s written feedback.

Similarly, Cheng & Warren (1997) studied the attitudes of 52 undergraduate Hong Kong Chinese students enrolled in a English for Academic Purposes class towards peer assessment, prior to and after a peer assessment activity. At first, students were not entirely at ease or confident in their skills to review their peers. After the peer assessment activity was conducted, however, there was an overall positive change in both attitude and confidence. The study indicated that there was still a number of students who continued feeling negative about peer assessment for the following reasons: the students did not feel competent enough to award marks, the students doubted their own as well as the peer’s subjectivity when awarding marks, students felt limited training was provided for peer feedback, and felt that the responsibility to award marks to peers was too big.

31



Recommendations by Previous Studies on Peer Assessment and Peer FeedbackAlthough most studies revealed that ESL students preferred teacher feedback, some students still wanted feedback from peers as one type of response on their work (Cheng & Warren, 1997). This positive attitude can be further enhanced by taking into account the concerns raised by students. Cheng & Warren (1997) proposed that in order to help students cultivate positive attitudes towards peer assessment, it was necessary to : a) provide comprehensive training to them, b) involve them in the discussion of establishing feedback criteria, c) come to a mutual agreement between teacher and students on the appropriate weightage of the final grade/mark, and d) instil a sense of awareness and responsibility in the group of students. Bloxham & West (2004) also explored how training provision for the assessment process might develop students’ understanding of assessment criteria. Their findings revealed that students believed that the feedback criteria appeared to help them improve their performance and mark their peers’ work more accurately.

Another aspect to be taken into account in peer feedback is subjectivity and prejudice and one way to avoid them is through online peer feedback. Li & Steckelberg’s (2006) study that explored students’ perspectives and attitudes toward online peer feedback revealed that one of the features that was well-liked was the anonymity aspect provided by this online peer feedback system. This method provided a “calmer” environment and lessened the feeling of pressure from peers. By ensuring student anonymity, it minimises the effect of peer pressure, therefore making the feedback more accurate. As such, Li & Steckelberg (2006) suggested using online feedback systems that guarantee anonymity to lessen peer pressure, which seems to contribute directly to the negative outlook on peer feedback.

The literature on peer feedback outlines the benefits of implementing peer feedback in a classroom and reveals that students generally have a positive attitude when involved in the process itself. However, there are a number of students who continue to have negative perspectives regarding peer assessment and grading by peers. This negative perspective implies that improvements must be made to the whole process of peer feedback. This study thus intends to design peer feedback in a writing classroom that takes into account the various issues that have been raised by students in previous studies.

METHODOLOGYResearch DesignThis study used a mixed methods approach. The primary source of data for this study came from questionnaires and open-ended questions administered to each participant in the study. The administration of the questionnaires and open-ended questions were conducted after students had received their final feedback from their peers and completed their final essay draft. By combining the datasets, the problem could be better understood than if datasets from either quantitative or qualitative approach had been used on their own.

32



A quantitative approach might have excluded important perspectives about how students perceive peer feedback individually in the collaborative learning environment, therefore open-ended questions were employed as well to uncover personal experiences, feelings or perspectives that might be significant to the central research questions. According to Creswell (1999), the use of mixed methods research provides more comprehensive evidence for studying a research problem than either quantitative or qualitative methods alone.

Population and SampleThe participants chosen for this study were final year students who were undertaking a culinary arts degree. There were two main reasons for choosing this group of students as the participants of the study. The first reason was the course that these students were taking has an English language learning module which requires them to write academic essays as well as creative food write-ups as part of the learning outcome. This enabled the researcher to conduct writing tasks and implement peer feedback for those tasks. Secondly, the researcher had access to a wide range of the participants’ activities as the researcher was also the teacher for the particular module the participants were taking. This allowed the researcher to be able to observe almost all of the participants’ activities and help students who had problems during the course. As such, participants were able to feel comfortable with the presence of the researcher and this in turn, created a mutual relationship of trust.

Instrumentation and Data CollectionTo understand what students think about peer feedback and online peer feedback, a 4-point Likert scale questionnaire and 5 open-ended questions that were based on previous studies (Brindley & Scoffield, 1998; Cheng & Warren, 1997; Falchikov, 1995) was developed.

Before the participants provided feedback on their peers’ essays, they were trained by the researcher on how and what to provide feedback on. They were also taught to use the Workshop module under the TIMES (Taylor’s Integrated Moodle E-Learning System) which is a Web-based client-server application that allows students to submit their essay drafts online. The Workshop module was the online peer feedback tool that was used for this study. Each draft was then distributed to two students who reviewed and evaluated their peers’ work. The reviews that the students submitted back to their peers must include written feedback. When all the reviews were received, the Workshop module provided students with their peers’ feedback. After receiving their reviews, students rewrote their papers and turned in a final draft to the teacher who assessed the paper. For this study, the participants were engaged in this writing-reviewing-revising-reviewing process for each paper that they wrote.

33



The participants were subjected to a survey that analysed three dimensions, namely positive attitude, online attitude and negative attitude, after the peer review exercise. The five open-ended questions that were also included investigated about the students’ perspectives and concerns on peer feedback and the use of an online feedback system:1) How did you feel when you had to assess your peer?2) Why do you think peer review has been placed in this course?3) Do you have any concerns regarding the use of peer feedback?4) Do you have any concerns regarding the use of online peer feedback?5) What is your general view regarding using an online peer feedback tool compared to

a normal peer feedback exercise?

The scores for each dimension were obtained by adding the scores from the items of the same subscale and then dividing by the number of items in that subscale.

Ethical ConsiderationsWhen conducting the study, participants were informed of the procedures involved in the study and the potential problems that may arise from it. For example, students who were unfamiliar with the use of online feedback tools or uncomfortable with using technology-assisted learning may find the process of reviewing their peers using an online tool too difficult. Students who faced such complications with the system were given the necessary help or an alternative was provided to them by getting them to review without the online tool. Participants’ confidentiality was maintained and they were informed that their responses in the survey would not affect their grades in any way. Only when students had consented to participate in the study after being informed of the necessary details, were they allowed to participate in research. In addition, the participants were also assured that they could withdraw from the study at any time.

FINDINGSInstrument validationThe first part of the questionnaire contained 19 Likert scale statements (1 to 4) concerning the use of peer feedback with “1” indicating strong agreement and “4” indicating strong disagreement (2.5 being the neutral value). The exploratory factor analysis of the 4-point Likert questionnaire yielded 3 subscales and 19 items (Table 1). Based on the characteristics they shared, the three subscales were called Positive Attitude Subscale (PAS), Online Attitude Subscale (OAS) and Negative Attitude Subscale (NAS). PAS contained 12 items related to students’ positive attitude towards peer feedback in general. These items asked the perspectives of students on the usefulness of peer feedback in learning, in enhancing classroom interactions and the element of fairness. OAS comprised five online related items, including the advantage of online peer feedback to save time, increased classroom interactions and fairness. The last subscale, NAS, had two items describing peer feedback in a negative sense. These items described the time-consuming

34



aspect of peer feedback and students’ perspective on who should be responsible for providing feedback.

Table 1. Description of subscalesSubscale Item and description n Mean SD

PAS 1. Peer feedback is helpful in improving the quality of my written work

2. Peer feedback makes me understand more about the teacher’s requirement for a written work

3. Providing feedback for others can improve my skills in assessing my own written work

4. Peer feedback activities motivate me to learn to write better

5. Peer feedback activities increase the interaction between my teacher and me

6. Peer feedback helps me develop a sense of participation in my writing class

11

11

11

11

11

11

1.91

1.82

1.82

2.00

2.00

2.09

0.539

0.405

0.751

0.447

0.894

0.539

7. Peer feedback activities increase the interaction between my classmates and me

8. I think using peer feedback is a useful method in providing feedback to students

13. Peer feedback activities help me understand what other classmates think

14. Having a criteria for peer feedback helps me to construct meaningful feedback

15. Students should participate in the development of criteria for peer feedback activities

17. There should be a sample essay and sample feedback given to help with the peer feedback process

11

11

11

11

11

11

1.82

1.64

1.64

1.82

2.18

1.64

0.751

0.505

0.674

0.751

0.874

0.505

OAS 9. Online peer feedback activities can be time-saving

10. Online peer feedback activities can increase the interaction among classmates

11. Online peer feedback activities can increase the interaction between the teacher and students

12. Online peer feedback activities is a fair method when used to provide feedback to students

16. The aspect of anonymity in online peer feedback activities enable me to provide a more critical feedback

11

11

11

11

11

1.91

2.64

2.45

2.09

1.64

0.831

0.505

0.688

0.539

0.674

35



NAS 17. I think students should not be responsible for providing feedback on peers’ written work

18. Online peer feedback is time-consuming

11

11

1.91

2.27

0.831

0.647

The composite reliability of this 19-item instrument was 0.69 which was within the acceptable reliability value.

Overall AttitudeThe overall attitude of the respondents is shown in Table 2. Results from the analysis showed that respondents generally had a very positive attitude towards peer feedback (mean = 1.96, s= 0.25).

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for overall attituden Mean SD

PAS, OAS & NAS 11 1.96 0.257

Responses to OASA detailed descriptive analysis of the participants’ responses in the OAS subscale is presented in Table 3. Item 9 asked students if online peer feedback can be time-saving, item 10 asked if online peer feedback activities can increase interaction among classmates, item 11 questioned if online peer feedback activities could increase interaction between teacher and students, item 12 inquired if online peer feedback is a fair method when used to provide feedback and item 16 sought to determine if the aspect of anonymity in online peer feedback activities enables the student to provide a more critical feedback. A sample t-test was conducted to compare the mean of students’ responses to these items with the value 2.5 (a value of equal to or lesser than 2.5 meant that students viewed the item positively). Table 3 confirms that students perceive positively (statistically) the benefits of online peer feedback. A highly positive attitude was seen for the anonymity aspect of the online peer feedback activity (item 16, mean = 1.91) and its time-saving factor (item 9, mean = 1.91). A more negative attitude was seen regarding increasing classroom interaction through the online peer feedback activity (item 10, mean = 2.64 and item 11, mean = 2.54).

Table 3. Descriptive statistics and one sample t-test of OAS item responsesItem N Mean SD T

9 11 1.91 0.831 -2.35810 11 2.64 0.505 0.89611 11 2.45 0.688 -0.21912 11 2.09 0.539 -2.51616 11 1.64 0.674 -4.249

36



DISCUSSIONAs this study is an initial attempt to investigate peer feedback, the composite reliability measure of 0.69 is acceptable; however, this instrument needs to be revised in future to achieve a better reliability score. Using the data deduced from the factor analysis, several t-tests were conducted and two interesting points emerged. Firstly, past experience in peer feedback did not play much of a role in the students’ attitudes towards peer feedback. 54% (9 respondents) of the participants in the study had never been exposed to peer feedback before and this implies that in this study, the reluctance towards peer feedback is not necessarily affected by the lack of past experience with peer feedback. The responses given by the participants in the open-ended question section reiterated this as 81% of participants gave a positive response towards the question “What did you feel when you had to assess and provide feedback to your peers?” The response most often cited was that it gave students the opportunity to find different writing ideas (27%) and that students were able to learn from their peers (27%). These positive responses corresponded with the mean obtained from items 1 and 3 (Table 1) of the questionnaire which asked if the students felt that peer feedback helped improve their writing and whether peer feedback enabled them to learn from their peers.

One student’s response to this question sums up the attitude of a majority of the participants regarding the use of peer feedback:

“I feel it is one way to learn instead of just assessing other’s work. From others’ writings, there can be styles that may be used by the author that is relevant and new to me.”

18% of the participants (2 respondents) initially had negative feelings which later turned into a positive attitude regarding the use of peer feedback. One respondent mentioned:

“Uncomfortable initially but felt normal after a period of time.”

and another respondent who viewed the difficulty of providing feedback from the standpoint of a teacher:

“A major headache. Now I know how difficult a teacher’s life can be.”

Both these responses do not show a complete adverse reaction towards peer feedback but merely showcased the initial reaction and understanding of the complexity of the activity.

An itemised analysis of the descriptive information from the OAS subscale showed that students agreed that online peer feedback was very beneficial especially in terms of the anonymity that it creates for the user and the time-saving factor. This is also supported by the open-ended question which asked “What is your general view regarding using an

37



online peer feedback tool as compared to a normal peer feedback exercise?” 54% of the participants answered that it was less time-consuming and saves money from not having to print the essays. The participants also liked the anonymity that an online peer feedback tool provides, citing reasons like:

“Being online helps me to be more critical and generally not partial to my peers’ feelings”

and

“It is or is at least more fair under the face of anonymity.”

However, the statistical analysis on OAS revealed that students did not have a highly positive perspective that online peer feedback activities could be advantageous in increasing interaction in the classroom. It is possible that students treated the online peer feedback method as only a technical tool to facilitate communications and to upload and download classroom assignments rather than a process of learning and sharing experiences. If so, then online peer feedback is perceived only as an exercise for information delivery and communication. Therefore, in implementing online peer feedback, educators need to design appropriate strategies to help students focus more on the learning processes involved in peer feedback activities and not simply on the technical support of the Internet technology. Instead of just allocating the essays to the reviewer, the peer feedback tool should enable students to communicate with the writer of the essay so that questions arising during the review process can be communicated.

Lastly, the open-ended questions of “Do you have any concerns regarding the use of peer feedback?” and “Do you have any concerns regarding the use of online peer feedback?” sought to understand better the negative attitudes of the participants which could not be captured from the statistical analysis. 63% of participants replied that they had no concerns for peer feedback and the use of an online tool for peer feedback. However, two common concerns for both methods of providing feedback was the issue of fairness with one participant asking:

“Do our peers actually understand how to evaluate our essays?”

and feedback being too critical with a participant saying:

“I’m scared they comment very negatively till I lost the motivation to write.”

These concerns resemble issues highlighted by students in similar studies (Lopez-Real & Chan, 1999; Chang & Warren, 1997) with students feeling uncomfortable about the peer feedback process and some students feeling that the process of providing feedback is best done by the teacher.

38



CONCLUSIONThe findings from this study found that the participants viewed positively general and online peer feedback activities but they generally seem to consider online peer feedback as a technical tool rather than a tool for interaction among classmates and teacher. The instrument designed in this study could be used in future to examine changes in students’ attitude before and after a peer feedback (or an online peer feedback) exercise. More in-depth interviews with students coupled with the use of this instrument may provide a fuller understanding of students’ views towards online peer feedback methods in the context of learning. One may also argue that different online peer feedback activities may have different effects upon students’ acceptance of peer feedback; however, this point needs to be supported by further research. More research integrating the use of interviews and quantitative instruments, such as the one developed in this study, may also reveal students’ views toward peer feedback using online interfaces and the relationship between feedback and learning processes/outcomes.

Although students are mostly in favour of peer feedback, there is a need to consider the minority who had expressed their concerns towards the notion of peer feedback. The comments of these students indicate that students’ understanding of the feedback criteria is crucial at every stage of a peer feedback exercise. There are good reasons, both pedagogical and psychological, for giving systematic and comprehensive training to students, involving students in discussing and establishing the feedback criteria (see for example, Williams, 1992, pp. 52-55), and building up a sense of awareness and responsibility in the group of students. These measures should go a long way in ensuring that the peer feedback exercise is administered fairly and responsibly as well as helping students to feel more comfortable about the whole activity.

Open Access: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0) which permits any use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

REFERENCESBiggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university, 1st Ed. Buckingham: SRHE

and Open University Press.

Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K., & Mylonas, A. (2002). Developing procedures for implementing peer assessment in large classes using an action research Process. Feedback & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 427–441.

Bloxham, S. & West, A. (2004). Understanding the rules of the game: Marking peer assessment as a medium for developing students’ conceptions of assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(6), 721–733.

39



Brindley, C. & Scoffield, S. (1998). Peer assessment in undergraduate programs. Teaching in Higher Education, 3(1), 79–89.

Brown, S., Rust, C. & Gibbs, G. (1994). Strategies for diversifying assessment in higher education. Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Staff Development.

Chaudron, C. (1984). The effects of feedback on students’ composition revisions. RELC Journal, 15(1), 1–14.

Cheng, W. & Warren, M. (1997). Having second thoughts: student perceptions before and after a peer assessment exercise. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 233-239.

Creswell, J. W. (1999). Mixed-method research: Introduction and application. In G. Cizek (Ed.), Handbook of educational policy (pp. 455 – 472). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: developing peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 32(2), 175–187.

Falchikov, N. (2001). Learning together: peer tutoring in higher education. London: Routledge Falmer.

Gatfield, T. (1999). Examining student satisfaction with group projects and peer assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 365–377.

Li, L. & Steckelberg, A. L. (2006). Perspectives of web-mediated peer assessment.Academic Exchange Quarterly, 10(2), 265–270.

Liu, E. Z. F., Chiu, C. H., Lin, S. S. J., & Yuan, S. M. (1999). Student participation in computer science courses via the Networked Peer Feedback System (NetPeas).Proceedings of the ICCE’99, 1, 774–777.

Liu, N.-F. & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290.

Lopez-Real, F. & Chan, Y.P. R. (1999). Peer assessment of a group project in a primary mathematics education course. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(1), 67–79.

McDowell, L. (1995). The impact of innovative assessment on student learning. Innovation in Education and Training International, 32(4), 302–313.

40



Searby, M. & Ewers, T. (1997). An evaluation of the use of peer assessment in higher education: A case study in the School of Music, Kingston University. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 22(4), 371–383.

Smith, H., Cooper, A. & Lancaster, L. (2002). Improving the quality of undergraduate peer assessment: a case for student and staff development. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(1), 71–81.

Stefani, A. J. (1994). Peer, self and tutor assessment: relative reliabilities. Studies in Higher Education, 19(1), 69–75.

Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276.

Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 146–169.

Warkentin, R.W., Griffin, M.M., Quinn, G.P., & Griffin, B.W. (1995). An exploration of the effects of cooperative feedback on student knowledge structure. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Wen, M. L. & Tsai, C. (2006). University students’ perspectives of and attitudes toward (online) peer assessment. Higher Education, 51(1), 27–44.

Williams, E. (1992) Student attitudes towards approaches to learning and assessment.Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 17(1), 45-58.

Zhang, S. (1995). Re-examining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209–222.

Documents

Students’ Perspectives on the Use of Peer Feedback in an English … · 2014. 10. 14. · the use of peer feedback in an English as a Second Language (ESL) classroom or among second-language