Mayada Ibrahim 98119934

RTL Assignment two

PART A Literature Review

Overarching Question: What are effective feedback strategies to improve student

learning?

Sub Question: Does ‘peer feedback’ have a positive effect on improving secondary
students’ written compositions?

Prior to examining the specific research on the effectiveness of peer feedback on

written compositions , this literature review will first present a brief overview of the
two most common types of teacher feedback (oral and written ) and their
effectiveness in terms of improving secondary students’ learning.

Brief Overview on Feedback

Hattie and Timperley (2007) define feedback as “information provided by an agent

(e.g., teacher, peer, book, parent, self, experience) regarding aspects of one’s

performance or understanding” (p.g81) .They further argue that feedback is one of

the most powerful influences on learning and achievement. This is echoed by

DeNobile, Lyons and Kelly (2017) who assert that feedback is important to the

student’s motivation for further learning. However, as Kluger and DeNisi, (1996).

remind us, not all feedback is effective in terms of leading to performance

improvement. Gibbs and Simpson (2004) argue that written feedback is most

effective when it is timely, detailed, and focused on students’ learning rather than on

the students themselves. Sutton, Hornset & Douglas, 2012) further assert that

written feedback that focuses on the student rather than on the work itself is

counterproductive because it provides little direction for improvement. Moreover,

(Kamiya (2014) argues that oral corrective feedback, although immediate, can also

be counterproductive as it could potentially lead to humiliating students which in

turn can create an uncomfortable learning environment . In all, the research shows

that feedback is instrumental to students’ learning however not all feedback

strategies are equally effective.

1
Mayada Ibrahim 98119934
RTL Assignment two

Purpose

The purpose of this literature review is to examine research on the effectiveness of

peer feedback in improving secondary students’ written compositions .This paper will

first discuss the differences between peer and teacher feedback followed by the

benefits of peer feedback on written compositions, and finally examine instructional

interventions that support the effective use of peer feedback on written compositions.

Peer feedback versus teacher feedback

Peer feedback, is defined as "the use of learners as sources of information, and

interactions for each other in such a way that learners assume roles and

responsibilities normally taken on by a formally trained teacher, tutor or editor

in commenting on and critiquing each other's drafts in both written and oral

formats in the process of writing" (Liu & Hansen, 2002, p.1). As the counterpart of

teacher feedback, peer feedback is a form of collaborative learning that is performed

by equal status learners (Webb, 1991) as opposed to teacher feedback which is

performed by experts with specific skills that are not available to pupils (Sadler,

1998). These skills according to Gielen et al., (2009) include “superior knowledge, a

set of attitudes and dispositions towards teaching, and a deep knowledge of criteria

and standards into the set of expectations for a specific assignment” (p.g145). Gielen

et.al., (2009) emphasise that the main difference between teacher and peer

feedback is that unlike teachers, peers are not domain experts, therefore the

accuracy of peer feedback varies. This idea is shared by Topping (1998) who argues

that unlike the teacher, the peer assessor is not regarded as “knowledge authority”

and this could lead to students feeling reluctant to accept the judgement or advice of

2
Mayada Ibrahim 98119934
RTL Assignment two

their peers. This is further echoed by Sadler (1998) who argues that because

teachers are regard as ‘knowledge authorities’, students regard their feedback more

trustworthy than peer feedback. However, as Saddler (1998) points out, one of the

disadvantages of teacher feedback is that teachers have to divide their time among

numerous students in a classroom. In contrast, peer feedback allows students to

receive more one- on- one time form the assessor. Another difference between

teacher and peer feedback is that unlike teacher feedback, peer feedback does not

contribute to final grades (Gielen et al., 2009). However as research conducted by

(Tsui & Ng, 2000) highlights, the comments provided by peers can be just as

effective and in some cases even greater than teacher comments. Similarly, Sadler

(1998) argues that students can be trained to develop feedback skills that are

equally effective as teacher feedback. On the contrary, Cho and MacArthur (2011)

argue that peer feedback should not substitute teacher feedback because students

do not have the appropriate skills required.

Benefits of peer feedback

According to Topping (2003), one of the benefits of peer feedback on written

compositions is that it is easy to understand and interpret because unlike their

teachers, peers are not experts in their domain, therefore they are on the same

level as each other. This according to (Higgins, 2000) also relates to issues with

power dynamics as students may feel uncomfortable with showing teachers

weaknesses in their writing, whereas peer feedback may by- pass because it is less

power-sensitive. (Lundstorm & Baker, 2009) also argue that when students critically

examine their peers' written compositions, they will be able to do the same for their

own writing. Cole (1991) further argues that peer feedback motivates students to

perform well on written tasks because students tend to want to impress their fellow

classmates. Gibbs & Simpson, (2004) also point out that when students are aware

3
Mayada Ibrahim 98119934
RTL Assignment two

that their writing is going to be judged by fellow students, they tend to spend more

time and effort on it. Moreover, Gibbs et al., (2004) indicate that peer feedback

allows students to gain a deeper understanding of the feedback process because

they get to witness what occurs behind the scenes of an assessment. This according

to Rust et al., (2003) allows students to internalise the learning goals, criteria and

standards of a writing assessment task which in turn will improve their performance

on it. In addition, peer feedback is usually provided immediately after a writing task is

performed which according to Gibbs & Simpson, (2004) may have more of an effect

than feedback that is provided by teachers much later .Gibbs and Simpson (2004)

further highlight that peer feedback can lead to an increase in the amount of

feedback provided to students, because teachers usually do not have the time to

provide frequent feedback throughout the learning process. Increasing the

frequency of feedback according to Rust et al. (2003) will help support students’

writing more effectively. Moreover, (Gielen et al., 2009) argue that because

teachers generally do not have the time to provide frequent and personalised

feedback, they tend to provide the class with collective feedback. This according to

Gibbs & Simpson (2004) does not allow the teacher to address the individual needs

of students; in this case, peer feedback can make it possible for students to receive

individualised feedback on their written compositions. While there is an array of

research that shows the numerous benefits to peer feedback, it is important to

examine studies on instructional interventions that support the effective use of peer

feedback on written compositions

Instructional interventions that support the effective use of peer feedback

Instructional interventions that support the effective use of peer feedback on written

compositions include providing students with clear and concise assessment criteria

(Orsmond, Merry, & Reiling, 2002). This according to Cole (1991)) should contain a

4
Mayada Ibrahim 98119934
RTL Assignment two

list of aspects of the writing that students should focus on. According to Kato (2015)

this includes transition features, passive voice, idea development, sources supported

evidence, etc. (pg. 71). Miller (2000) further argues that teachers should use

directive questions such as “have grammar conventions been addressed?’ to

stimulate comments on assessment criteria. Moreover, Students who provide quality

feedback can also be rewarded by teachers as a means of quality control (Bloxham

& West, 2004).Furthermore, students being assessed should be given an opportunity

to reflect on the feedback they received from their peers and demonstrate whether it

has helped improve their writing (Boud, 2000). Finally students can be given specific

training on how to provide effective peer feedback on written compositions (Miller,

2000).

Conclusion
As the literature has revealed, there is a substantial difference between teacher

feedback and peer feedback. While there is an array of research highlighting the

benefits of peer feedback on students’ written compositions (primarily that feedback

addresses the teacher problem of time constraints). There are also some noteworthy

limitations (namely, that peer feedback is usually deemed untrustworthy by peers).

Overall, this literature review has highlighted that peer feedback does generally have

a positive effect on secondary students’ written compositions however there is a

need for more research to be done on whether peer feedback is equally effective as

teacher feedback.

5
Mayada Ibrahim 98119934
RTL Assignment two

PART B Data Collection Protocol

Script: (Pre Interview)

Hello, my name is Mayada Ibrahim and I’m from Western Sydney University. Im

currently conducting research on peer feedback and whether it is effective in

improving secondary students’ written compositions. I would like to get your thoughts

on this matter by asking you some questions. Before we begin, I would like to explain

what these consent forms are. Before you sign them, please take your time reading

them and feel free to ask any questions about consent. I would also like to remind

you that anything that you say to me will be held in confidence. Also, the data

collected from these interviews will be held in a password secured computer data

base and you will remain anonymous. Furthermore, you have a right to withdraw

from the interview at any point without an explanation. I would also like to inform you

that these interviews will be tape recorded. Does anyone have any questions before

we begin?

Interview Questions

1 Can you explain your understanding of peer feedback? Do you think it’s much

different from teacher feedback?

 As the counterpart of teacher feedback, peer feedback is a form

of collaborative learning (Webb,1991) that is performed by equal

status learners(Gielen et eal,2009) as opposed to teacher

feedback which is performed by experts with specific skills that

are not available to pupils (Sadler, 1998)

6
Mayada Ibrahim 98119934
RTL Assignment two

2 Can you tell me How often you receive peer feedback on your writing?

 Increasing the frequency of feedback according to Rust et al.

(2003) will help support student’s writing more effectively. Gibbs

and Simpson(2004) further highlight that peer feedback can lead

to an increase in the amount of feedback provided to students,

because teachers usually do not have the time to provide

frequent feedback throughout the learning process

3 Do you feel more comfortable with getting peer feedback on your writing than

teacher feedback?

 Students may feel uncomfortable with showing teachers

weaknesses in their writing, whereas peer feedback may by pass

this as it is less power-sensitive. (Lundstorm & Baker, 2009)

4 Do you feel that you have the right skills to provide other students with feedback on

their writing ?

 Cho and MacArthur (2011) argue that peer feedback should not
substitute teacher feedback because students don’t have the
appropriate skills required.
5 In your opinion does giving feedback to other students help improve your own

writing? How?

 (Lundstorm & Baker, 2009) argue that when students critically

examine their peer’s written compositions, they will be able to do

the same for their own writing.

6 In your opinion, is peer feedback on written compositions easier to understand than

teacher feedback?

 According to Topping (2003) one of the benefits of peer feedback

on written compositions is that it is easy to understand and

interpret because unlike their teachers, peers are not experts in

their domain therefore they are on the same level as each other.

7
Mayada Ibrahim 98119934
RTL Assignment two

7 Can you tell me, what are some problems with giving and receiving peer

feedback on written compositions?

 Gielen et.ed al. (2009) emphasises that unlike teachers, peers are

not domain experts, and a consequence, the accuracy of peer

feedback varies .This idea is shared by Topping (1998) who

argues that unlike the teacher, the peer assessor is not regarded

as “knowledge authority” and this could lead to the assesses

feeling reluctant to accept the judgement or advice of the

assessor.
8 Do you trust the feedback that you receive on your writing from your peers?

Why/why not?

 Sadler (1998) argues that because teachers are regard as

‘knowledge authorities’, students regard their feedback more

trustworthy than peer feedback.

9 Can you tell me whether you prefer to receive feedback from your teacher

instead of your peers on your written compositions ? Why/why not?

10 Do you have any other thoughts about peer feedback?

Script: ( Post interview)

This completes our interview, thank you very much for participating. I will now go
back and analyse the data from the tape recordings in order to identify any common
themes or patterns in your responses. Once the interviews are transcribed I will
provide you with copy of the transcript. I will also provide you with a summary of the
research results.

Dear Potential Participant:

8
Mayada Ibrahim 98119934
RTL Assignment two

I am working on a project titled “Effective Feedback Strategies” for the class, ‘Researching Teaching and
Learning 2,’ at Western Sydney University. As part of the project, I am collecting information to help
inform the design of a teacher research proposal.

Our topic evaluates different forms of feedback and the effects they have on secondary students’
learning. I will be specifically examining “Peer feedback” and whether it can have positive effect on
secondary students’ written compositions. I will be conducting a semi structured interviews
in which I will be providing a clear set of instructions to the participants.

By signing this form I acknowledge that:

 I have read the project information and have been given the opportunity to discuss the
information and my involvement in the project with the researcher/s.
 The procedures required for the project and the time involved have been explained to me, and
any questions I have about the project have been answered to my satisfaction.
 I consent to participate in a semi structured interview
 I understand that my involvement is confidential and that the information gained during this
data collection experience will only be reported within the confines of the ‘Researching Teaching
and Learning 2’ unit, and that all personal details will be de-identified from the data.
 I understand that I can withdraw from the project at any time, without affecting my relationship
with the researcher/s, now or in the future.

By signing below, I acknowledge that I am 18 years of age or older, or I am a full-time university student
who is 17 years old.

Signed: __________________________________

Name: __________________________________

Date: __________________________________

By signing below, I acknowledge that I am the legal guardian of a person who is 16 or 17 years old, and
provide my consent for the person’s participation.

Signed: __________________________________

Name: __________________________________

Date: __________________________________

Part C Justification

Semi structured interviews are one of the most commonly used qualitative

research methods (Kitchlen and Tate, 2000).They are not just about talking, but also

9
Mayada Ibrahim 98119934
RTL Assignment two

about listening and paying attention (Rabionette, 2011). Given that my individual

literature review focuses on students’ perceptions of “peer feedback”, a semi

structured interview is suitable because the conversational and informal tone of the

interview will allow students to feel comfortable in answering the question in their

own words. Furthermore, my semi structured interviews will help inform my group’s

overall topic by supplementing the other methods used namely, surveys and

structured interviews. My semi-structured interviews will further contribute to the

understanding my group’s topic by allowing me to narrow down the overall topic.

The semi structured interviews for this small scale study will be conducted in a small

semi quiet place, most likely the school library because it is important to choose a

locale in which a quality recording can be made. (Jacob and Ferguson (2012). The

first component of my data collection protocol involves me introducing myself to the

participants in an opening statement (indicated in my script). This is important for

establishing rapport, creating an adequate environment, and eliciting reflection and

truthful comments from the participants (Rabionette, 2011). My opening statement

also includes statements of confidentiality, consent, options to withdraw, and use

and scope of the results. (Rabionette, 2011). Both the opening statement as well as

the closing statement at the conclusion of the interview have been recorded on a

script which according to Jacob and Ferguson (2012) is important for guiding the

interview process.

The second component of my data collection protocol involves the development of

ten open ended questions which will unfold in a conversational manner. Unlike

Closed-ended questions, open ended questions will allow the participants the

flexibility to offer additional information and elaborate on particular points of a

question, and this in turn will lead into a deeper conversation. (Jacob and Ferguson

10
Mayada Ibrahim 98119934
RTL Assignment two

(2012). The open ended questions are also grounded in the literature review

conducted in part A (as shown by the bullet points under each question). Having the

research guide the interview questions according to Jacob and Ferguson (2012, will

allow the interviewer to focus or narrow the questions in ways that will make

meaningful data (Jacob and Ferguson (2012). In addition, the bullet points under

each question act as a prompt to remind the interviewer of areas that have emerged

from the literature or things that will enrich the data. The use of prompts will also

allow me to stay on track (Jacob and Ferguson (2012. Many of the

questions also begin with “tell me about...” which keeps the questions general

enough so that they can go in several directions and leaves room for ideas,

impressions, and concepts to emerge from the data (Jacob and Ferguson,

2012, pp.4). All up the interview process is designed to take no longer than one hour,

because students are less likely to participate in long interview sessions.

The third component of my data collection protocol involves recording the interview

using audio recording which according to the literature is the most recommended

method. Having audio recordings will help me in the fourth component of the data

collection protocol which involves analysing and summarising the interviews.

References
Bloxham, S., & West, A. (2004). Understanding the rules of the game: marking peer
assessment as a medium for developing students’ conceptions of assessment.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29, 721e733.

11
Mayada Ibrahim 98119934
RTL Assignment two

Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: rethinking assessment for the learning

society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22, 151e167

De Nobile, J., & Lyons, Gordon, author. (2017). Positive learning

environments(First ed.).
Gielen, Peeters, Dochy, Onghena, & Struyven. (2010). Improving the
effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction,20(4),
304-315.

Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Smeets, S. (2010). A
comparative study of peer and teacher feedback and of various peer feedback
forms in a secondary school writing curriculum. British Educational Research
Journal, 36(1), 143-162..

Gibbs, G., & Simpson, C. (2004). Conditions under which assessment supports
students’ learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 3e31.

Hansen, J., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response.  ELT
Journal, 59(1), 31-38.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. Review of
Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.

Jacob, S.A, & Ferguson, S.P. Writing Interview Protocols and conducting interviews:
tips for students new to the field of Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 17
(42), 1-10.

Kamiya, N. (2016). The relationship between stated beliefs and classroom

practices of oral corrective feedback. Innovation in Language Learning and
Teaching, 10(3), 206-219

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on

performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback
intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254e284

Miller, P. (2003). The effect of scoring criteria specificity on peer and self
assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 383e394.

Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2002). The use of exemplars and formative
feedback when using student derived marking criteria in peer and self-assessment.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 309e323.

Rabionet, Silvia E. (2011). How I learned to design and conduct semi-structured

interviews: An ongoing and continuous journey. (Essay). The Qualitative
Report, 16(2), 563-566.

12
Mayada Ibrahim 98119934
RTL Assignment two

Robbie M. Sutton, Matthew J. Hornsey and Karen M. Douglas ed.

(2012). Feedback: the communication of praise, criticism and advice. Language as
Social Action, New York, NY, United States: Peter Lang.
Rust, C., Price, M., & O'Donovan, B. (2003). Improving Students' Learning by
Developing their Understanding of Assessment Criteria and
Processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(2), 147-164.

Sadler, D. (1998). Formative Assessment: Revisiting the territory.  Assessment

in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 77-84.

Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities.

Review of Educational Research, 68, 249e276.

Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. (2003). Promoting effective helping behaviour in

peer-directed groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 73e97

13