DOI 10.

7603/s40 33-014-0003-3

Journal of Interdisciplinary Research in Education (JIRE) ISSN 2232-0180

Students’
Vol. 4, Issue 1, 2014, pp. 27-40 Perspectives on the Use of Peer Feedback in an
English as a Second Language Writing Class

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 Dass
School of Education, Taylor’s University, Malaysia

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

Abstract
Peer 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

INTRODUCTION
The 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

* Corresponding author: Kavitha Sukumaran

Email: kavitha.sukumaran@taylors.edu.my

JIRE is a publication of the Centre for Research in Education & Instructional

Technologies, School of Education, Taylor’s University Sdn Bhd

27

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

 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

28

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

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

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 LITERATURE
Peer Assessment and Peer Feedback in General
Peer 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 Feedback

Many 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

29

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

 Kavitha Sukumaran & Rozita Dass

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.

30

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

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

Recommendations by Previous Studies on Peer Assessment and Peer Feedback

Although 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.

METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This 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.

31

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

 Kavitha Sukumaran & Rozita Dass

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 Sample

The 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 Collection

To 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.

32

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

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

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 Considerations
When 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.

FINDINGS
Instrument validation
The 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

33

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

 Kavitha Sukumaran & Rozita Dass

aspect of peer feedback and students’ perspective on who should be responsible for
providing feedback.
Table 1. Description of subscales
Subscale Item and description n Mean SD
PAS 1. Peer feedback is helpful in improving the 11 1.91 0.539
quality of my written work
2. Peer feedback makes me understand more 11 1.82 0.405
about the teacher’s requirement for a written
work
3. Providing feedback for others can improve 11 1.82 0.751
my skills in assessing my own written work
4. Peer feedback activities motivate me to 11 2.00 0.447
learn to write better
5. Peer feedback activities increase the 11 2.00 0.894
interaction between my teacher and me
6. Peer feedback helps me develop a sense of 11 2.09 0.539
participation in my writing class
7. Peer feedback activities increase the 11 1.82 0.751
interaction between my classmates and me
8. I think using peer feedback is a useful 11 1.64 0.505
method in providing feedback to students
13. Peer feedback activities help me understand 11 1.64 0.674
what other classmates think
14. Having a criteria for peer feedback helps me 11 1.82 0.751
to construct meaningful feedback
15. Students should participate in the 11 2.18 0.874
development of criteria for peer feedback
activities
17. There should be a sample essay and sample 11 1.64 0.505
feedback given to help with the peer
feedback process
OAS 9. Online peer feedback activities can be time- 11 1.91 0.831
saving
10. Online peer feedback activities can increase 11 2.64 0.505
the interaction among classmates
11. Online peer feedback activities can increase 11 2.45 0.688
the interaction between the teacher and
students
12. Online peer feedback activities is a fair 11 2.09 0.539
method when used to provide feedback to
students
16. The aspect of anonymity in online peer 11 1.64 0.674
feedback activities enable me to provide a
more critical feedback

34

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

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

NAS 17. I think students should not be responsible 11 1.91 0.831

for providing feedback on peers’ written
work
18. Online peer feedback is time-consuming 11 2.27 0.647

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

Overall Attitude
The 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 attitude

n Mean SD
PAS, OAS & NAS 11 1.96 0.257

Responses to OAS
A 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 responses
Item N Mean SD T
9 11 1.91 0.831 -2.358
10 11 2.64 0.505 0.896
11 11 2.45 0.688 -0.219
12 11 2.09 0.539 -2.516
16 11 1.64 0.674 -4.249

35

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

 Kavitha Sukumaran & Rozita Dass

DISCUSSION
As 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

36

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

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

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.

37

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

 Kavitha Sukumaran & Rozita Dass

CONCLUSION
The 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.

REFERENCES
Biggs, 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.

38

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

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

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.

39

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

 Kavitha Sukumaran & Rozita Dass

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.

40

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