Improving the understanding of written peer feedback through face-to-face peer dialogue: students’ perspective

Abstract

Feedback plays a vital role in the process of mastering writing in many academic disciplines. Although peer feedback has been proven helpful to develop students' academic writing competency, the role of additional face-to-face peer dialogue in this context remains indistinct. Face-to-face peer dialogue on written peer feedback is expected to improve students' understanding; however, it is unclear under which conditions it might do so. The purpose of this exploratory study is to explore students' beliefs about peer feedback and to investigate both the instructiveness of face-to-face peer dialogue and the conditions for achieving improved understanding. Second-year university students (N = 84) participated in a mixed-method study that included questionnaires and focus groups. The intervention comprised face-to-face dialogue in small groups about the participants' written peer feedback on a draft report. Quantitative data showed students perceived peer feedback as meaningful, useful and a very important skill to possess. They felt confident about feedback quality, both provided and received. Overall, students perceived written feedback and faceto-face dialogue to be instructive, although no significant difference between the two forms was established. Qualitative findings revealed that face-to-face dialogue stimulates peers to elaborate on their written feedback, helps them deliver constructive comments and feel responsible for the feedback process. Important conditions appeared to be the quality of the written feedback, the non-anonymous character of the dialogue, and the opportunity to revise the report. It can be concluded that face-to-face peer dialogue is a useful variation within peer feedback, which enhances further elaboration and students' engagement with feedback. This study provides insight in important conditions to design and implement face-to-face dialogue peer interventions in higher education in the context of academic writing.

A dialogic technology-mediated model of feedback uptake and literacy

“…Zhu and Carless (2018), for example, found in a Chinese undergraduate English as a foreign language context that in-person peer feedback dialogues can help feedback receivers to negotiate the meaning of feedback information, and feedback givers to reflect on (and presumably improve) the quality of the feedback information they give. Despite the significance of this finding, the paper also reported that peer feedback often fails due to a lack of class time, logistical difficulties in meeting for peer feedback sessions outside class, or the need for teacher adjudication of peer disagreements (see also Schillings et al 2020). The authors perceived such challenges and the potentially workloadincreasing factor as unresolved issues for the general uptake of dialogic peer feedback practices.…”

Continuous assessment for learning: issues of multiple instances of peer feedback in a university course

“…Other research also highlights the limitations of strictly written feedback. This research emphasizes the importance of embedding such feedback in contexts of dialogue and co-construction of meaning (e.g., Schillings et al, 2021;Yang & Carless, 2013), including negotiating the expectations, rights, and duties associated with its uses in a classroom culture designed to support the regulation of learning (Mottier Lopez, 2016).…”

Using FeedbackFruits to enhance student learning: Scaling for transformative implementation

“…One study set out to explore students' beliefs about peer feedback suggests that they have some confidence in the feedback they give to other students as well as when receiving feedback. Students also feel that peer dialogue enhances their engagement with the feedback (Schillings et al, 2020). Thus, a tool such as FeedbackFruits is a valuable addition to the teaching repertoire.…”

“…Another paper reviewed studies of peer feedback from a fairly novel perspective, which was from the providers of the feedback (van Popta et al, 2017). The authors conclusions of the review suggest that it is worth investing time to set up students providing feedback to each other and implementing this well.…”