Comparing Peer and Faculty Feedback for Asynchronous Laparoscopic Skill Acquisition

A number of studies have used interviews to find out L2 learners’ perceptions of different feedback practices. Usually, learners who have been interviewed have experienced a number of different feedback practices. The purpose of the present study is to investigate learner revision practices and perceptions of peer and teacher feedback after having received feedback from only one source. In this study, learners received either teacher feedback alone or only peer feedback for one year. Twelve students were then interviewed to investigate their revision practices and perceptions of both peer and teacher feedback. The narrative analysis of the interview data showed that participants were very concerned about ‘correcting’ their drafts. Students in both groups had similar levels of comprehension of feedback; however, those in the peer feedback group were more forthcoming about asking their peers when they did not understand. Students in the teacher feedback group felt that they did not have enough time between drafts for the revisions they wanted to make. It was also found that students in the peer feedback group seemed to benefit more from reading their peers’ writing than from receiving peer feedback.

Peer feedback activities in higher education stimulate critical thinking and reflective learning. However, both research and practice show that students may be concerned about the quality of the peer feedback they receive. To address this, we developed an inductive teaching intervention aimed at enhancing students’ feedback literacy while exploring their understanding of ‘quality’ feedback. This was achieved by asking students to select and justify examples of useful, received peer feedback. Our findings revealed variability in the content of the peer feedback examples that students selected as useful, as well as in their justifications for these choices, highlighting content specificity, correctional guidance, and motivational comments. Evaluations and a focus group interview showed that the inductive approach increased students’ awareness of useful feedback characteristics and underscored the learning effect of the intervention. The findings also suggest that effective feedback principles are similar for both peer and teacher feedback, highlighting the link between giving and receiving feedback in developing feedback literacy.

Writing is one of the most important skills in second language teaching, learning and assessment. Consequently, it is crucial to enhance writing ability. According to several studies, one beneficial way is using peer feedback. Furthermore, time pressure is one of those non-linguistic factors which may affect the students’ writings. This study was an attempt to investigate the effect of time pressure and peer feedback on Iranian EFL students' writing performance. To conduct this study, 69 female and male students received an Oxford Proficiency Test (OPT) and 60 homogeneous participants whose scores ranged from 150 to 169 (advanced level) were selected. They were divided into three groups of twenty and asked to write about the same topic under three different conditions. In the first group the participants had timed exam without peer feedback for 40 minutes, the second group had timed exam with peer feedback for 40 minutes, and the last group had untimed exam with peer feedback. Finally, results of a two-way ANOVA test indicated that the best performance is related to the group who received peer feedback under time pressure; next, the group who received peer feedback without any time pressure, and the last group who wrote without peer feedback under time pressure. To recap, the results illustrated that peer feedback had a significant effect, while time pressure did not have any effect on writing performance. Furthermore, it was revealed that there was no interaction between peer feedback and time pressure.

This study examines whether peer feedback can be a substitute for teacher feedback and which measures can be taken to improve its effectiveness. A pre‐test post‐test control group design examined the long‐term learning effects of individual peer feedback and of collective teacher feedback on writing assignments in secondary education. Moreover, it examined the added value of a priori question forms and a posteriori reply forms aimed at supporting the assessee's response to peer feedback. The study supports the ‘non‐inferiority’ hypothesis of there being no significant difference in students’ progress after plain substitutional peer feedback or teacher feedback. Both groups (plain peer feedback and teacher feedback), however, improved significantly less than the groups that worked with question or reply forms, confirming the added‐value of these forms. Almost half of the students found the received peer feedback helpful, but less than a quarter considered giving feedback an aid in their own learning process.

This study used questionnaires eliciting quantitative and qualitative data to investigate (1) foreign language learners’ beliefs about peer feedback on pronunciation before and after a peer feedback intervention and (2) peer feedback providers’, peer feedback receivers’, and teacher feedback receivers’ experiences of the intervention. Participants included 127 first-year learners of German. They were assigned to a peer feedback provider group, a peer feedback receiver group, a teacher feedback receiver group, or a control group. After a general pronunciation training for the first three groups and a metacognitive instruction session for the first two groups, the peer feedback providers were instructed to give feedback on their peers’ pronunciation whereas the peer feedback receivers were asked to incorporate their peers’ feedback and the teacher feedback receivers were asked to incorporate feedback from their teachers. Quantitative and qualitative data from a pre- and post-intervention beliefs questionnaire revealed that while all groups held mostly positive beliefs about peer feedback before the intervention, only the peer feedback providers’ beliefs changed over time, specifically, their beliefs about peer feedback were significantly more positive after the intervention. Data from an exit questionnaire further indicated that the teacher feedback receivers found their feedback more useful than the peer feedback receivers. Moreover, while the peer feedback providers found correcting peers beneficial for their own language development, many of them felt uncomfortable giving feedback, whereas the peer feedback receivers did not feel uncomfortable receiving it. These findings suggest that peer feedback providers may need additional instruction to help them feel more comfortable correcting other learners.

The present study explores the role of peer feedback in developing the essay writing ability of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners in a multilingual setting who engage in peer feedback on Google Classroom. Writing is an essential skill for academic and professional communication, and peer feedback is recognized as effective in improving students' writing performance. Yet, learners in multilingual EFL classrooms experience difficulties related to linguistic and cultural diversity that may have an impact on their writing development. The methodology is a mixed one, that is, quantitative and qualitative methods are used as well. There were 12 students from the English Education program of Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar involved in the study. The students engaged in essay writing, peer feedback tasks, and utilising Google Classroom across a semester. The quantitative part included the quality of students' essays before and after receiving peer feedback, and the qualitative part included students' attitudes towards peer feedback, Google Classroom, and how multilingualism affects writing skills. The findings revealed that peer feedback had a significant effect on their essay quality, especially in aspects as organization, coherence, and grammar. Students also reported favorable attitudes toward peer feedback and Google Classroom, although a few experienced hurdles concerning their English proficiency. The results suggest that peer feedback has its promise in multilingual EFL classrooms and how well digital programs, such as Google Classroom, may facilitate collaborative learning. The research is a part of the ever-increasing exploration of peer feedback, multilingualism, and technology in EFL.

This study investigates the impact of peer feedback used as an instructional strategy to increase the quality of students’ online postings. While peer feedback has been demonstrated to support students’ learning in traditional classrooms, little is known about its efficacy in online discussions. To address this gap, we examined students’ perceptions of the value of giving and receiving peer feedback, specifically related to the quality of discussion postings in an online course. In addition, we investigated the impact of that feedback by comparing the quality of students’ postings, based on Bloom’s taxonomy, from pre-course to post-course. Results suggest that the quality of students’ postings was maintained through the use of peer feedback despite students’ preferences for instructor feedback. Students noted that peer feedback can be valuable and, more importantly, described how giving peer feedback not only reinforced their learning but enabled them to achieve higher understanding.

Using peer feedback to enhance nursing students’ reflective abilities, clinical competencies, and sense of empowerment: A mixed-methods study

Peer feedback can be a tool to help higher education students develop presentation skills. This process can be supported by using online tools that enable peers to provide feedback annotated to specific moments in the presentation. The current paper investigated whether providing and receiving peer feedback using an online tool was related to improvement in students’ presentation skills, whether students provided different peer feedback in comments and annotations, and whether student characteristics played a role in students’ presentation skill improvement. Results from 56 second-year undergraduate Education and Child Studies students indicate that providing and receiving feedback did not relate to students’ improvement in presentation skill, and that high ability students showed less improvement in presentation skills than medium and low ability students did.

From a positive psychology perspective, this case study explores learners’ academic emotions in giving and receiving peer feedback on second language writing and the possible influences of emotions on learners’ uptake of peer feedback. The data were collected from five undergraduates at a Chinese university, including semi-structured interviews, stimulated recalls, peer feedback, students’ essays and observation notes. Using content analysis, the study revealed 24 academic emotions, including positive, neutral and negative emotions. Positive emotions were found to improve the number and quality of revisions, whereas negative emotions could not necessarily impede learners’ revision operations. The findings suggest the dynamic interplay among learners’ positive emotions, positive characteristics and harmonious writing community.

The study probes into translation students’ perception of the value of online peer feedback in improving translation skills. Students enrolled in a translation degree in Australia translated a 250-word text on two separate occasions. On each occasion, the students were given another fellow student’s translation of the same text to mark and provide anonymous peer feedback. The original translations from all the students, together with any peer feedback, were uploaded onto an online forum. The students were encouraged to download their own translation to review the peer feedback in it. They were also encouraged to download and peruse other students’ peer reviewed translations for comparison. Upon completion of the project, the students were surveyed about their perceptions and appreciation of their engagement in the process in the following three capacities: (i) as a feedback provider, (ii) as a feedback recipient, and (iii) as a peruser of other students’ work and the peer feedback therein. Results suggest that translation students appreciate online peer feedback as a valuable activity that facilitates improvement. The students found receiving peer feedback on their own translation especially rewarding, as it offered alternative approaches and perspectives on tackling linguistic/translation issues. In comparing the three capacities, students perceived reviewing feedback on their own work and perusing other students’ work as more beneficial than engaging in giving feedback to others.

Interpreter training programmes worldwide commonly adopt a learner-centred approach, incorporating peer feedback and technology-assisted feedback. However, the potential of Generative AI in providing two types of feedback, evaluative comments and learning strategies has received limited attention. This quasi-experimental study fills this gap by investigating and comparing interpreting students’ engagement strategies with feedback from a Generative AI chatbot (n = 46) and their peers (n = 42). Participants were encouraged to seek feedback based on the transcripts of their recorded interpretation performances. Using a pre-designed reflective sheet, their engagement strategies with feedback were quantitatively analysed. After controlling for feedback literacy level and academic performance, MANCOVA tests suggested that, compared with the peer feedback group, interpreting trainees interacting with the Generative AI chatbot reported a significantly lower level of agreement and a higher level of dispute with the received evaluative comments. Participants were more motivated to argue with the chatbot than with their peers. Furthermore, learning strategies provided by the chatbot were more likely to be both accepted and disregarded by participants than those from peers. The potential of using Generative AI chatbots as a supplementary source to support peer and technology-assisted feedback practices in interpreting programmes is discussed.

This study aimed to investigate how digital games affected college students’ creativity development. A sample of 60 college students participated in the digital game design and play instruction, grounded in the playful constructivism theory. The data incorporated the students’ pre- and post-creativity scores in game design, the first and final versions of game design, and the students’ responses to the open-ended questionnaire. The findings revealed that the students’ creativity was developed after digital game design and play instruction, facilitated by three key creative learning processes, including collaborative digital game design, digital game-playing for providing peer feedback, and redesign of the games after receiving peer feedback. These collaborative processes encouraged the students’ role-reversal between designers and players, enabling the students to provide and receive peer feedback for the exchange of creative ideas. Through reflecting on received peer feedback, the students refined their initial ideas and tailored their reflections to redesign the games for the target learners, thereby cultivating their creativity in educational digital game design. This study suggests collaborative digital game design and play instruction is an effective strategy to facilitate college students’ creativity development.

The aim of this research was to prove whether implementation of Peer Feedback effectively improve students’ writing skill. This study employed a quasi-experimental design. The population involved all eleventh-grade students at SMA Negeri 1 Bungku Tengah, totaling 277 learners. To determine the Experimental and Control groups, the researcher used cluster random sampling. The researcher used a descriptive text writing test to collect data in terms of pretest and posttest. However, only the experimental class received peer feedback treatment while the control group received other treatments. Organization, Content, vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics were the focus of this study. The results demonstrated that once peer feedback was introduced, the experimental group outperformed the control group on the post-test, with a mean score of 76.12 compared to 61.78. Meanwhile, analysis of the pre-test indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups’ average scores. In addition, the obtained significance value (2-tailed) was 0.001, which is lower than the standard level of 0.05. This suggests that the use of peer feedback has a statistically significant and meaningful effect on improving students’ writing skill. Consequently, peer feedback can be considered an advisable strategy for writing instruction.

IntroductionMedical students often lack training in advanced communication skills encompassing emotionally fraught situations and those in which an intense emotional response is expected. Such skills are required for clinical situations encountered during residency. We created and evaluated an advanced communication skills workshop (ACSW) using standardized patients for senior medical students. The workshop emphasized communication skills for four scenarios—strong emotion, goals of care, medical error, and palliative care assessment—and utilized formative peer assessment and feedback.MethodsWe created the four ACSW cases with case-specific communication behavior checklists and a common modified Master Interview Rating Scale in a Capstone Course for senior medical students. In groups of three, students rotated through three of four stations. Each student conducted one of the interviews while the other two completed the checklists and provided verbal feedback. We performed one-way analyses of variance on Likert responses and content analysis on open responses on a post-ACSW survey.ResultsNinety-one students completed the ACSW and survey. Students assigned high value to all four ACSW student roles: interviewer, observer, feedback recipient, and feedback provider. Students rated the experience above average to excellent on nearly all survey items. Open-response themes included “liked the opportunity to give or receive peer feedback” (46%) and “found the checklists helpful” (45%).DiscussionFeasible and well received by senior medical students, our ACSW offers an opportunity to practice and observe advanced communication skills and peer feedback. A peer-assisted, formative learning model, the ACSW efficiently addresses a key aspect of residency preparation.