Developing culturally-situated student feedback literacy through multi-peer feedback giving: an online community-based approach
Abstract
While multi-peer feedback has been increasingly implemented in the academic writing classroom in English as a foreign language (EFL) contexts, scant attention has been paid to the development of culturally-situated student feedback literacy arising from the provider-provider interaction in teacher-centered EFL classroom contexts. This study investigated how student reviewers developed their culturally-situated feedback literacy in online community-based multi-peer feedback. Drawing on multiple sources of data (pre-task surveys, feedback comments, post-task stimulated recalls, in-depth group interviews, and follow-up individual WeChat interviews) from 31 Chinese EFL learners, our analysis revealed that the openly shared, asynchronous multi-peer feedback (1) helped students construct knowledge and community norms; (2) facilitated the students in multiple rounds of comparison and self-reflection; (3) encouraged open criticism as acts of in-group cohesion and established students’ own standards for affective appropriateness; and (4) motivated students to take actions to close the gaps in their feedback-giving practices within the community.ABSTRACT IN CHINESE 在以英语为外语 (EFL) 的学术写作课堂中, 多人同伴反馈的使用日益增多。然而, 鲜有研究关注在教师主导的 EFL 课堂环境中, 学生反馈者之间的互动如何促进其发展适应特定文化的反馈素养。本研究旨在探究学生在基于在线社群的多人同伴反馈中如何发展其适应特定文化的反馈素养。本研究分析了 31 名中国 EFL 学习者提供的多种数据, 包括任务前调查、反馈评论、任务后刺激回忆、小组访谈以及后续的个人微信访谈。研究结果表明, 公开共享的异步多人同伴反馈: (1) 帮助学生构建知识和形成社群规范; (2) 促进学生进行多轮比较和深入的自我反思; (3) 鼓励公开的批评行为, 使其成为群体凝聚力的一种表现, 并帮助学生建立关于情感恰当性的个人标准; (4) 激励学生采取行动, 改善他们在社群中的反馈实践。
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Public multi-peer feedback is superior in fostering critical and analytical skills, as diverse perspectives help students identify overlooked aspects in their own feedback practices.
“Notably, four articles have underscored the superiority of public multi-peer feedback in fostering these essential skills. Specifically, these studies reveal that the diverse perspectives accessible to individual students within the framework of public multi-peer feedback facilitate the identification of overlooked aspects in their own feedback practices, thereby facilitating the refinement and h”
From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Gao and Chen, 2024
Cites
The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354 · Cited by 2,428 · see citing works
Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective
Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.795518 · Cited by 966 · see citing works
The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance
Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x · Cited by 602 · see citing works
Developing a learning-centred framework for feedback literacy
Molloy, E., Boud, D., & Henderson, M. (2020) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2019.1667955 · Cited by 555 · see citing works
Classroom Writing Assessment and Feedback in L2 School Contexts
Lee, I. (2017) · doi:10.1007/978-981-10-3924-9 · Cited by 386 · see citing works
Making judgements: investigating the process of composing and receiving peer feedback
McConlogue, T. (2015) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2013.868878 · Cited by 110 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…concrete examples of practices similar to their own for tacit observation and comparison, thus engaging them in multiple rounds of self-reflection and assessment judgments (Nicol et al., 2014; McConlogue, 2015), both processes pivotal in the generation of internal feedback (Nicol & McCallum, 2021).”
Gao, Y., Schunn, C. D. D., & Yu, Q. (2019) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1499075 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Yu, S., Lee, I., & Mak, P. (2016) · The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher · doi:10.1007/s40299-015-0262-1 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges
Wei, Y., & Liu, D. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1506725 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gao, J., & Chen, W.
- Affiliations
- Capital Normal University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Chen, Wenting
- Venue
- Language Awareness
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2024-02-26
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 19-42
- ISSN
- 0965-8416 (ISSN-L)
- 1747-7565
- OpenAlex
- W4392168103
- Cited by
- 11
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 17.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Language Awareness (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
- Keywords
- feedback literacy, online learning communities, asynchronous feedback, EFL academic writing, teacher-centered classroom, peer review, community norms, self-reflection, Chinese learners of English, WeChat
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review