Cited by 11EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningStudent Assessment and FeedbackDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies

Developing culturally-situated student feedback literacy through multi-peer feedback giving: an online community-based approach

Gao, Jianwu, Chen, Wenting·2025·Language Awareness

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

Crossref · 10.1080/09658416.2024.2321894

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gao, J., & Chen, W.
Affiliations
Capital Normal University (CN)
Corresponding author
Chen, Wenting
Venue
Language Awareness
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