Understanding master’s students’ peer feedback practices from the academic discourse community perspective: a rethinking of postgraduate pedagogies
Abstract
While recent research has highlighted the increasing importance of peer feedback as a supplementary pedagogy to supervision in higher education academic contexts, little is known regarding whether and how peer feedback can induct research students into the academic discourse community. Underpinned by the academic discourse community theory, this case study explores seven postgraduate students’ peer feedback practice and its effect on the revision of master thesis drafts. It examines data collected from multiple sources, including master students’ drafts of theses, peer written feedback, audio recordings of oral peer feedback conferences and students’ final theses. It was found that although different feedback providers used different types of feedback, feedback given in different languages and by different strategies to negotiate with the feedback receivers, peer feedback played an effective role in socialising Master’s students into the academic discourse community where grasping the gist of academic writing constitutes a significant part in higher education.
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?
Man et al. (2018) observed that autonomous peer feedback practices among postgraduate students catalyze the construction of new academic communities and facilitate introduction into established scholarly networks.
“For example, Man et al. (2018) examined autonomous peer feedback practices among postgraduate students and observed that such feedback not only catalyzes the construction of new academic communities but also facilitates the introduction of graduate students into established scholarly networks, echoing the findings of Ciampa and Wolfe (2023) as well as Zhang et al. (2020).”
From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Zhang et al., 2020
In the academic community, peer feedback serves as a conduit for transmitting academic writing norms and nurturing interpersonal relationships.
“In the academic community, peer feedback assumes a pivotal role, serving as a conduit for transmitting academic writing norms and nurturing interpersonal relationships (Zhang et al., 2020).”
From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Zhang et al., 2020
Peer feedback facilitates the introduction of graduate students into established scholarly networks.
“Furthermore, this practice facilitates the introduction of graduate students into established scholarly networks (Ciampa and Wolfe, 2023; Man et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2020).”
From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Zhang et al., 2020
Studies have revealed a tendency among students to selectively incorporate feedback, prioritizing simpler suggestions over more complex ones when revising academic writing.
“Studies have revealed a tendency among students to selectively incorporate feedback, giving priority to simpler suggestions over more complex ones when revising their academic writing (Shulgina et al., 2024a; Gao et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2020).”
From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Zhang et al., 2020
Cites
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815355 · Cited by 33,219 · see citing works
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905 · 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
Feedback: Focusing attention on engagement
Price, M., Handley, K., & Millar, J. (2011) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079.2010.483513 · Cited by 442 · see citing works
Chinese students' perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction
Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1996) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(96)90012-0 · Cited by 351 · see citing works
Man, D., Xu, Y., & O’Toole, J. M. (2018) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2017.1376310 · Cited by 35 · 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
Yallop, R. M. A., Taremaa, P., & Leijen, D. A. J. (2021) · Journal of Writing Research · doi:10.17239/jowr-2021.12.03.02 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Zhang, Y., Yu, S., & Yuan, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Macau (MO)
- Corresponding author
- Yu, Shulin
- Venue
- Teaching in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-11-07
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 126-140
- ISSN
- 1356-2517 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-1294
- OpenAlex
- W2900375606
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 9.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Teaching in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Macau (MYRG2016-FED-00100)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Doctoral Education Challenges and Solutions
- Keywords
- peer feedback, academic discourse communities, graduate students, master's students, academic writing, supervision
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