Measuring peer feedback in face-to-face and online public-speaking workshops
Abstract
This study explores the use of a survey instrument relating to feedback within the organizational context to measure student perceptions of peer feedback in a speech workshop activity conducted in a public-speaking class. A 20-item instrument was adapted from Steelman, Levy, and Snell’s Feedback Environment Scale (FES) for coworker feedback (The Feedback Environment Scale: Construct definition, measurement, and validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement 2004; 64: 165–184. doi: 10.1177/0013164403258440). Results suggest that four constructs adopted from Steelman et al. (source credibility, feedback quality, favorable feedback, and unfavorable feedback) appear suited to gauge student perceptions of peer feedback. Further analyses on the variables indicated no significant differences, regardless of whether the activity took place face-to-face or online.
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?
Students often experience feedback gaps, in which the feedback provided is misaligned with their individual learning needs.
“Consequently, students often experience”
From Supporting self-regulated learning through generative AI feedback in online higher education: the importance of student perceptions of the source of feedback (2026) · cites this paper as Nicolini & Cole, 2019
Cites
Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design
Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2012.691462 · Cited by 1,636 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Previous research on peer assessment demonstrates actively involving students in the peer feedback process increases their own understanding of the material (Boud & Molloy, 2013) and level of engagement in their own learning (De Wever, Van Keer, Schellens, & Valcke, 2011; Gielen & De Wever, 2015).”
BackgroundRethinking 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
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Artificial intelligence as a feedback provider in practicing public speaking
Isotalus, P., Eklund, M., & Karppinen, K. (2025) · Communication Teacher · doi:10.1080/17404622.2024.2407910 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Yilmaz, M., Temur, H. B., Emmungil, L., Çelik, E., Gauthier, A., & Cukurova, M. (2026) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-026-00592-y · Cited by 10 · see citing works
“This discrepancy can diminish motivation and hinder their capacity to engage with feedback in a meaningful and constructive manner (Nicolini & Cole, 2019).”
- Authors
- Nicolini, K. M., & Cole, A. W.
- Affiliations
- University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh (US)
- University of Wisconsin–Whitewater (US)
- Corresponding author
- Nicolini, Kristine M.
- Venue
- Communication Teacher
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-11-20
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 80-93
- ISSN
- 1740-4622 (ISSN-L)
- 1740-4630
- OpenAlex
- W2770517531
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 2.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Communication Teacher (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Communication in Education and Healthcare
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Keywords
- peer feedback, public speaking, student perceptions, source credibility, feedback quality, online learning, face-to-face teaching
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
