Exploring peer feedback processes and peer feedback meta-dialogues with learners of academic and business English

Abstract

Peer feedback has been proposed as a way to boost student feedback literacy and learners’ evaluative judgment. However, the notion of peer feedback and its related processes present numerous challenges for teachers and learners. By adopting the principles of Exploratory Practice with my undergraduates studying academic and business English, I explored why my learners did not seem to view peer feedback as worthwhile, unpacking their attitudes and beliefs in this area of practice using both traditional surveys and the idea of classroom meta-dialogues. I attempted to develop evaluative judgment skills and proactive recipience by tailoring peer feedback processes around oral presentations, a central course component and assessment task for both groups of learners. Survey responses, classroom discussion (the meta-dialogues), observation, and reflection revealed that, overall, my learners were positively predisposed to peer feedback whilst, at the same time, only moderately enthusiastic about the usefulness of the actual peer feedback they received. In a minority of cases, learners resisted peer feedback processes strongly, reflecting the complex interplay of linguistic, cultural and affective factors that represent peer feedback in practice. My learners, at first, struggled to be proactively recipient but helped to identify tensions around tailoring peer feedback. I reflect on the learner resistance encountered and the personal implications for my own teaching. I also suggest ways that language teachers can scaffold proactive recipience and enact tailored peer feedback in a way that is inclusive of both composers’ and recipients’ needs. Finally, I provide a practitioner vantage point on peer feedback, contributing to a diversity of research perspectives in this area.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 46 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.