This thesis explores the impact of peer feedback on two secondary level classrooms studying English as a foreign language in Taiwan. The effectiveness of teacher-led feedback has consistently been the focus of the relevant literature but relatively fewer studies have experimentally investigated the impact of peer-led feedback on learning. This research is based on the belief that the investigation of the process of peer-led feedback, as well as the effectiveness of peer-led correction, will enhance our understanding of learners’ communicative interactions. These data will allow us the opportunity to provide suggestions for successful second/foreign language learning. This study was conducted following a mixed-methods quasi-experimental design involving a variety of data collection and analysis techniques. Observations of peer-peer dialogues taken from a Year 7 and a Year 8 class were analysed using content analysis, in order to classify the types of peer feedback provided by the Year 7 and Year 8 learners. Pre-and post-measures, including English speaking tests, questionnaires, and checklists, were examined with non-parametric statistical tests used to explore any changes in relation to the learners’ speaking development after the quasi-experiment. Key findings included frequency and distribution of seven types of peer feedback, as used by the Year 7 and Year 8 learners, and the statistical results that revealed the differences between the pre-and post-measures. Among the seven types of peer feedback (translation, confirmation, completion, explicit indication, explicit correction, explanation and recasts), explicit correction and translation were the two techniques used most frequently by the learners. Post-test results indicated an improvement in the learners’ speaking performance. The results of pre- and post-questionnaires and pre- and post-checklists showed different levels of change in the learners’ self-evaluation of their own ability to speak English, as well as their attitudes towards corrective feedback. These results allow us to gain insight into the nature of peer interaction in communicative speaking activities as well as learners’ motives behind their feedback behaviours. Additionally, the results shed light on learners’ opinions towards corrective feedback that they received or provided in peer interaction. Further, the results yield a deepened understanding of impacts of peer feedback on L2 development by examining changes in learners’ speaking performance, self-confidence in speaking English and self-evaluation of their own ability to speak English after a peer-led correction treatment. In conclusion, the study suggests that adolescent learners are willing and able to provide each other with feedback in peer interaction. The feedback that they delivered successfully helps their peers to attend to form and has positive impacts on their peers’ English- speaking performance. Moreover, the study provides explanations for learners’ preference for certain types of feedback techniques, which hopefully helps to tackle the mismatch between teachers’ intentions and learners’ expectations of corrective feedback in the L2 classrooms.

Peer feedback is one of the most popular and widely adopted methods used for writing instruction in both the L1 and L2 classrooms. Previous studies that examined peer feedback suggest different benefits and purposes for the method based on the writers’ language group. However, no study has systematically analyzed the peer feedback comments generated by L1 and L2 writers under comparable conditions. While many studies have reported the short-term benefits of peer feedback on writing, little is known in the field about the longitudinal effects of peer feedback on students’ writing ability. This study compares the peer feedback comments of L1 (n=34) and L2 (n=30) college freshman generated in three peer review sessions over a semester using an online peer feedback tool SWoRD. Feedback segments (n=4,227) were coded for sixteen feedback features reported to affect the helpfulness of feedback comments. Students’ peer feedback profiles were compared between the language groups as well as between the first, second, and third peer review sessions to investigate quantitative and qualitative differences between the language groups and across the feedback sessions. Cases of students who achieved increase in writing scores over the semester and students with no or negative increase in writing scores were explored in-depth on the feedback they generated, feedback they received, and the revisions they made in order to identify the areas in which they differed. The results show that contrary to common perceptions, L1 and L2 writers overall generated similar amount and types of feedback comments, with statistical difference found only in the percentage of criticism comments that explicitly stated problems. Students’ feedback comments did not change significantly, either in quantity or quality, over time. However, students reported that the feedback they received and provided became more accurate and more helpful over time. Students who achieved an increase in their writing scores behaved differently than those who experienced little or no change in their scores. The improve group made more Type 4 revisions, which is adding/deleting idea chunks, than the non-improve group; the non-improve group received more global criticism feedback than the improve group; little difference was found in the feedback the two groups generated. / text

Process approaches to writing are widely used in various second language teaching contexts, and many teachers and researchers are trying to find more efficient and meaningful ways to help students to improve their writing skills. Especially in the revision process, students can get help from teacher feedback, so they can have more opportunities to improve their drafts. In a class of 30 students, however, it is very difficult for a teacher to provide timely feedback to all students. The quality and the amount of teacher feedback can fall off due to time constraints and the number of students' drafts. If it is used effectively, a great help to a teacher of a writing class, then is peer feedback. Peer feedback can provide such other benefits as a sense of audience and ownership, more meaningful collaborative learning, and student awareness of the strengths and weaknesses in their drafts. The following report discusses the nature of peer feedback in writing and illustrates the effects of such feedback on students' perspectives about the revision process. The report also traces impact of providing and receiving different types of feedback. It shows us the unique features of paper-and-pencil and computer-mediated peer feedback, and highlights the important points in linguistic and extra linguistic elements observed in peer feedback. / text

The ability to receive regular peer feedback on learning should, in theory, be valuable to learners. A formative view will be presented in this study in which information is collected and used as feedback for student learning. This differs from summative practices where the purpose is to make judgments about the extent to which learning has taken place. This case study takes place in a first year master’s Occupational Therapy (OT) course where the focus is on the development of communication skills. These skills are developed through interviewing and assessment strategies. This case focuses on the feedback received by students from their peers based on the clinical interviews that were conducted. Peers in this study are members of the same learning team who have been divided into these groups for the purpose of learning together. Students in this course receive both written and oral peer feedback during peer assessment exercises. This feedback is formally reflected on by students as self-assessment. Although, both peer and self-assessments are used for formative purposes in this course, the primary focus of this study is on peer assessment. Six participants were recruited for this study. The data for this inquiry consisted of transcripts from six semi-structured interviews and a focus group as well as written artifacts from the course. The data analysis revealed three core themes related to both the peer assessment process and peer feedback. Motivation for Learning and Awareness of Growth or Development were identified as two key themes relating to student learning. The third theme identified was Factors that Impacted the Learning Experience which had to do with how students felt about having engaged in the peer assessment process. A unique finding regarding the latter theme centered around the time factor required to take on the roles, inherent in peer assessment activities. Students offered insights into the relationship between stress and motivation for learning when taking on peer assessment responsibilities. This study contributes to our understanding of the meaning and consequences of implementing peer assessment into the communication module of the OT course. Insights on the implications of this study to higher education in relation to peer assessment are also explored. / Thesis (Master, Education) -- Queen's University, 2012-12-29 00:11:03.187

PURPOSE: Develop and evaluate a chart review tool (CRT) to improve the safety and effectiveness of prescribing controlled substances in a primary care setting. METHODS: A Controlled Substance Review Committee, consisting of volunteer primary care physicians and a clinical pharmacist, developed a CRT to assess compliance with a primary care clinic’s controlled substance prescribing policy and effectiveness of therapy. The CRT was based on existing clinic policies and American Pain Society/American Academy of Pain Medicine clinical guidelines for opioid prescribing. Every month, committee physicians used the CRT to review medical records of patients prescribed controlled substances chronically. The CRT tracked factors from the previous 6 months, including morphine equivalent dose (MED) prescribed, indication for treatment, documentation of treatment effectiveness, the Opioid Risk Tool score (ORT score), results from urine drug testing (UDT) and patient violations of the clinic’s controlled substance policy. These findings are used to provide the treating physician constructive, non-punitive feedback. We also assessed if the use of the CRT resulted in change in MED prescribed. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patient charts from 14 different physicians were reviewed over 1 year. Eighty-eight of these patients were receiving opioids for chronic pain, with an average dose in MED 72.6 mg/day (SD 89). Twenty-nine percent of charts had documentation that the controlled substance was improving the patient’s quality of life or decreasing their pain. Sixty percent of patients had at least one violation of the clinic’s controlled substance treatment agreement in the prior 6 months, and half of the violations were due to missed appointments with specialists to help manage pain. Patients were more likely to have a violation of controlled substance policy in the past 6 months if they were prescribed both a benzodiazepine (BZD) and an opioid (p=0.04), had a documented treatment agreement (p=0.002), or were high risk per ORT score (p=0.001). The mean dose of opioids, for the 88 patients who were prescribed opioids, decreased 2.6 mg/day MED from time of chart review until the end of study (mean duration 6.3 months), compared to a 6.9 mg/day MED increase that occurred from 12 months prior to chart review to the time of chart review (p=0.01). CONCLUSION: Development and implementation of a CRT in an urban primary care clinic provided helpful insight on prescribing practices, and has promise to improve quality of opioid prescribing. The most common violation of the clinic policy was missed appointments with specialists, and patients prescribed both BZD and an opioid or were high risk per ORT were most likely to have violations. Documentation of effectiveness of therapy was lacking.

Peer feedback and its role for students’ language learning receive considerable interest in thefield of English as a foreign language. A related area of interest is the ways in which teachersare trained in their use of peer feedback and its integration into their classroom practice. Yet,research on the ways in which English language textbooks include opportunities for andinstructions in peer feedback are sparse. Given the importance of textbooks in EFLclassrooms as one of the primary sources of L2 input, the aims of this study are to investigate:1) Whether commonly used textbooks for teaching English in Swedish upper-secondaryschools recommend or integrate peer feedback, and what a) the frequency, and b) type ofthese recommendations and exercises are. 2) How the recommendations and exercises alignwith a) recommendations and best practices as identified in the literature, and b) the nationalcurriculum and the syllabus for English 7.To answer these questions, we analyze one of the most commonly used textbooks for teachingEnglish 7 in Swedish upper-secondary schools, Blueprint C Version 2.0. The findings showonly two instances in the book where the use of peer feedback is promoted as a valuablestrategy for improving the quality of students’ productions. It also shows that the bookcontains a total of 52 writing and speaking exercises, out of which 30 include the use of peerfeedback that, to some extent, aligns with best practice recommendations. As for thealignment with the curriculum and syllabus, the identified recommendations and support forthe use of peer feedback, as well as the peer feedback exercises, are shown to specificallymeet one of the goals of the national curriculum and three of the bullet points listed in thecore content in the syllabus for English 7.

Engineering educators and industry professionals recognize the need for graduates to be effective communicators, yet the effective teaching of communication remains a persistent contemporary issue, with studies continuing to indicate that engineering graduates are insufficiently prepared for workplace communication. Despite compelling arguments that that writing should be treated as a situated activity, writing instruction is often separated from content instruction within engineering curricula. Even when they are integrated, it is often in a way does not optimally support improvement of students' writing skills. Writing studies scholarship identifies best practices that include treating writing as a process, with pedagogy that includes writing and revising drafts based on feedback and revision. However, writing assignments in engineering courses often not process-oriented. Challenges in addressing this problem include epistemology (i.e. instructors believe that learning to write and learning to engineer are separate skills), self-efficacy (i.e. instructors not feeling qualified to effectively provide feedback or writing instruction), and resources (i.e. inclusion of feedback and revision is unfeasible within key constraints of many engineering courses – limited instructor time and large student-faculty ratios). A potential solution is to use peer feedback, where students provide each other feedback on drafts, which can support a process approach while addressing these challenges. Research outside engineering has demonstrated that peer feedback can be as or more effective than instructor feedback; to bring that work into engineering, this study examines peer feedback in the context of a first-year engineering course through a quasi-experimental intervention in which feedback and revision were incorporated into an existing assignment using several variations of peer feedback. Interventions included two types of feedback training as well as feedback from single peers and multiple peers. Results support peer feedback in this context: it was statistically indistinguishable from instructor feedback when students were given sufficient instruction. Feedback from multiple peers, in fact was more effective than instructor feedback in improving writing quality, and in-class instruction was more effective than a handout only in helping students provide effective feedback. However, some general feedback recommendations – notably that readerly feedback should be encouraged directive feedback discouraged – were not supported. While writing studies literature encourages feedback that takes the position of the reader, readerly peer feedback reduced revision quality in this study. Directive feedback, on the other hand, caused improvements in writing quality, supporting previous hypotheses that the tightly-constrained genres in which engineers write justify more use of directive feedback. / Ph. D. / Engineering graduates must be effective communicators, yet studies continue to indicate that engineering graduates are insufficiently prepared for workplace communication. This indicates that the effective teaching of communication remains an important area of research. While research shows that writing should integrated into engineering content courses to best facilitate learning, it is common for writing to be seen as a separate topic of study. Even when they are integrated, best practices of writing pedagogy developed in writing studies research are not used: writing assignments in engineering courses often include no feedback on writing and no revision, which are important for students’ writing skill development. An additional challenge is lack of resources: limited instructor time and large class sizes in many engineering courses make providing opportunities for feedback and revision a challenge. This study examines one potential remedy to these challenges: using peer feedback, where students provide each other feedback on drafts. Results support using peer feedback: it was as effective as instructor feedback when students were provided with sufficient instruction. Additionally, feedback from multiple peers was more effective than instructor feedback. Overall, this research supports the use of peer feedback in large engineering courses.

This study explores learners’ online peer review practices during a four-week second language writing project. The project was developed at the college level, in a multi-section upper-level Spanish writing course. Using theories relevant to second language acquisition and second language writing the goals of the study were multiple: (1) to identify the types of comments students used and explore peer review in terms of the givers’ and receivers’ roles, (2) to examine students’ attitudes and self-perceptions about peer review, and (3) to develop an understanding of how students’ attitudes and self-perceptions may influence their feedback-giving procedures. The three goals were addressed using different methods of inquiry, and the findings obtained in the first phase guided the analysis that took place during the second phase. In the quantitative phase, the analyses of data sources (e.g., feedback comments given and received and students’ written drafts) show that giving feedback is a better predictor of final performance than receiving feedback. This principle of learning by reviewing is most evident when students offer feedback that identifies problems, gives a justification, or explains positive elements in the peers’ text. The qualitative phase builds on the quantitative results: it zooms in to the role of the feedback giver to further explore participants’ attitudes and perceptions towards peer review. The analyses of data sources (e.g., pre-study questionnaire, participants’ interviews and peer review simulation activity, and the teacher-researcher reflective journal) show that students do self-position themselves into a specific feedback-giving role. Moreover, the study also confirms that students’ perceptions regarding their attitudes and the comments they give to peers accurately corroborate their actual peer review performance. By combining both methods of inquiry, quantitative and qualitative methods, this study further examines the specific procedures that two case study students follow when offering feedback to a peer. In particular, the procedures for offering problem identification, suggestion, and explanation of the praise comments are analyzed in detail. The results are further interpreted through the lenses of the feedback-giving roles assumed by each of the case study students. Based on the overall findings, the study suggests broadening the notion of feedback: from a unilateral perspective in which comments are addressed from feedback givers to receivers, to a multilateral perspective in which the comments offered are meant to benefit both feedback givers and feedback receivers. The study ends with pedagogical implications for second language learning, implications for the field of second language acquisition, and perspectives for future research.

This study aimed at developing a complementary peer-teacher feedback model, in which students and teachers share the responsibility of providing feedback in a systematic way and testing its effectiveness. The effectiveness of the developed feedback model on improving students&amp / #8217 / writing ability was tested in the context of a multiple draft writing course which followed a process approach with 57 preparatory class students at Karadeniz Technical University, Department of English Language and Literature for a period of 15 weeks (a semester). The study was designed as an experimental study in which the experimental group students were provided feedback through a complementary peer-teacher feedback model and the control group students were provided feedback through full teacher feedback. The two groups were compared in terms of their revisions, their essay scores and their attitudes towards feedback and writing. Both qualitative and quantitative data were collected through revision coding, a pretest and posttest on writing ability, two questionnaires and student reflections. The results revealed that although the traditional full teacher feedback model created more revisions on the whole, the two models did not create a difference in terms of revision quality or writing improvement between the two groups. On the other hand, the complementary peer-feedback model was found more successful in creating positive attitudes towards peer feedback and self-correction but no differences were observed in students&amp / #8217 / perceptions of the difficulty of writing skill. Some recommendations are made for the design and implementation of feedback activities in writing classes.

This study examines the ways in which frequency and reflexivity affect student engagement with the peer feedback process. I study the peer e-feedback sessions conducted via My Reviewers in a pilot model of Composition 2 at a large research university in the southeast in order to determine if an increased focus on the peer feedback activity might enhance the effectiveness of the process. Through textual analysis and survey results, I determine that an increased focus on electronic peer feedback along with an increase in frequency and reflexivity helps to minimize some common criticisms of the peer feedback process. In this pilot model, the instructor plays an increased role in the peer feedback process and students are also asked to create a detailed revision plan. These elements of the process help to address the criticism that students have difficulty addressing the validity of peer feedback and minimizes the likelihood that students will incorporate incorrect feedback into their revision plans (Ferris; Stanley). Additionally, students in this study demonstrate an increased understanding of the purpose of the feedback process through an increase in revision-oriented comments as they gain more experience with the activity.