1 of 16

Pilot study report of a

peer feedback training for EFL university writing students

Universidad de Panamá

Katia A Quintero

Enseñanza de lenguas extranjeras y dialectos autóctonos en la educación superior.

2 of 16

PURPOSE OF THE PILOT

The pilot examined the feasibility of the peer-feedback training process, the anonymous digital peer-feedback procedure, and the data-collection instruments, while providing diagnostic information to refine the procedures before the main doctoral study.

3 of 16

PROBLEM AND CONTEXT

Students struggle to write simple paragraphs, and classroom practices mostly depend on teacher feedback
This pilot explores peer feedback in university-level EFL writing- Universidad de Panama

4 of 16

WHY PEER FEEDBACK?

Peer feedback can complement teacher feedback and provide students with an active role in the learning process.

(Liu & Carless, 2006)

Peer feedback can support students in developing their ability to evaluate and respond to their peers’ writing.

(Wu et al., 2022)

Students need explicit guidance and training to identify problems in texts and formulate appropriate feedback.

(Rollinson, 2005)

Peer feedback requires structured support to help students go beyond identifying superficial errors and focus on meaning.

5 of 16

Conceptual Framework:

Faigley & Witte (1981)

The framework distinguishes surface-level, which focuses on grammar, spelling, punctuation, and vocabulary, from meaning-level, which focuses on ideas, organization, logic, and the development of ideas (Faigley & Witte, 1981).

It serves as a basis for identifying what students focus on when providing peer feedback in this pilot project.

6 of 16

Participants and Setting

Freshmen EFL Bachelor's students, Universidad de Panamá
Informed consent
A2–B1 proficiency
4 women, 1 man- 5 participants
Ages 18–21
Very limited prior peer-review experience

Location

UP English school and Computer Laboratory

7 of 16

Pilot Procedure

TRAINING- 3 TRAINING SESSIONS

3. REVISION PLANS.

4. POST-TRAINING SURVEY

2. ANONYMOUS PEER FEEDBACK - 3 DIGITAL PEER-FEEDBACK SESSIONS- GOOGLE CLASSROOM

8 of 16

TRAINING SEQUENCE

What did the Training include?

PARAGRAPH WRITING

Topic sentence • Supporting sentences • Conclusion • Connectors .

PEER FEEDBACK

Purpose • Specific and helpful comments

FEEDBACK LEVELS

Surface-level • Meaning-level

MODEL CRITICISM PRACTICE

Identifying and discussing surface- and meaning-level issues in model paragraphs

FEEDBACK CATEGORIES

Content • Organization • Vocabulary • Grammar • Cohesion • Spelling & punctuation • Genre awareness

9 of 16

Peer-Feedback Sessions

ANONYMOUS DIGITAL PEER REVIEW

Students reviewed classmates’ descriptive paragraphs using a peer-feedback checklist

PEER-FEEDBACK CHECKLIST

Feedback category
Problem identified
Specific reference to the text
Concrete suggestion

REVISION PLAN- Last session

Students identified feedback they could use and indicated possible revision actions.

The completed checklists and revision plans provided diagnostic evidence for the pilot.

10 of 16

Data Sources and Analysis

DATA SOURCES

Peer-feedback checklists — feedback comments and categories
Revision plans — planned revision actions
Post-training survey — students’ perceptions and feasibility

ANALYSIS

Feedback coded as surface-level or meaning-level- also revision plans
Checklist responses examined for category alignment and completeness
Survey responses summarized descriptively

11 of 16

MAIN FINDINGS: FEEDBACK

Category Alignment: 3/5 students correctly aligned comments with the intended categories.� 2/5 students produced mixed surface- and meaning-level feedback. Examples

12 of 16

REVISION PLAN

Participants addressed both feedback levels, but surface-level feedback predominated.

13 of 16

Indicator Instructions very clear Training perceived as useful Duration appropriate Comfortable with anonymity Very satisfied with organization Checklist very clear	Result 100% (5/5) 100% (5/5) 100% (5/5) 100% (5/5) 80% (⅘), 20% (⅕) (satisfied) 60% (⅗) , 40% (⅖) (clear)

Participant Perceptions

Overall perception was strongly positive.

14 of 16

What Did the Evidence Reveal?

REVISION PLANS

More surface-level revisions

SURVEY

Strongly positive perceptions

CHECKLISTS

More surface-level feedback

This reflect that although students can give feedback, they did not fully understand the checklist categories. They still struggled to distinguish between surface-level and meaning-level on their own.

They need more guided practice and additional examples of meaning-level feedback.

15 of 16

CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEP

THE PILOT STUDY REVEALED THE FEASIBILITY OF THE TRAINING

Anonymous digital procedure was workable.
Instruments generated useful data.

BUT THE TRAINING NEEDS TO BE REFINED

More time for model criticism.
More examples and guided practice in meaning-level feedback.

Next step :The findings will inform the implementation of the larger doctoral study with experimental and control groups