Summary of research findings related to feedback on language in higher education. Research primarily from L2 field.

1. Peer Feedback
goals and outcomes
adapted from Edith Cowan University

2. Giving feedback
“When students review and give feedback to
peers they improve their own work more than
receiving feedback alone.”
Giving feedback allows one to
examine work in progress as a critical reader
practice problem-solving skills; and
learn by explaining what makes work good or
not good.

3. Receiving feedback
Leads to
‘mindful’ or thoughtful reception of criticism;
dialogic encounter with assessor;
less passive acceptance and implementation;
search for confirmation sources; and
more self-corrections.

4. vs Expert feedback
Peer feedback is
more understandable;
less directive; and
more helpful in improving grade.
Expert feedback leads to
fewer self-corrections;
more simple repairs; and
no discernible effect on later work (aside from
draft improvements on a specific task).

5. Holistic evaluation of work
In practice, expert evaluators work backwards
from holistic judgements towards awarding a
mark and then evaluating via individual criteria
to check or confirm the original judgement.
Peer feedback improves one's ability to make
informed judgements due to practice in
comparing works, engaging in dialogue with
colleagues, and justifying grades;

6. Redefining feedback
Standard view
written comments on a specific task from the
lecturer
Excludes
dialogic process
development of self-evaluative capacity
self-correction (key to learning process)
engagement and autonomy

7. Guidelines for giving feedback
express in positive terms;
be descriptive vs evaluative;
use i-statements to give opportunities for
reflective responses;
be specific rather than general;
focus on probable changes; and
check understanding via discussion

8. Guidelines for receiving feedback
be open minded and understand the other;
listen in silence (mentally, i.e. be receptive);
consider feedback seriously by weighing the
consequences of changing or not changing;
express thoughts and feelings about possible
changes;
explore options with assessor; and
express appreciation.

9. References
ECU. 2013 Student Peer Review from http://www.ecu.edu.au/
Bloxham, S., Boyd, P., & Orr, S. (2011). Mark my words: the role of assessment criteria in UK higher education grading
practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(6), 655-670.
Brooks, V. (2012). Marking as judgment. Research Papers in Education, 27(1), 63-80.
Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2011). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 629-643.
Cho, K., Chung, T. R., King, W. R., & Schunn, C. (2008). Peer-based computer-supported knowledge refinement: An
empirical investigation. Communications of the ACM, 51(3), 83-88.
Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328-
338.
Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Charney, D. (2006). Commenting on writing typology and perceived helpfulness of comments
from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. Written Communication, 23(3), 260-294.
Grainger, P., Purnell, K., & Zipf, R. (2008). Judging quality through substantive conversations between markers.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(2), 133-142.
Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501-517.
Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2013). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review
perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, (ahead-of-print), 1-21.
Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional science, 18(2), 119-
144.
Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese