See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259520901

Students’ perceptions of rubric-referenced peer feedback on EFL writing: A

longitudinal inquiry

Article in Assessing Writing · January 2013

DOI: 10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.008

CITATIONS READS

128 1,510

1 author:

Weiqiang Wang
Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
3 PUBLICATIONS 201 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Weiqiang Wang on 12 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Assessing Writing 19 (2014) 80–96

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Assessing Writing

Students’ perceptions of rubric-referenced peer

feedback on EFL writing: A longitudinal inquiry
Weiqiang Wang ∗
School of English for International Business, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies, 2 North Baiyun
Avenue, Guangzhou 510420, People’s Republic of China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The study seeks to investigate how students’ perceptions of peer
Available online 12 December 2013 feedback on their EFL writing change over time, the factors affect-
ing their perceived usefulness of peer feedback for draft revision,
and their opinions about the use of a rubric in the peer feedback
Keywords: practice. Fifty-three Chinese EFL learners, including six case study
Peer feedback informants, participated in the study. The data collected consisted
Rubric of questionnaires, interviews, and students’ reflective essays. The
Students’ perceptions findings showed that the students’ perceived usefulness of peer
Draft revision feedback decreased over time, and that their perceived usefulness
EFL writing of peer feedback for draft revision was affected by five factors: (1)
Students’ knowledge of assigned essay topics; (2) Students’ limited
English proficiency; (3) Students’ attitudes towards the peer feed-
back practice; (4) Time constraints of the in-class peer feedback
session; (5) Students’ concerns with interpersonal relationship. The
students regarded the rubric as an explicit guide to evaluating their
peers’ EFL writing, though negative perceptions were also reported.
The paper ends with a discussion of the implementation of peer
feedback in the Chinese EFL writing class and directions for future
research.
© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Peer feedback on ESL/EFL writing is regarded as having such potential benefits as cultivating
students’ audience awareness (Rollinson, 2005), facilitating students’ collaboration (Jacobs, Curtis,
Braine, & Huang, 1998), and giving students more learner autonomy (Yang, Badger, & Yu, 2006), etc.

∗ Tel.: +86 13826401248.

E-mail address: wilburwong@gdufs.edu.cn

1075-2935/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.008
 W. Wang / Assessing Writing 19 (2014) 80–96 81

Drawing on process writing theory, collaborative learning theory, and Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proxi-
mal Development as its theoretical underpinnings (see Liu & Hansen, 2002 for a review of the theoretical
background of peer feedback), peer feedback has received extensive attention in L2 writing research in
the last two decades. Most of the previous research focused on either the usefulness of peer feedback for
improving students’ ESL/EFL writing or the effects of training on peer feedback quality. There is, how-
ever, a lack of research on the change of students’ perceptions of peer feedback on their ESL/EFL writing
over time and the factors which may affect students’ perceived usefulness of peer feedback for draft
revision. Fewer studies in L2 writing have explored the use of an instructional rubric in ESL/EFL learn-
ers’ peer feedback practice. This study aims to fill the research gap by conducting a longitudinal inquiry
into students’ perceptions of rubric-referenced peer feedback in the Chinese EFL writing context.

2. Issues in peer feedback on ESL/EFL writing

A major issue in L2 writing research on peer feedback is the comparison of the helpfulness of
teacher and peer feedback for students’ draft revision and writing improvement (e.g. Caulk, 1994;
Connor & Asenavage, 1994; Paulus, 1999; Shih-hsien, 2011; Yang et al., 2006; Zhao, 2010). Connor and
Asenavage (1994), for instance, found that two groups of ESL students’ peer-induced draft revisions
were fewer than those triggered by teacher and self/other comments and advised on the improve-
ment of peer response sessions. Paulus (1999) reported that ESL students’ peer-induced revisions
were mostly meaning-level changes. Yang et al. (2006) found that peer feedback led to more learner
autonomy, while teacher feedback resulted in more textual changes than peer feedback. These studies
more or less demonstrated the value of peer feedback as a complementary source of feedback in L2
writing class.
More recent L2 writing research on peer feedback investigated the relative usefulness of self- and
peer feedback for students’ draft revision and writing quality improvement (e.g. Mawlawi Diab, 2010;
Mawlawi Diab, 2011; Suzuki, 2008). Mawlawi Diab (2010), for instance, reported that compared with
self-feedback, peer feedback resulted in EFL students’ correction of more rule-based language errors
but not the non-rule based errors. Mawlawi Diab (2011) found that while self-feedback led to more
draft revisions than peer feedback, peer feedback caused more revisions of idea and organization.
This line of research further illustrated the importance of peer feedback to students’ ESL/EFL writing
development and justified the implementation of peer feedback practice in ESL/EFL writing class.
Another strand of L2 writing research on peer feedback mainly used a pre-post or comparison-
control quasi-experimental design to investigate the impact of training on three aspects of peer
feedback: (1) Peer feedback quality; (2) Students’ usage of peer feedback in draft revisions; (3) The
quality of peer-revised ESL/EFL writing (e.g. Berg, 1999; Hu, 2005; McGroarty & Zhu, 1997; Min, 2005,
2006; Rahimi, 2013; Stanley, 1992; Zhu, 1995). Berg (1999), for instance, showed that training ESL
students to perform peer response led to more meaning changes and improvements in the students’
writing quality. Similarly, Min (2006) found that training EFL students to give peer feedback resulted
in their incorporation of more peer feedback into draft revision. Rahimi (2013) reported that training
EFL students to do peer review changed their foci from only formal aspects of EFL writing to such
global aspects as content and organization and subsequently improved the quality of their paragraph
writing. These studies highlighted the importance of training to peer feedback practice in the ESL/EFL
writing context.
Research was also conducted on how students responded to their peers’ writing in different cultural
settings (e.g. Guerrero & Villamil, 1994; Mangelsdorf & Schlumberger, 1992; Mendonca & Johnson,
1994; Villamil & de Guerrero, 1996; Zhu, 2001). Mendonca and Johnson (1994), for instance, described
ESL students’ interactions in peer review and how such interactions shaped their revision behavior.
Villamil and de Guerrero (1996) reported on ESL learners’ social-cognitive activities, mediating strate-
gies, and aspects of social behavior in peer review and highlighted the role of collaboration in students’
ESL writing development. Zhu (2001) found that when native and non-native English speakers formed
mixed peer response groups, non-native speakers were less in control of the discussion and might
therefore benefit less from peer response. Studies of this type illustrated the important role of peer
interaction in students’ ESL/EFL writing development.
82 W. Wang / Assessing Writing 19 (2014) 80–96

Students’ perceptions of peer feedback were also investigated in L2 writing research (e.g. Carson
& Nelson, 1996; Fei, 2006; Hanrahan & Isaacs, 2001; Jacobs et al., 1998; Mangelsdorf, 1992; Nelson
& Carson, 1998; Sengupta, 1998; Zhang, 1995, 1999). Sengupta (1998), for instance, showed that the
students at a Hong Kong secondary school did not regard peer evaluation as effective for cultivating
their reader awareness and perceived their teacher as the authority capable of evaluating their EFL
writing. Fei (2006) found that without receiving sufficient training in feedback provision, most of the
Chinese EFL learners regarded peer feedback as non-useful for draft revision. This line of research,
however, did not provide sufficient details on how students perceived the usefulness/non-usefulness
of peer feedback for improving different aspects of their ESL/EFL writing.
Students’ perspectives may be different from teachers’ and researchers’ preconceptions and may
provide particularly valuable insights into the feedback process (Carless, 2011). Moreover, students’
perceived usefulness of peer feedback is likely to “mediate between the feedback and the revi-
sions made in later writing” (Cho, Schunn, & Charney, 2006, p. 264). Pedagogically, the instructor
of an EFL writing course “needs to know how his or her students are feeling about the writing pro-
cess before informed pedagogical adjustments can be made to ensure effective instruction” (Zhang,
1999, p. 323). However, with only a few exceptions (e.g. Fei, 2006; Mangelsdorf, 1992; Nelson &
Carson, 1998), the issue of students’ perceptions of peer feedback on ESL/EFL writing remains under-
researched.
Additionally, although some of the previous studies used clear guidelines in training students to
give peer feedback (e.g. Min, 2005; Min, 2006), few of the studies evaluated the role of those guide-
lines in students’ peer feedback practice. The present study proposes to use an instructional rubric to
guide students’ peer feedback and explores the students’ perceptions of the rubric’s role in their peer
feedback practice. An instructional rubric is defined as follows:

A one- or two-page document that describes varying levels of quality, from excellent to poor,
for a specific assignment. It is usually used with a relatively complex assignment, such as a
long-term project, an essay, or a research paper. Its purposes are to give students informative
feedback about their works in progress and to give detailed evaluations of their final products
(Andrade, 2000, p. 13).

This definition shows that the use of an instructional rubric in assessment is not simply for the
sake of grade assignment, but to provide students with detailed feedback on their works. Although
such a learning-oriented function of rubric has been extensively investigated in general education
(see Reddy & Andrade, 2010 for a review of the empirical research on the formative use of rubrics in
higher education), few studies in L2 writing research have been conducted to explore the use of rubric
in students’ peer feedback practice.
In summary, despite the substantial knowledge of peer feedback contributed by previous L2 writ-
ing research, our understandings about how students perceive the impact of rubric-referenced peer
feedback on their EFL writing are still limited. Suppose that students are systematically trained to
generate peer feedback with a rubric at the beginning of an EFL writing course, will their perceptions
of peer feedback on EFL writing change over time? What factors, according to the students, may affect
their perceived usefulness of peer feedback for draft revision? How do they evaluate the rubric’s role
in their peer feedback practice? The present study seeks to answer these questions by examining a
group of Chinese students’ perceptions of rubric-referenced peer feedback on their EFL writing from
a longitudinal perspective.

3. Context of the study

The study was embedded in a two-semester 36-week EFL writing course taught by the
teacher/researcher at a Chinese university. The EFL writing course featured the genre-process ped-
agogy, which emphasized the necessary linguistic input through the teacher’s demonstration and
analysis of sample essays or paragraphs and the multiple stages of writing (Badger & White, 2000).
Students’ self- and peer feedback, along with teacher feedback, were integral parts of the EFL writing
class.
 W. Wang / Assessing Writing 19 (2014) 80–96 83

Table 1
Profile of the case study students.

Student Gender Age TEM 4 Scorea Proficiency level

Susan Female 21 77 High

Catherine Female 22 69 Intermediate
Hank Male 21 60 Low
Kelvin Male 21 71 Intermediate
Alisa Female 21 70 Intermediate
Wendy Female 21 74 Intermediate
a
The students’ TEM4 scores were obtained three months after the end of the EFL writing course.

The curriculum goals of the EFL writing course covered the teaching of descriptive, narrative, expos-
itory essays and research papers. Students attending the course were required to write one narrative
essay, one descriptive essay, six expository essays, and one research paper. They also wrote weekly
reading journals based on self-chosen English reading materials as a home assignment. Besides the
regular instructional activities, the teacher was required to spend the first four weeks of the second
semester preparing the students for the writing section of Test for English Majors Band 4 (TEM4), a high
stakes test for them.

4. Research questions

The study seeks to address the following research questions:

1. Do Chinese students’ perceptions of peer feedback on their EFL writing change over time?
2. What factors may affect the students’ perceived usefulness of peer feedback for draft revision?
3. How do the students perceive the rubric’s role in their peer feedback practice?

5. Methodology

5.1. Participants

Fifty-three students of two intact classes participated in the study. All of them passed the National
Matriculation English Test to be enrolled in the university, with an average score of 110 out of 150 (which
roughly corresponds to 5.5–6 on IELTS). Before attending the EFL writing course, the students were
required to finish a 2-credit preparatory EFL writing course, in which they were taught about punc-
tuation, wording, grammar, sentence structures, and paragraph development. The teacher/researcher
purposefully chose six of the fifty-three students as the case study informants, since a small number of
students might shed more light on the issue investigated than any representative sample (Andrade &
Du, 2007). The selection of the case study informants went through three stages. At the first stage, the
teacher/researcher explained the research purposes to all the student participants and asked them to
be case study informants on a voluntary basis, and twelve applications were received. At the second
stage, the teacher/researcher conducted two focus-group interviews with all the twelve students on
their general feelings about peer feedback, and three of them opted to drop out due to a lack of time.
At the third stage, the teacher/researcher, after analyzing the transcripts of the two focus-group inter-
views, decided to leave another three students out because of their lack of motivation or contribution.
Table 1 shows the profile of the six case study informants; pseudonyms are used for anonymity’s
sake.

5.2. Materials and instruments

5.2.1. The rubric, its training manual and the feedback form
A rubric adapted from the ESL Composition Profile of Jacobs, Zinkgraf, Wormuth, Hartfiel, and
Hughey (1981) was used to train the students to provide feedback on their EFL writing. Jacobs et al.’s
(1981) ESL Composition Profile was chosen because it was both “adopted by numerous college-level
84 W. Wang / Assessing Writing 19 (2014) 80–96

Table 2
Essay topics.

Time Essay topic Strategies of essay development

Week 4, Semester 1 College Pressures Classification and Exemplification

Week 9, Semester 1 Why Don’t We Complain Causal Analysis
Week 14, Semester 1 The Post-90 Generation and Others Comparison and Contrast
Week 4, Semester 2 My Choice upon Graduation Causal Analysis
Week 9, Semester 2 On Growth Definition and Exemplification
Week 14, Semester 2 The Best Way to Understand the World Exemplification, and Causal Analysis

writing programs” (Weigle, 2002, p. 115) and adapted into an instrument for students’ self- and peer-
assessment of EFL writing in language testing research (e.g. Matsuno, 2009; Saito & Fujita, 2004). It
covers five aspects of ESL/EFL writing: (1) Content; (2) Organization; (3) Vocabulary; (4) Language
use; (5) Mechanics. However, its assignment of different weightings to those aspects was questioned
by some language testing researchers (e.g. Hamp-Lyons, 1991; Kondo-Brown, 2002). Kondo-Brown
(2002, p. 9), for instance, noted that “it is not clear how the weightings were determined in the original
version”. In order to attach equal importance to every aspect of EFL writing, the teacher/researcher
changed the profile into a rubric with a 4-point rating scope for each aspect of EFL writing by following
the practice of Matsuno (2009) (see Appendix A).
A training manual for the rubric, together with six annotated writing samples, was designed to
illustrate the procedure of using the rubric in peer feedback. A feedback form introduced by Weigle
(2002, p. 195) was adopted for the students to write down comments on their peers’ EFL writing.

5.2.2. Essay topics

All the student participants wrote expository essays on six assigned topics (see Table 2), which
had been used by around 300 students of the same course in the previous years. For each assignment,
the students were required to use one or more of the following strategies of essay development: (1)
Exemplification; (2) Classification; (3) Comparison and Contrast; (4) Causal Analysis; (5) Definition.
However, it is worth noting that since the essay titled My Choice upon Graduation was written as a
TEM4 test preparation exercise, and the TEM4 rating scale, instead of the rubric, was used to guide the
students’ peer feedback on this essay, the data collected at this point were not included. Therefore,
only the data collected at the other five points were reported.

5.2.3. Questionnaire
The questionnaire on peer feedback usefulness (Appendix B) was designed on the basis of the ques-
tionnaires of Yang et al. (2006) and Cho et al. (2006). The reason for adapting those questionnaires
was that both research investigated students’ perceived usefulness of peer feedback for draft revi-
sion, which corresponded well with the research purpose of the present study. However, since those
questionnaires used relatively broad categories to investigate students’ perceptions, more specific
categories were used to cover all the five aspects of EFL writing as described by the rubric. Moreover,
to achieve a finer distinction between students’ perceived usefulness of peer feedback for draft revi-
sion, peer feedback usefulness was evaluated on a 5-point rating scale ranging from Point 1 (strongly
disagree) to Point 5 (strongly agree). Two experienced teachers of the EFL writing course read the
preliminary version of the questionnaire and suggested the change of its wording. For instance, the
original version contained expressions like “Peer feedback enables me to effectively improve the con-
tent of my draft.” One teacher commented that the use of “effectively” was redundant and advised on
the deletion of this word.

5.2.4. Reflective essay

At the end of the EFL writing course, all the student participants wrote a guided reflective essay
(Appendix C) on their opinions about the peer feedback practice and the factors affecting the perceived
usefulness of peer feedback for draft revision. They were advised to write the essay in Chinese to better
express their conceptions. The use of reflective writing at the end of the EFL writing course aimed to
take a holistic view of students’ perceptions of the rubric-referenced peer feedback practice. For the
 W. Wang / Assessing Writing 19 (2014) 80–96 85

purpose of the present study, only the students’ answers to the fifth question (oriented towards the
factors affecting students’ perceived usefulness of peer feedback for draft revision) of the reflective
essay were used as a data source.

5.2.5. Interview questions

Interviewing is commonly regarded as “the best technique to use when conducting intensive case
studies of a few selected individuals” (Merriam, 1998, p. 72). In the present study, individual retro-
spective interviews were used to achieve an in-depth understanding of the case study informants’
perceptions of rubric-referenced peer feedback. The interview questions used were originally bor-
rowed from Andrade and Du (2007), Brown (2005), and Tsui and Ng (2000). The reason for the adoption
of those questions was that all of these studies shared the same research orientation: to study stu-
dents’ reflections on self- or peer feedback practice. However, after a trial of the interview questions
at the beginning stages of the research, the questions were modified to suit the purpose of the present
study. For instance, near the end of the research, the students were also asked about their opinions on
the rubric’s role in their peer feedback practice (see Appendix D for the revised version of interview
questions).

5.3. Data collection

The present study was embedded in the regular instructional and learning activities of the EFL
writing course (see Fig. 1). Before the formal research, the teacher/researcher spent three 45-minute
sessions training the students to provide feedback on EFL writing using the rubric and training manual.
At the beginning of the EFL writing course, the students were told to self-select their partners for
peer feedback sessions (following Min, 2006; Yang et al., 2006). Dyadic peer feedback sessions were
organized since pairs of students were more likely to have intensive discussion about their writing
(Paulus, 1999). Moreover, to eliminate the possible influence of the change of partners on their peer
feedback practice, the students were advised to be paired with the same partners throughout the EFL
writing course.
In the EFL writing course, the teacher/researcher firstly taught the students about specific writing
strategies and instructed them to analyze two sample essays. Then the teacher/researcher assigned
an essay topic and organized a 20-minute brainstorming session on the topic, after which the stu-
dents spent 40 minutes writing their first drafts. At the end of the class, the drafts were collected and
photocopied by the teacher/researcher. The students received a copy of their own drafts within the
same day and were told to perform rubric-referenced self-assessment of the drafts as an assignment.
In the next class, the teacher/researcher gave each student a copy of their peers’ drafts and organized
a 40-minute dyadic peer feedback session, which was composed of both written peer feedback and
oral peer response activities. The students were advised to use Chinese, their mother tongue, in the
oral peer response part to clarify or further develop their intended meanings of the written peer feed-
back (Pennington, Brock, & Yue, 1996). After the peer response session, the students were required
to revise their first drafts based on the self- and peer feedback generated as a home assignment. The
teacher/researcher would read and comment on their second drafts, and the students were required
to write their third drafts in response to the teacher/researcher’s feedback. The teacher/researcher
would assign scores to the students’ third drafts. For each assigned essay topic, the whole cycle of
drafting, feedback provision, and revision took around 4 weeks.
The questionnaires were collected from the students each time after they revised their first drafts
based on self- and peer feedback. Since some students were absent from the class at times, the return
rate of the questionnaires varied from 80% to 100%. Individual retrospective interviews were conducted
with the case study informants within one week after their revision of the first drafts. The interviews
were conducted in Chinese to make the students better express their thoughts.

5.4. Data analysis

Statistical procedures used to analyze all the data included descriptive statistics (means and
standard deviations) and one-way repeated measures ANOVA (to assess the differences among the
86 W. Wang / Assessing Writing 19 (2014) 80–96

Training
sessions

Assigning a new
Teacher
topic
instructions

Brainstorming
Teacher’s feedback
session
on the third dras

In-class
draing
Revision of the
second dras
Collecon of
the first dras
Teacher’s feedback
on the second
dras
Self-feedback on
the first dras

Retrospective
Peer feedback interviews
on the first
dras
Collecon of the
Revision of the second dras and
first dras quesonnaire data

Fig. 1. Flowchart of data collection.

students’ perceived usefulness of peer feedback for draft revision at different time points). SPSS 19.0
for Windows was used for all statistical tests.
An inductive approach was adopted to analyze all the student participants’ reflective essays and
the case study informants’ interview data. The teacher/researcher recursively read all the reflective
essays to identify the general themes and developed a preliminary set of coding categories. Then the
teacher/researcher asked another coder, who has an MA degree in applied linguistics, to analyze the
reflective essays using the same categories, and inter-coder reliability was calculated (0.91). Disagree-
ment in coding results was resolved through discussion, and the preliminary set of coding categories
was refined (see Appendix E for the coding scheme of the reflective essays). The same procedure was
carried out for the analysis of the interview data, with inter-coder reliability reaching 0.87. To ensure
the consistency of data interpretation, the teacher/researcher analyzed all the interview data for a
second time three months later, with intra-coder reliability (0.93) calculated. Lastly, member check
was used to validate the interpretations of interview data. The teacher/researcher presented the major
 W. Wang / Assessing Writing 19 (2014) 80–96 87

Table 3
Perceived usefulness of peer feedback – means/SD.

Category Essay

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th

Content 3.85/1.09 3.79/1.05 3.71/0.77 3.67/0.87 3.48/0.99

Global coherence 3.79/0.92 3.48/1.02 3.55/0.80 3.45/0.94 3.21/0.81
Local coherence 3.62/0.88 3.43/0.80 3.50/0.75 3.26/0.59 3.26/0.86
Vocabulary diversity 3.38/1.06 3.21/0.95 3.07/0.97 3.14/0.84 3.14/0.95
Vocabulary accuracy 4.02/0.71 3.95/0.85 3.64/0.91 3.62/0.85 3.69/0.81
Syntactic complexity 3.38/0.91 3.14/0.81 3.17/0.85 3.07/0.92 3.17/0.88
Syntactic accuracy 3.73/1.11 3.60/0.89 3.52/0.83 3.48/0.83 3.43/0.77
Grammar accuracy 4.14/0.87 4.09/0.62 3.69/0.81 3.67/0.79 3.74/0.83
Mechanics 4.21/0.87 4.14/0.84 3.73/0.89 3.79/0.78 3.60/0.89

findings to all the six interviewees and asked their opinions about the results, and the interviewees’
agreement to the results further enhanced the validity of interview data interpretations. Nvivo 8.0
for Windows was used for all qualitative data analysis (see Appendix F for the coding scheme and
excerpts of the interview data).

6. Findings

6.1. RQ1: The change of students’ perceptions of peer feedback on EFL writing

The statistical analysis of the questionnaire data found that the students’ perceived usefulness of
peer feedback for draft revision followed a downward trend. Table 3 shows the means and standard
deviations of the students’ perceived usefulness of peer feedback for revising different essays. Table 4
presents the test results of the within-subject effects of time point on the perceived usefulness of peer
feedback. Mean-plots (Figs. 2–6) illustrate how the students’ perceived usefulness of peer feedback
for draft revision changed over time.
Fig. 2 shows that the perceived usefulness of peer feedback for content revision dropped over
time, though no significant differences existed among the perceived usefulness of peer feedback for
improving the content of different essays (F(4, 164) = 0.90, sig. = 0.467). This was almost the same case
for the perceived usefulness of peer feedback for improving the global (F(4, 164) = 2.41, sig. = 0.091)
and local coherence (F(4, 164) = 1.57, sig. = 0.186) of different essays (see Fig. 3). It is interesting
to note that in most cases peer feedback was regarded as being more effective for improving the
global than local coherence of EFL writing. The perceived usefulness of peer feedback for improving
vocabulary diversity (F(4, 164)sig. = 0.63, sig. = 0.641) and accuracy (F(4, 164) = 2.04, sig. = 0.091) also
diminished over time (see Fig. 4). It is worthy of note that in all cases the perceived usefulness of peer
feedback for improving vocabulary accuracy was higher than that for diversifying vocabulary use.

Table 4
Tests of within-subject effects of time point on the perceived peer feedback usefulness.

Category F Sig.

Usefulness for content revision 0.90 0.467

Usefulness for improving global coherence 2.04 0.091
Usefulness for improving local coherence 1.57 0.186
Usefulness for improving vocabulary diversity 0.63 0.641
Usefulness for improving vocabulary accuracy 2.04 0.091
Usefulness for improving syntactic complexity 0.74 0.566
Usefulness for improving the accuracy of sentence structures 0.75 0.563
Usefulness for improving grammar accuracy 3.42 0.010*
Usefulness for mechanics revision 4.11 0.003**
*
ANOVA results p < 0.05.
**
ANOVA results p < 0.005.
88 W. Wang / Assessing Writing 19 (2014) 80–96

Fig. 2. Students’ perceived peer feedback usefulness for content revision.

Fig. 3. Students’ perceived peer feedback usefulness for organization revision.

Fig. 5 illustrates that the perceived usefulness of peer feedback for improving grammar accuracy (F(4,
164) = 3.42, sig. = 0.010 < 0.05), syntactic complexity (F(4, 164) = 0.74, sig. = 0.566) and syntactic accu-
racy (F(4, 164) = 0.75, sig. = 0.563) all declined over time. It also indicates that the perceived usefulness
of peer feedback for improving grammar accuracy was higher than that for improving syntactic accu-
racy; the perceived usefulness of peer feedback for diversifying sentence structures was lower than
that for improving syntactic accuracy. Finally, as shown by Fig. 6, a sharply downward trend could
be observed in the perceived usefulness of peer feedback for mechanics revision (F(4, 164) = 4.11,
sig. = 0.003 < 0.05).

Fig. 4. Students’ perceived peer feedback usefulness for vocabulary revision.

 W. Wang / Assessing Writing 19 (2014) 80–96 89

Fig. 5. Students’ perceived peer feedback usefulness for grammar and sentence revision.

In summary, the students perceived that the usefulness of peer feedback for improving their EFL
writing diminished over time, and this applied to all the five aspects of EFL writing as prescribed by
the rubric, ranging from content to mechanics.

6.2. RQ2: Factors affecting the perceived usefulness of peer feedback for draft revision

Analysis of the reflective essays and interview data identified five factors affecting the students’
perceived usefulness of peer feedback for draft revision: (1) Students’ knowledge of assigned essay top-
ics; (2) Students’ limited English proficiency; (3) Students’ attitudes towards peer feedback practice;
(4) Time constraints of the in-class peer feedback session; (5) Students’ concerns with interpersonal
relationship.

6.2.1. Factor 1: Students’ knowledge of assigned essay topics

According to the analysis of reflective essays, thirty-four (64%) of the fifty-three students mentioned
their knowledge of assigned essay topics as a factor influencing the perceived usefulness of peer
feedback for content revision. On the one hand, peers’ limited understandings of an assigned topic
might confine the perspectives of peer feedback on content development. On the other hand, when
two students’ understandings of the same topic came into conflict, the peer feedback on content
development was unlikely to be accepted. For instance,

Take the third essay (The Post-90 Generation and Others) for example. My peer suggested that I
wrap up the essay by talking about how to resolve the differences between the two generations
and rearrange the paragraphs. But I did not accept her advice just because my understandings
of this topic differed from hers. (Reflective essay, Student 20)

Fig. 6. Students’ perceived peer feedback usefulness for mechanics revision.

90 W. Wang / Assessing Writing 19 (2014) 80–96

All the six interviewees also named students’ insufficient topical knowledge as a factor diminishing
the perceived usefulness of peer feedback for content revision. For instance,

It was not realistic to depend on my peer for in-depth content development. Such a task relied
more on my personal experience and understandings of the world. It was more reasonable for
me to expect my peer to provide feedback on the relevance of essay content to assigned topics.
(Interview, Kelvin)

The two examples above illustrate that peer feedback was not regarded as useful for helping the
students enrich the content of their EFL writing.

6.2.2. Factor 2: Students’ limited English proficiency

Students’ English proficiency was mentioned by eighteen (34%) of the fifty-three students in their
reflective essays as a factor affecting the perceived usefulness of peer feedback for draft revision. They
complained that their peers’ limited English proficiency hindered them from “identifying and solving
problems with language use in the partners’ EFL writing.” Similarly, five interviewees mentioned
the lack of usefulness of peer feedback for solving such non-rule based problems of language use as
vocabulary diversity and syntactic complexity, etc. For instance,

Although my peer pointed out the misuse of tense in my writing, she offered me little help with
the choice and diversification of sentence structures. Both of us realized that I used too many
simple sentence structures, but she could hardly advise me on the improvement of syntactic
complexity. (Interview, Catherine)

The example demonstrates that although both students realized the necessity of improving syn-
tactic complexity in EFL writing, neither of them knew how to tackle this problem well.

6.2.3. Factor 3: Students’ attitudes towards the peer feedback practice

Analysis of the reflective essays found that eighteen (34%) of the fifty-three students mentioned
their attitudes towards the peer feedback practice as a factor affecting its perceived usefulness for
draft revision. A student talked about how her partner’s attitudes towards the peer feedback session
influenced the efficacy of peer feedback. She said,

If my partner was not in a good mood or was unwilling to shoulder her share of responsibility,
the quality of peer feedback would be quite low. In that case, I would not treat peer interaction
seriously as well. (Reflective essay, Student 5)

More specifically, five of the six interviewees referred to the tedium resulted from repeated prac-
tices of peer feedback as a cause of their negative attitudes towards the peer feedback session. For
instance,

The repeated practices of peer feedback made me feel bored. My peer and I became so familiar
with such a routine practice and each other’s patterns of thinking that we only offered a set
of formulaic suggestions on each other’s EFL writing. I really wanted to change my partner or
interact with more partners in the peer feedback session. (Interview, Alisa)

The examples point towards the potential pitfalls of the regular implementation of dyadic peer
feedback sessions in the EFL writing course. If students were required to interact with single fixed
partners in peer feedback sessions throughout the EFL writing course, they would very likely feel
bored with such a practice with the passage of time. Such tedium might in turn result in the decrease
in their perceived usefulness of peer feedback for draft revision. However, it is worth noting that
pairing students into fixed dyads is only one form of peer feedback practice in the Chinese EFL writing
class. An alternative form of peer feedback interaction may be putting students in small groups.

6.2.4. Factor 4: Time constraints of the in-class peer feedback session

“Time constraints” was mentioned by twelve (27%) of the fifty-three students in their reflective
essays as another factor affecting the perceived usefulness of peer feedback for draft revision. They
 W. Wang / Assessing Writing 19 (2014) 80–96 91

complained that the time spent on peer feedback sessions in the EFL writing class was not enough for
them to “effectively work out solutions to the problems identified.” For instance,

The time spent on the in-class peer feedback session was not enough. We needed to read our
peers’ drafts, make written comments and communicate those comments with each other
within 40 minutes. There was not sufficient time for oral discussion. But oral discussion was
really important for us to understand each other’s intended meanings. (Reflective essay, Student
17)

Nonetheless, two students also noted in their reflective essays that it would have been more “unre-
alistic” had peer feedback been practiced as an after-class assignment, since they “would have a lot
of other issues to deal with in their spare time and could hardly allocate time to meeting with each
other.” Therefore, it can be inferred that on the one hand, peer feedback sessions should better be held
in class, as what was reported in the present study; on the other hand, the time limit of the in-class
peer feedback practice may be a hindering factor of its effective implementation.

6.2.5. Factor 5: Students’ concerns with interpersonal relationship

Analysis of the reflective essays found that six (11%) of the fifty-three students named their concerns
with interpersonal relationship as a factor influencing the perceived usefulness of peer feedback for
draft revision. Being afraid of harming their “friendship” or “the harmony among classmates”, students
tended to avoid making direct criticisms of their partners’ EFL writing. For instance,

My peer might reserve her opinions about my EFL writing for fear of harming our relation-
ship. She was quite hesitant about identifying the problems with my writing. (Reflective essay,
Student 1)

Another student (Reflective essay, Student 16) also mentioned that in order to “maintain the good
relationship,” her peer’s feedback was devoid of “critical comments.” These examples demonstrate that
some Chinese EFL learners tended to prioritize the maintenance of good interpersonal relationship
over the quality and efficacy of peer feedback.

6.3. RQ 3: Students’ evaluation of the rubric’s role in the peer feedback practice

Analysis of the case study informants’ interview data revealed that all of them held mostly positive
opinions about the use of rubric in their peer feedback practice, mainly because it was a clear guide
to the assessment of their partners’ EFL writing. For instance,

The use of rubric in our peer feedback practice made us better recognize the criteria for EFL writ-
ing. It enabled us to realize what a good piece of EFL writing looks like. Previously we might just
have a vague sense of EFL writing. Because of its comprehensive coverage of the five aspects of
EFL writing, we could use it to assess others’ EFL writing in a more comprehensive and system-
atic manner. Using the rubric prompted us to pay attention to problems of both language use
and content development; otherwise we might have only focused on those language problems.
(Interview, Susan)

However, one interviewee doubted whether it was reasonable to use the rubric throughout the EFL
writing course. For instance,

I am just wondering whether adherence to the rubric would confine our patterns of thinking
about EFL writing. It seems that if we want to get a high score for our writing, we just need to
fulfill the rubric’s requirements. It is kind of exam-oriented. Is there any other set of criteria for
English writing? What should I do if I read some native English writers’ essays which do not
strictly meet the rubric’s requirements? (Interview, Hank)

In summary, using the rubric made the criteria for EFL writing transparent to the students and might
facilitate their peer feedback, while overusing it might cause some students to doubt its applicability.
92 W. Wang / Assessing Writing 19 (2014) 80–96

7. Discussion and implications

7.1. Students’ topical knowledge and the perceived usefulness of peer feedback for content revision

The research found that the students’ perceived usefulness of peer feedback for draft revision
followed a downward trend, with five factors identified to affect the perceived usefulness of peer
feedback for draft revision. Students’ knowledge of assigned essay topics was named as a salient
factor influencing the perceived usefulness of peer feedback for content revision. On the one hand,
peer feedback might not lead to significant content enrichment because of the students’ different
stances on the same topic. On the other hand, students’ insufficient knowledge of assigned topics
might hinder them from bringing depth to content development through peer interaction. The peer
feedback practice implemented in the present study provided the students very limited input of topical
knowledge. In the EFL writing class, the only input of topical knowledge they received on assigned
topics came from either the pre-writing brainstorming session or peers’ drafts on the same topics.
This finding corresponded to the previous research which reported that peer feedback on content
tended to be vague and was not constructive enough (Hu, 2005; Liu & Sadler, 2003; Stanley, 1992). It
also verified the significant impact of students’ topical knowledge on their L2 writing performance, as
indicated by Tedick (1990) and He and Shi (2012).

7.2. Students’ language proficiency and peer feedback on non-rule based problems of language use

The research also found that the students’ limited English proficiency might diminish the perceived
usefulness of peer feedback for improving their language use, especially in terms of solving the non-
rule based problems of language use. This finding was similar to that of Mawlawi Diab (2010), who
reported that although peer feedback could help students significantly reduce such rule-based errors of
language use as subject/verb agreement and pronoun agreement, it did not offer them much guidance
on the solution of such non-rule based problems of language use as inappropriate word choice and
awkward sentence structures. Moreover, without sufficient linguistic input in peer feedback sessions,
it was also unrealistic to expect the students to diversify their vocabulary use and sentence structures
by simply working on the feedback from peers who had similar levels of English proficiency.

7.3. Implementation of the peer feedback practice in the Chinese EFL writing class

The other three factors identified to affect the perceived usefulness of peer feedback for draft
revision, including students’ attitudes towards peer feedback practice, time constraints of the in-class
peer feedback session, and students’ concerns with interpersonal relationship, were closely related to
the ways in which the peer feedback practice was implemented in the present study.
Dyadic peer interaction was organized in the present study, which means that the students inter-
acted with single fixed partners in the peer feedback session throughout the EFL writing course. The
students expressed boredom with this form of peer feedback practice after the initial rounds of peer
interaction. Their familiarity with each other’s patterns of thinking might make peer feedback more
formulaic and less constructive than it was at the beginning stages, which in turn accounted for the
decrease in their perceived usefulness of peer feedback for draft revision. To maintain the students’
interest in peer feedback sessions, the peer feedback practice needed to be revitalized at latter stages
of its implementation, as advised by Bryant and Carless (2010). Moreover, the quality of peer feedback
largely hinged on the single peer’s attitudes towards the peer feedback session and might not live up
to the partner’s expectations. In this case, multiple-peer group might be an alternative to dyadic peer
interaction, since the former was found to generate a larger quantity and variety of peer feedback than
the latter (Cho & MacArthur, 2010) and might lower the risk of relying on a single peer’s suggestions.
“Time constraints” of the peer feedback session was reported as another factor affecting the
perceived usefulness of peer feedback, since the students complained about the lack of time for the
oral discussion of their written comments. The importance of peer negotiation to students’ L2 writ-
ing development was underscored by both theories on the social nature of language learning (e.g.
Vygotsky, 1978) and previous empirical studies in L2 writing research (e.g. Villamil & de Guerrero,
 W. Wang / Assessing Writing 19 (2014) 80–96 93

1996; Zhu, 1995; Zhu, 2001). The insufficient time for negotiation in peer feedback sessions might
deprive the students of the opportunities to clarify their intended meanings of written comments and
diminish the perceived usefulness of peer feedback for draft revision.
The students’ concerns with interpersonal relationship in peer interaction were also mentioned as
a factor affecting the perceived usefulness of peer feedback for draft revision. This finding resonated
with that of Carson and Nelson (1996, p. 1), who reported that “The Chinese students were reluctant to
initiate comments and, when they did, monitored themselves carefully so as not to precipitate conflict
within the group.”

7.4. The rubric’s role in students’ peer feedback practice

Analysis of the students’ interview data found that the students held predominantly positive per-
ceptions of the rubric’s role in their peer feedback practice. The use of rubric made the criteria for EFL
writing transparent to them and provided them with clear guidance on the peer feedback practice.
This finding supported Reddy and Andrade’s (2010) stance that sharing rubrics with students made
the goals and qualities of an assignment transparent and that rubrics could be used to guide students’
peer and self-assessment. However, as noted by a student interviewee, the adherence to the rubric
might be “exam-oriented” and conflict with their own understandings of EFL writing derived from EFL
reading experiences. While the use of an instructional rubric might teach the students about the nec-
essary conventions of EFL writing, it might also result in “instrumentalism” (Torrance, 2007), leading
students to write to the rubric to achieve a high score.

8. Conclusion

The study contributes to the present knowledge of peer feedback in L2 writing research by explor-
ing the change of students’ perceptions of rubric-referenced peer feedback on their EFL writing over
time and the use of an instructional rubric in students’ peer feedback practice. The research results
ran counter to Mangelsdorf’s (1992) hypothesis that students’ belief in the efficacy of peer feedback
practice would increase with the passage of time. However, it is important to note that the identifica-
tion of the limitations of peer feedback in the Chinese EFL writing context is not intended to diminish
the importance of peer feedback on EFL writing. Rather, such an understanding may shed light on
the current peer feedback practice in the Chinese EFL writing context and help frontline practitioners
better integrate peer feedback sessions into the regular instructional and learning activities of the EFL
writing course.
In terms of peer feedback implementation, it is advisable to practice dyadic peer feedback at the
beginning stages to familiarize students with the procedures of peer feedback. At latter stages, group
peer feedback sessions can be organized to make the students benefit from feedback from multiple
peers (Cho & MacArthur, 2010; Hu, 2005; Rollinson, 2005). Secondly, in order to maintain students’
enthusiasm about participating in peer feedback sessions, the teacher may grade and selectively com-
ment on the peer feedback generated by the students (Hu, 2005; Min, 2006). Thirdly, to improve the
efficacy of peer interaction, students may be required to provide written feedback on their peers’ essays
before coming to the class, and the in-class peer feedback session may be only used for peer negotiation.
Finally, to partially eliminate students’ concerns with the maintenance of interpersonal relationship
in peer feedback sessions, anonymous peer feedback sessions using web-based peer review systems
can be introduced into the EFL writing class.
To improve the effectiveness of peer feedback for content revision, reading materials presenting
similar as well as multiple perspectives on the same assigned essay topic can be given to the students
at the pre-writing stage. This might broaden students’ understandings of assigned topics and improve
the quality of peer feedback on content revision. To help students better generate ideas on assigned
topics, specific training sessions on brainstorming can be organized (e.g. Rao, 2007). The teacher may
also instruct students to search for the relevant materials on assigned essay topics before they attend
the peer feedback session. Given the lack of perceived usefulness of peer feedback for solving non-
rule based problems of language use, teacher instructions and feedback should be more fine-tuned
towards those aspects of language use. Thirdly, since the students held mostly positive opinions about
94 W. Wang / Assessing Writing 19 (2014) 80–96

the use of rubric in the peer feedback practice, it is suggested that rubrics be more widely used for
facilitating students’ peer feedback. To counteract the possibly negative influence of over-using the
same rubric throughout the EFL writing course, co-creating rubrics with students may be considered
an alternative (Andrade, 2000).
The study only investigated students’ perceptions of the impact of peer feedback on their EFL
writing. More data sources, such as students’ writing and teachers’ perceptions, need to be examined
to triangulate with the research results reported. Moreover, the study used only a small sample of
students as its participants and the research results may not be generalizable across different contexts.
Therefore, future studies can be conducted to investigate a larger student population’s perceptions of
the regular implementation of peer feedback in different contexts. Thirdly, only dyadic peer feedback
sessions were implemented in the study, in which student pairs remained the same throughout the EFL
writing course. Further research is needed to examine how students’ perceptions of peer feedback on
their EFL writing may change over time if they interact with multiple partners in peer response groups.
Lastly, the researcher of the present study is also the teacher of the EFL writing course, whose teaching
preferences and style may have affected the research results. Therefore, more research conducted by
a researcher who closely collaborates with the teacher of an EFL writing course is needed to achieve
a more objective understanding of students’ perceptions of rubric-referenced peer feedback on their
EFL writing.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the Special Issue Guest Editor and two anonymous reviewers for
their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article. The author is also indebted to all the stu-
dent participants of the study, who willingly shared their understandings of the rubric-referenced
peer-feedback practice with him. This research is partially funded by Guangdong Planning Office of
Philosophy and Social Sciences (GD12YWW01) and Guangdong University of Foreign Studies (12Q26).

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2013.11.008.

References

Andrade, H. G. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational Leadership, 57(5), 13–18.
Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2007). Student responses to criteria-referenced self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 32(2), 159–181.
Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A process genre approach to teaching writing. ELT Journal, 54(2), 153–160.
Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 8(3), 215–241.
Brown, A. (2005). Self-assessment of writing in independent language learning programs: The value of annotated samples.
Assessing Writing, 10(3), 174–191.
Bryant, D., & Carless, D. (2010). Peer assessment in a test-dominated setting: Empowering, boring or facilitating examination
preparation? Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 9(1), 3–15.
Carless, D. (2011). From testing to productive student learning: Implementing formative assessment in Confucian-heritage settings.
London: Routledge.
Carson, J. G., & Nelson, G. L. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 5(1), 1–19.
Caulk, N. (1994). Comparing teacher and student responses to written work. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 181–188.
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.
Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 98(4), 891–901.
Connor, U., & Asenavage, K. (1994). Peer response groups in ESL writing classes: How much impact on revision? Journal of Second
Language Writing, 3(3), 257–276.
Fei, H. (2006). Students perceptions of peer response activity in English writing instruction. Teaching English in China, 29(04),
48–52.
Guerrero, M. C. M. D., & Villamil, O. S. (1994). Social-cognitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revision. The Modern Language
Journal, 78(4), 484–496.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1991). Scoring procedures for ESL contexts. In L. Hamp-Lyons (Ed.), Assessing second language writing in academic
contexts (pp. 241–276). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
 W. Wang / Assessing Writing 19 (2014) 80–96 95

Hanrahan, S. J., & Isaacs, G. (2001). Assessing self- and peer-assessment: The students’ views. Higher Education Research &
Development, 20(1), 53–70.
He, L., & Shi, L. (2012). Topical knowledge and ESL writing. Language Testing, 29(3), 443–464.
Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 321–342.
Jacobs, G. M., Curtis, A., Braine, G., & Huang, S. (1998). Feedback on student writing: Taking the middle path. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 7(3), 307–317.
Jacobs, H., Zinkgraf, S., Wormuth, D., Hartfiel, V., & Hughey, J. (1981). Testing ESL composition: A practical approach. Rowley, MA:
Newbury House.
Kondo-Brown, K. (2002). A FACETS analysis of rater bias in measuring Japanese second language writing performance. Language
Testing, 19(1), 3–31.
Liu, J., & Hansen, J. G. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Liu, J., & Sadler, R. W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal
of English for Academic Purposes, 85(3), 550–551.
Mangelsdorf, K. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom. ELT Journal, 46(3), 274–284.
Mangelsdorf, K., & Schlumberger, A. (1992). ESL student response stances in a peer-review task. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 1(3), 235–254.
Matsuno, S. (2009). Self-, peer-, and teacher-assessments in Japanese university EFL writing classrooms. Language Testing, 26(1),
75–100.
Mawlawi Diab, N. (2010). Effects of peer- versus self-editing on students’ revision of language errors in revised drafts. System,
38(1), 85–95.
Mawlawi Diab, N. (2011). Assessing the relationship between different types of student feedback and the quality of revised
writing. Assessing Writing, 16(4), 274–292.
McGroarty, M. E., & Zhu, W. (1997). Triangulation in classroom research: A study of peer revision. Language Learning, 47(1),
1–43.
Mendonca, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly,
28(4), 745–769.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education: Revised and expanded from case study research
in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Min, H. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2), 293–308.
Min, H. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 15(2), 118–141.
Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. (1998). ESL students’ perceptions of effectiveness in peer response groups. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 7(2), 113–131.
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3),
265–289.
Pennington, M. C., Brock, M. N., & Yue, F. (1996). Explaining Hong Kong students’ response to process writing: An exploration
of causes and outcomes. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(3), 227–252.
Rahimi, M. (2013). Is training student reviewers worth its while? A study of how training influences the quality of students’
feedback and writing. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 67–89.
Rao, Z. (2007). Training in brainstorming and developing writing skills. ELT Journal, 61(2), 100–106.
Reddy, Y. M., & Andrade, H. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
35(4), 435–448.
Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23–30.
Saito, H., & Fujita, T. (2004). Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writing classrooms. Language Teaching
Research, 8(1), 31–54.
Sengupta, S. (1998). Peer evaluation: ‘I am not the teacher’. ELT Journal, 52(1), 19–28.
Shih-hsien, Y. (2011). Exploring the effectiveness of using peer evaluation and teacher feedback in college students’ writing.
The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 20(1), 144–150.
Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3),
217–233.
Suzuki, M. (2008). Japanese learners’ self revisions and peer revisions of their written compositions in English. TESOL Quarterly,
42(2), 209–233.
Tedick, D. J. (1990). ESL writing assessment: Subject-matter knowledge and its impact on performance. English for Specific
Purposes, 9(2), 123–143.
Torrance, H. (2007). Assessment as learning? How the use of explicit learning objectives, assessment criteria and feedback in
post-secondary education and training can come to dominate learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice,
14(3), 281–294.
Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments? Journal of Second Language Writing, 9(2),
147–170.
Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, mediating strategies,
and aspects of social behavior. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5(1), 51–75.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265–289.
Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 4(3), 209–222.
Zhang, S. (1999). Thoughts on some recent evidence concerning the affective advantage of peer feedback. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 8(3), 321–326.
96 W. Wang / Assessing Writing 19 (2014) 80–96

Zhao, H. (2010). Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: A comparative study
in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 15(1), 3–17.
Zhu, W. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on students’ comments and interaction. Written Communication, 12(4),
492–528.
Zhu, W. (2001). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 251–276.

Weiqiang Wang is a lecturer at the School of English for International Business, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies. He is
a PhD candidate at the National Key Center for Linguistics and Applied Linguistics at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies.
His research interests are classroom assessment and second language writing.

View publication stats