{"title":"Comparing trained EFL peer reviewers’ feedback: From claim to reality","authors":"Alireza Memari Hanjani","doi":"10.1016/j.asw.2024.100836","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Comparing trained L2 writing student reviewers’ feedback behaviors as well as examining the extent to which their claims are aligned with their actual evaluation practices have received limited scholarly attention. Employing think-aloud protocols, one cause and one effect essays evaluated by five upper-intermediate L2 learners, and follow-up semi-structured interviews, this case study research aimed to explore trained L2 peer reviewers’ feedback behaviors and the matches and mismatches between their claims and evaluation practices. While the first and the second data source compared the participants’ actual feedback practices in terms of nature, type, and validity, the last source probed their claims on peer evaluation. The findings contribute to peer feedback research by emphasizing on the need for individual, customized, and constant peer review training sessions rather than general, all-purpose, and decontextualized instructions which can consequently improve peer feedback quality in L2 writing contexts.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46865,"journal":{"name":"Assessing Writing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Assessing Writing","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1075293524000291","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Comparing trained L2 writing student reviewers’ feedback behaviors as well as examining the extent to which their claims are aligned with their actual evaluation practices have received limited scholarly attention. Employing think-aloud protocols, one cause and one effect essays evaluated by five upper-intermediate L2 learners, and follow-up semi-structured interviews, this case study research aimed to explore trained L2 peer reviewers’ feedback behaviors and the matches and mismatches between their claims and evaluation practices. While the first and the second data source compared the participants’ actual feedback practices in terms of nature, type, and validity, the last source probed their claims on peer evaluation. The findings contribute to peer feedback research by emphasizing on the need for individual, customized, and constant peer review training sessions rather than general, all-purpose, and decontextualized instructions which can consequently improve peer feedback quality in L2 writing contexts.
期刊介绍：
Assessing Writing is a refereed international journal providing a forum for ideas, research and practice on the assessment of written language. Assessing Writing publishes articles, book reviews, conference reports, and academic exchanges concerning writing assessments of all kinds, including traditional (direct and standardised forms of) testing of writing, alternative performance assessments (such as portfolios), workplace sampling and classroom assessment. The journal focuses on all stages of the writing assessment process, including needs evaluation, assessment creation, implementation, and validation, and test development.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
