The role of teacher and peer feedback in shaping student writing revisions
A complementary feedback model
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22203573 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Vu Phi Ho Pham (0000-0001-7459-8509, Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City, corresponding author), Ngoc Hoang Vy Nguyen (0000-0002-8626-3543, University of North Texas) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 13 |
| Pages | 103026 |
| Publication date | 2026-06-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Social Sciences & Humanities Open (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2590-2911 • E-ISSN: 2590-2911 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.ssaho.2026.103026 |
| OpenAlex | W7163576713 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 35 |
This study compared feedback from teachers and trained peers on how EFL students revised their work in an undergraduate writing course. Two intact classes of second-year English majors, at a university in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, received either teacher feedback (n = 38) or peer feedback (n = 39) over three drafting cycles. Revisions were categorized as feedback-based, partly feedback-based, or independent, and interviews with 20 students examined their decisions regarding uptake. The results indicate that teacher feedback resulted in a higher percentage of feedback-based uptake, while trained peer feedback facilitated greater revision autonomy, as evidenced by an increase in partly feedback-based and independent revisions. Interview results show that students' decisions about whether to take comments into account depended on how credible, clear, and useful they perceived them to be. Peer review made students think about their own work and keep an eye on it, but it also made them more likely to ignore suggestions that were wrong or unclear. Drawing on these findings, the study proposes a complementary feedback model in which peer feedback and teacher feedback serve distinct but mutually reinforcing functions: peer feedback fosters revision autonomy, evaluative judgment, and self-initiated engagement, while teacher feedback provides expert calibration for accuracy, structural precision, and the resolution of meaning-level concerns that peer review does not address
Formative assessment · Peer Assessment · Peer evaluation · Peer feedback · EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning · Student Assessment and Feedback · Writing and Handwriting Education
Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2 writers with written corrective feedback
Collaborative writing
The Instructional Effect of Feedback in Test-Like Events
A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing
Argumentation-Based Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (ABCSCL)
Feedback sources in essay writing
Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline
To give is better than to receive
How does the type of online peer feedback influence feedback quality, argumentative essay writing quality, and domain-specific learning
Online peer feedback patterns of success and failure in argumentative essay writing
Teacher feedback literacy, feedback regimes and iterative change
Learning to improve the quality peer feedback through experience with peer feedback
The Incorporation of Facebook-Based Peer Comments Into Writing Revisions
Peer feedback in second language writing (2005–2014)
A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback and of various peer feedback forms in a secondary school writing curriculum
The Impacts of Collaborative Writing on Individual Writing Skills
Using thematic analysis in psychology
The Power of Feedback
Error feedback in L2 writing classes
Formative assessment and self-regulated learning
The Effects of Collaborative Writing on Students' Writing Fluency
| Citations per year | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2026 - 2026 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |