Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  peer feedback
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Exploring Peer Feedback Behaviour in Online Teaching Practice Classroom: Case of Learning Design

100%
Triyanto, Handayani R. a. D.
The New Educational Review
|
2023
|
vol. 74
139-149
EN
This study aims to explore teachers’ peer feedback behaviour in online teaching practice classes. Qualitative research was conducted on 32 physics teachers who conducted a teacher professional curriculum. Data were gathered through interviews, observations, and online discourse archives. Six steps were taken in analysing the data: preparing and organising data, exploring data, developing themes, representing findings, interpreting findings, and validating the accuracy of the findings. The results showed that peer feedback behaviour focused on learning design content and teachers’ performance. Peer feedback connects teachers’ ideas with those of their colleagues, open-mindedness, and encourages reflective thinking. This study realises peer feedback is a mutual dialogue to enhance teachers’ pedagogical competence in teacher professional curricula.
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Translation students’ peer feedback for learning English for Specific Purposes (ESP). Findings from a case study in Lithuania

88%
Burkšaitienė N.
Journal of Education Culture and Society
|
2022
|
vol. 13
|
issue 1
173-187
EN
Aim. The use of feedback (including peer-generated feedback) for learning has been widely investigated across many fields of study, however, no research into its use in Translation studies has been conducted yet. To fill in this gap, the present small-scale study was carried out at a university in Lithuania. It investigated undergraduate translation students’ feedback on their peers’ ESP oral performance by addressing the main research question: what areas are identified as those that need further work on? Methods. The present research was conducted with the participation of 42 undergraduate students who were majors in Translation studies. To carry out the research, qualitative methodology was chosen. The data were drawn from the study participants’ feedback sheets and investigated using inductive content analysis. Results.  The study resulted in the identification and detailed description of four major categories and ten subcategories that reflect the areas that call for further work on, including the study participants’ presentation content, the use of language, presentation delivery mode, and the use of slides. Conclusion. The findings lead to the conclusion that peer feedback, as used in this study, can be viewed as a tool providing its receivers with an opportunity for learning as it supports and directs them toward further improvement.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Focus and Effects of Peer and Machine Feedback on Chinese University EFL Learners’ Revisions of English Argumentative Essays

63%
Liu M.
Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition
|
2021
|
vol. 7
|
issue 1
75-98
DE
In Anlehnung an eine empirische Untersuchung präsentiert der vorliegende Artikel die Ziele und Ergebnisse eines kollegialen und automatisierten Feedbacks (engl. peer feedback, machine feedback) bei der Korrektur des Inhalts eines englischsprachigen Argumentationsaufsatzes. An der Untersuchung nahmen 127 Studierende einer chinesischen Universität teil, für die Englisch eine Fremdsprache ist. Die gesammelten Daten entstammen verschiedenen Versionen des Aufsatzes (Arbeitsversion Nr. 1, kollegiales Feedback (PF), Arbeitsversion Nr. 2 – basiert auf kollegialem Feedback, automatisiertes Feedback (MF), Arbeitsversion Nr. 2 – basiert auf automatisiertem Feedback) sowie Fragebögen und aufgenommenen Interviews. Aus der Analyse erhobener Daten ergeben sich wesentliche Unterschiede in Bezug auf die erhaltenen Feedbacks, die im Text auf Grundlage verschiedener Versionen des Aufsatzes im Einzelnen erläutert werden. Es wird beispielsweise unter Beweis gestellt, dass das kollegiale Feedback in erster Linie auf inhaltliche Fehler konzentriert war, während sich das automatisierte Feedback meistens auf sprachliche Fehler bezog. In Anlehnung an die durchgeführte Analyse werden Implikationen betreffend kollegiales und automatisiertes Feedback präsentiert.
EN
The present mixed-method study examined the foci and effects of peer and machine feedback on the revisions of Chinese university EFL learners’ English argumentative essays. The data included Draft 1, peer feedback (PF), PF-based Draft 2, machine feedback (MF), MF-based feedback, questionnaires, and interview recordings. The main findings were: (a) peer feedback was primarily concerned with content errors, while machine feedback mainly involved non-content errors, (b) significant differences occurred in errors of most types between Draft 1, PF and PF-based Draft 2, and between Draft 1, MF, and MF-based Draft 2, (c) the intake of ‘introducing a new topic in Conclusion’ was a powerful predictor of PF-based Draft 2 scores, and (d) the participants generally moderately considered peer and machine feedback to be useful. Based on the findings, some implications are discussed on how to better implement and enhance the quality of peer and machine feedback.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.