The perceived effectiveness of written peer feedback comments within L2 English academic writing courses

Roger Michael Alan Yallop, Djuddah A. J. Leijen


At one Estonian university, we have designed a course to support the writing skills of doctorate students who need to write scientific articles for publication in their L2 English. We provide this support by placing these students into small discipline-specific writing groups where they periodically give and receive written feedback on their draft articles. Knowing what may constitute an effective feedback comment will enable us to improve upon current pedagogical practices. In this study, we develop a coding scheme to measure the impact of both affective and non-affective feedback comments on the peer feedback process. We use this scheme in tandem with questionnaires to assess the effectiveness of postgraduate peer feedback comments as perceived by both L1 Estonian doctoral students and expert writing assessors. Within this context, the results suggest that cover letters and the tone of feedback comments have a noticeable impact on the peer feedback process.


Tagasisidekommentaaride tajutud efektiivsus inglise keeles kui teises keeles teadusartiklite kirjutamise kursusel

Oleme ühes Eesti ülikoolis välja töötanud kursuse, mille eesmärk on arendada doktorantide kirjalikku väljendusoskust ning toetada neid teadusartiklite kirjutamisel inglise keeles kui teises keeles.

Kursus on korraldatud nii, et üliõpilased on jagatud väikestesse erialapõhistesse kirjutamisrühmadesse, mille liikmed annavad ja saavad regulaarselt oma artikli mustanditele tagasisidet. Teadmised selle kohta, millised tagasisidekommentaarid on efektiivsed, aitaksid praeguseid õpetamismeetodeid parendada. Käesolevas uurimuses esitatakse kodeerimisskeem, mille abil mõõta parandussoovitustega ja parandussoovitusteta tagasisidekommentaaride mõju kaasõppijate vastastikuse tagasisidestamise protsessis. Parandamissoovitusega kommentaar (nt “sissejuhatus on liiga lühike”) suunab autorit oma teksti muutma. Parandamissoovituseta kommentaar (nt “väga hea pealkiri!”) ei suuna autorit teksti muutma ja on olemuselt pigem afektiivne. Kõnealuse kodeerimisskeemiga paralleelselt kasutame küsimustikke, millega uurida, kuidas tajuvad doktorantide vastastikuse tagasisidekommentaaride efektiivsust eesti keelt emakeelena kõnelevad doktorandid ning Eesti, Soome, Rootsi ja Saksamaa ülikoolide kirjutamiseksperdid.

Tulemused näitavad, et vaadeldud faktoritest mõjutavad vastastikuse tagasiside protsessi kaaskirja olemasolu ja tagasisidekommentaari toon.

Uuringu tulemused võimaldavad teadlastel ja praktikutel, kes õpetavad võrreldavas kontekstis sarnasel metoodikal põhinevaid kursusi, võtta kasutusele täpsemad, uurimistulemustel põhinevad õpetamismeetodid.


language learning and teaching, EFL and ESL writing, L1 Estonian, revision comments, non-revision comments, hedging devices, PhD students, cover letters, writing groups, peer review

Full Text:



Aitchison, Claire; Lee, Alison 2006. Research writing: Problems and pedagogies. – Teaching in Higher Education, 11 (3), 265–278.

Carson, Joan G.; Nelson, Gayle L. 1994. Writing groups: Cross-cultural issues. – Journal of Second Language Writing, 3 (1), 17–30.

Cho, Kwangsu; Schunn, Christian, D.; Charney, Davida 2006. Commenting on writing typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. – Written Communication, 23 (3), 260–294.

Crompton, Peter 1997. Hedging in academic writing: Some theoretical problems. – English for Specific Purposes, 16 (4), 271–287.

Ferris, Dana R. 1997. The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. – TESOL Quarterly, 315–339.

Garrison, Randy, D.; Anderson, Terry; Archer, Walter 2010. The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. – The Internet and Higher Education, 13 (1-2), 5–9.

Gee, Thomas C. 1972. Students’ responses to teacher comments. – Research in the Teaching of English, 6 (2), 212–221.

Hyland, Ken 1994. Hedging in academic writing and EAF textbooks. – English for Specific Purposes, 13 (3), 239–256.

Hyland, Fiona; Hyland, Ken 2001. Sugaring the pill: Praise and criticism in written feedback. – Journal of Second Language Writing, 10 (3), 185–212.

Kaufman, Julia H.; Schunn, Christian D. 2011. Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: Their origin and impact on revision work. – Instructional Science, 39 (3), 387–406.

Lee, Icy 2008. Student reactions to teacher feedback in two Hong Kong secondary classrooms. – Journal of Second Language Writing, 17 (3), 144–164.

Leijen, Djuddah A. J. 2017. A novel approach to examine the impact of web-based peer review on the revisions of L2 writers. – Computers and Composition, 43, 35–54.

Leijen, Djuddah A. J.; Leontjeva, Anna 2012. Linguistic and review features of peer feedback and their effect on implementation of changes in academic writing: A corpus based investigation. – Journal of Writing Research, 4 (2), 177–202.

Liu, Jun; Sadler, Randall W. 2003. The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. – Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2 (3), 193–227.

Murray, Rowena; Moore, Sarah 2006. The Handbook of Academic Writing: A Fresh Approach. McGraw Hill: Berkshire.

Myers, Greg 1989. The pragmatics of politeness in scientific articles. – Applied Linguistics, 10 (1), 1–35.

Nelson, Melissa M.; Schunn, Christian D. 2009. The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. – Instructional Science, 37 (4), 375–401.

Rollinson, Paul 2004. Experiences and perceptions in an ESL academic writing peer response group. – Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, 12, 79–108.

Rourke, Liam; Garrison, Randy, D.; Anderson, Terry; Archer, Walter 1999. Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing. – The Journal of Distance Education, 14 (2), 50–71.

Salager-Meyer, Françoise 1994. Hedges and textual communicative function in medical English written discourse. – English for Specific Purposes, 13 (2), 149–170.

Shea, Peter; Hayes, Suzanne; Vickers, Jason; Gozza-Cohen, Mary; Uzuner, Sedef; Mehta, Ruchi; Valchova, Anna; Rangan, Prahalad 2010. A re-examination of the community of inquiry framework: Social network and content analysis. – The Internet and Higher Education, 13 (1), 10–21.

Skelton, John 1988. The care and maintenance of hedges. – ELT Journal, 42 (1), 37–43.

Vygotsky, Lev S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Yallop, Roger M. A. 2016. Measuring affective language in known peer feedback on L2 academic writing courses: A novel approach. – Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu aastaraamat, 12, 287–308.

Yallop, Roger M. A. 2017. Investigating ‘mitigation’ and ‘praise’ as affective factors influencing the implementation of peer feedback within an asynchronous text environment. – Ruth Bonazza, Sandra Rahe, Tobias Welzel (Eds.), Unterstützung von L2-Schreibkompetenzen an deutschen Universitäten: Englisch und Deutsch als Fremd-und Zweitsprache. Gesellschaft für Schreibdidaktik und Schreibforschung, 117–135.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2018 Roger Michael Alan Yallop, Djuddah A. J. Leijen

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

ISSN 1736-2563 (print)
ISSN 2228-0677 (online)
DOI 10.5128/ERYa.1736-2563