The Impact of Peer Feedback on Chinese EFL Junior High School Students’ Writing Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English writing plays a vital role in language teaching and learning and is compulsory in Chinese secondary education. Chinese EFL junior high school students need to master English writing. However, in the process of English writing teaching and learning, the Chinese EFL students still face problems in writing ability and self-efficacy even though they receive corrective feedback from teachers. In this regard, the authors believe peer feedback as a formative evaluation method also significantly promotes students' writing performance. So, the purpose of this study is to explore the effectiveness of peer feedback on Chinese EFL junior high school students’ writing ability and self-efficacy. The participants in this study were 100 grade 9 EFL students in a Chinese public junior high school, divided into experimental and control classes. Both teacher feedback and peer feedback were used in the experimental class, while only teacher feedback was used in the control class. Data were collected using the quasi-experimental and survey questionnaire methods, and data were analyzed using SPSS version 23. The findings revealed that peer feedback positively impacts students' writing ability in content, organization, and grammar. Additionally, students have more positive attitudes toward peer feedback which is more conducive to improving the students’ writing self-efficacy in motivation and confidence. Therefore, it can be considered that peer feedback has a positive impact on Chinese EFL junior high school students' writing ability and self-efficacy. The author also proposed the recommendations and implications for EFL writing instruction, policies, and future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".