Peer-Feedback Training Format: An Effective Writing Formative Assessment Tool*

Luisa Josefa Corsi García

Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá (Colombia)

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7198-6730

Submission: July 3, 2024 | Acceptance: January 21, 2025 | Publication: May 31, 2025

DOI: http://doi.org/10.18175/VyS16.2.2025.11

Abstract

This text presents a personal pedagogical reflection based on the experience I had in a continuous teacher development plan I took part in for over a year, applying its results in eight different ESL courses at the intermediate levels of 5 and 6 of the Academic English Support Program at Universidad de Los Andes. The purpose of the Continuous Professional Development program, specifically in the working group described in this experience, was to enhance students’ writing skills through teachers’ instruction and using a Peer-feedback Training Format based on the principles of formative assessment, formative feedback and peer-feedback. First, I provide a general introduction and the teaching context. Second, I describe the writing teaching practice and the Peer feedback Training Format. Third, I present my pedagogical insights. Then, I draw my conclusions, and finally, I give some recommendations for future directions.

KeyWords

active learning, assessment, collaborative learning, formative assessment, peer-feedback.

Formato de entrenamiento de retroalimentación entre pares: una herramienta eficaz de evaluación formativa de la escritura

Abstract

Este texto presenta una reflexión pedagógica personal basada en la experiencia que tuve en un plan de desarrollo docente continuo en el que participé durante más de un año, cuyos resultados apliqué en ocho cursos diferentes de ESL en los niveles intermedios 5 y 6 del Programa de Apoyo al Inglés Académico de la Universidad de Los Andes. El propósito del Desarrollo Profesional Continuo (CPD), específicamente en el grupo de trabajo descrito en esta experiencia, era el de mejorar las habilidades de escritura de los estudiantes a través de la instrucción del maestro y el uso de un formato de capacitación de retroalimentación entre pares basado en los principios de evaluación formativa, retroalimentación formativa y retroalimentación entre pares. En primer lugar, doy una introducción general y el contexto de enseñanza. En segundo lugar, describo la práctica de enseñanza de la escritura y el formato de capacitación en retroalimentación entre pares. En tercer lugar, presento mis reflexiones pedagógicas. Luego, formulo mis conclusiones y, finalmente, doy algunas recomendaciones para implementaciones futuras.

Palabras Clave

aprendizaje activo, aprendizaje colaborativo, evaluación, evaluación formativa, retroalimentación entre pares.

Formato de treinamento de feedback de pares: uma ferramenta eficaz de avaliação formativa de redação

Resumo

Este texto apresenta uma reflexão pedagógica pessoal baseada na experiência que tive em um plano de desenvolvimento docente contínuo do qual participei por mais de um ano, aplicando seus resultados em outros cursos diferentes de ESL nos níveis intermediários 5 e 6 do Programa de Apoio al Inglês Acadêmico da Universidade de Los Andes. O propósito do Desenvolvimento Profissional Contínuo (CPD), especificamente no grupo de trabalho descrito nesta experiência, foi melhorar as habilidades de escrita dos estudantes por meio da instrução do mestre e do uso de um formato de capacitação de retroalimentação entre pares baseados nos princípios de avaliação formativa, retroalimentação formativa e retroalimentação entre pares. Em primer lugar, apresento uma introdução geral e o contexto de ensino. Em segundo lugar, descrevo a prática de aprendizado da escritura e o formato de capacitação em retroalimentação entre pares. Em terceiro lugar, apresento minhas reflexões pedagógicas. Depois, formulo minhas conclusões e, finalmente, faço algumas recomendações para implementações futuras.

Palavras-chave

aprendizagem ativa, aprendizagem colaborativa, avaliação, avaliação formativa, feedback entre pares.

Introduction

The Academic English Support Program at Universidad de los Andes consists of ten English levels. English 5 and 6 make up part of the integrated-skills course of the Basic Cycle. English 6 is the seventh and final basic cycle course; the students who approve it fulfill the University Reading requirement. At these levels, students work on their development of the four language skills (reading, writing, listening, and speaking) and gain essential grammar structures and vocabulary that will allow them to be successful in academic and social environments. These courses aim to develop a stronger set of reading skills in comparison to the other skills of the language. “Moreover, critical thinking skills are taught and practiced, requiring students’ reflection and analysis rather than simple recall” (personal communication, 2024). The guidelines provided by the Department of Languages and Culture for all English teachers state that continuous professional development (CPD) “consists of formative activities that teachers engage in to enhance their teaching practice and professional careers” (personal communication, 2024) (Commission on English Language Program Accreditation [CEA], 2024; Richards, 2005).

Within this context, two of my colleagues and I got together to make up a CPD working group due to our common interests and academic affinity teaching the levels 5 and 6 (CPD-2023-10A). We started to have some reflection on personal goals and ways to improve our teaching practice, and established a working plan possible to be carried out for two semesters, having regular meetings once a month; upon request, according to our availability and teaching pacing. Our common academic interest was the desire to take students a step forward in their writing skills by making some adjustments in the materials and teaching practice. Additionally, we were aware that it was crucial to trigger students’ involvement as active learners to make the most of the teaching practice that is usually affected by time constraints. The general perception we had was that students seemed to feel overwhelmed by the teacher’s feedback; in particular, if their papers had too many corrections to include, because writing always implies a lot of time and effort. Their self-efficacy beliefs appeared to be affected, and it was reflected on the lack of interest in improving their texts; they just paid attention to the grade, making the comments and feedback given by the instructor useless. Unknowingly, my colleagues and I were experiencing cultural and educational changes in our teaching contexts that required our attention and desire for transformation. This situation motivated us to look for literature and resources that could give us some insight on evaluation, assessment and testing. The prominent finding was the need to make other voices audible and trustworthy to students in their learning process generating a change of mindset needed in the wide spectrum of collaborative learning.

Theoretical Framework

In my pedagogical inquiry, I found out that there has been a steady increase of research in the area of evaluation that seeks to meet the need of innovative practices. According to Pherez et al. (2023), in their systematic review of innovative learning assessment in secondary and higher education in Latin America, there has been a consistent rise of research focused on innovative evaluation practices, the same way as they have been present in the history of pedagogy; in particular, in the areas of teaching and learning. Evaluation is the widest basis for collecting information in education and includes all the factors that influence the learning process. Assessment is part of evaluation and refers to a variety of ways of collecting information on a learner’s language ability or achievement; it is an umbrella term for all types of measures used to evaluate students’ progress. One of these assessments is testing, which might be summative or formative. In their Handbook of Second Language Assessment, Tsagari & Banerjee (2016) explain the difference between them: summative assessment is used to determine if students have achieved the objectives previously set out for a specific task, or end-of-the term unit assessments; while formative assessment has the goal to enhance student learning. Additionally, Penny Ur, in her book A Course in English Language Teaching (2012), states that effective formative feedback offers clear error correction and suggestions to primarily promote future learning. This kind of alternative assessment has a lot of advantages over traditional testing, such as providing information on the strengths and weaknesses of each individual learner and multiple indices that can be used to calculate their progress; formative assessment includes learner-centered assessments such as portfolios, projects, student-designed tests, self-assessment, and peer-feedback. Defining the importance of peer-feedback within modern pedagogical approaches, van Zundert et al. (2009) assert that peer-feedback is key “because self-directed learning implies that learners be actively involved in shaping their own learning processes, and collaborative learning implies joint effort in carrying out tasks, peer assessment (PA) fits these new goals”(p. 270). Besides, self-regulation is encouraged as the competencies acquired through peer-feedback empower students to work with greater autonomy, while polishing their language skills, such as writing. Finally, in their influential work on feedback, Hattie and Timperley (2007) have affirmed that “Feedback is among the most critical influences on student learning” (p. 102), and thanks to the added value of technology, some learning systems such as Feedback Fruits have started to be implemented to enhance peer-feedback within the context of alternative assessment(D2L Knowledge, 2024).

In the following section, I present: First, the teaching context and CPD description, second, the peer-feedback format and teaching experience description; third, I present my pedagogical insights, next, relevant conclusions are drawn, and finally, some recommendations for future directions are given.

Teaching Context

English 5 and 6 courses focus on helping students consolidate high-order reading strategies and structured academic writing skills. Students coming from different faculties are taught to be able to achieve the exit levels of B2+ in reading and a B1 in writing, listening, and grammar skills. As the emphasis is on reading, teachers must find ways to engage students in effective pedagogical activities to be able to guarantee students’ integrated learning process. One of the materials used in these courses is the Integrated Academic Skills book, designed by language teachers from the university, which includes reading and writing content and tasks.

CPD Description

A vigorous idea appeared in our CPD working team and discussions based on the formative assessment theoretical framework and the students’ learning process; it was about the need to enhance students’ writing skills through teachers’ instruction, drawing attention to peer-feedback awareness (Agudelo Soto, 2016). A way to make this happen was by empowering students to make them become aware of their role as responsible participants, taking control of their learning process, which in turn leads them to be more confident and capable of metacognitive, monitoring, and self-regulation skills (Latifi et al., 2021). Therefore, we designed a writing table that we called afterward Peer-Feedback Training Format, which was based on the principles of formative assessment using peer-feedback and the writing rubrics established for these levels to guarantee coherence with the course syllabus and summative assessment criteria.

We had previously noticed throughout students’ questions and their text productions that they had not fully understood the rubrics’ formulation and product expectations; sometimes, students wanted to clarify the grades they got based on them, and we had to paraphrase the rubrics to help them understand our feedback. Therefore, we inferred that those students probably had skipped the rubric’s criteria due to the wording they had, which was mainly meant to be used by teachers. This situation could have been one of the reasons why some students just paid attention to the grade without considering further comments given by the teacher. We decided then to paraphrase those rubrics using a more familiar and concrete language for students, keeping in mind Latifi’s previous findings that assert that the more teachers make students familiar with clear assessment criteria and standards, the better engagement students will have in the peer learning processes (Latifi et al., 2021). After some drafts, the final result of that rubric paraphrasing exercise was a peer-feedback table that included three columns: First, a left-hand side checklist column of rubric categories and questions paraphrasing them. Second, three Mindset categories with words and visuals were meant to be checked according to the checklist questions and answers. Third, a right-hand side column for comments on any of the questions given. Additionally, we selected two sample authentic model texts written by former students who had developed and more-developed writing skills to use to do the peer-feedback training session using the table and the teacher’s guidance. Finally, we made a Canva with some important assessment definitions and tips to explain the crucial role peer- feedback plays in the learning process.

Peer-Feedback Training Format Description

The table was based on Carol Dweck’s principles developed in her book Mindset (2008). We used a visual metaphor representing: Not yet (seed image); Developing (small plant image); Yes (tree image). These principles were the core of the format because we considered that our students needed to be put in a growth mindset to be able to meet the challenge and learn in an ongoing process. The layout consisted of five columns: Column one had categories and questions based on the writing rubric used for these levels. The following three columns included three words and plant symbols to be ticked based on the Mindset principles. The last column was intended for writing any comments to clarify any of the aspects previously ticked or any other important idea to enrich the text being assessed. When we started to use the table in our classes, we renamed the table to Peer-Feedback Training Format. After the first applications, we tailored some of the questions based on the feedback provided by our students.

Designed by: Aura Natalia Benavides Ardila & Elena Paola Galeano Enciso.

Teaching Experience Description

I started to use the format and sample texts at different times in my courses, depending on the groups’ needs and pacing in the two levels I taught. In English 5, I conducted the writing activities over three days. It began with a short introduction to the theoretical framework used in the workshop, along with tips on giving and receiving peer-feedback, presented using a mirror symbol and included in a Canva visual presentation. This mirror symbol was key in helping students have a shift in their mindset and consider the peer-feedback and self-assessment as other improvement agents, as valid as the teacher’s voice. On the first day, students worked in small groups and began to analyze the two different levels of performance in the provided writing samples. Second, I provided direct instruction on how to accurately interpret the categories and questions in the format, emphasizing the type of comments worth including. Third, students discussed their work and doubts with their peers and teacher. On the second day, students wrote their own texts individually based on the writing prompt provided by the teacher. Following this, they partnered up to interchange papers and began giving peer-feedback using the photocopy of the peer-feedback training format. On the third day, students interchanged the peer-feedback training format and reviewed their peers’ feedback to revise their texts based on the provided information. Finally, students revised their texts and submitted their final versions to the teacher.

When sitting writing exams, they had to submit the exam correction first, based on the peer-feedback format completion, and then, based on the teacher’s one. To avoid showing them my feedback and corrections before their peers’ one, I first took a picture of their texts using my iPad and included my corrections there, so that after their peer feedback process had been completed over, I showed them my iPad image to supplement their correction process. I found this way very positive because students had to make an effort to provide valuable feedback to their partners, and then, they had to do their self-correction work before having the teacher’s comments. In addition, I asked them to submit their corrections with their peers’ and self-correction process first, to avoid the teacher’s biased feedback view, and then, they had to submit their final drafts based on my feedback, as well. I asked them to compare how the feedback provided by their peers and mine was similar or different, and how their final drafts looked at the end of the process.

Additionally, I asked them to explain the writing process they had experienced in the course during their final oral presentations. To do this assignment, they had to incorporate the use of GenAI to assist them in the self-correction process. I asked them to rate which type of feedback they found most valuable: from their peers, their teacher, or the GenAI. The GenAI prompt I gave them was this one: “Step 2: Give Artificial Intelligence this prompt: You are an English teacher of university students at a B1 level. Your task is to point out the mistakes in this connected text regarding punctuation, grammar, vocabulary, spelling, and number of words. The text should include 110 to 120 words”. This exercise helped them see the differences between the feedback given by their peers, the teacher, and the use of GenAI, allowing them to make the most of it. Students shared with me, in informal conversations, that GenAI was very useful to help them correct their texts regarding the mechanics of the text; that is grammar, spelling and punctuation because it was a time saver; however, the partners’ suggestions and teacher’s view was indispensable to engage in human touch and interactions according to the processes they have had in class. This experience coincides with the benefits found in the peer feedback academic writing research that affirms that: “feedback processes include students taking different perspectives, comparing others’ work to their own and the assimilation of new knowledge” (Huisman et al., 2018, p. 956).

In one of my courses, students shared their peer-feedback comments, leaving an oral record of their conversations in Teams instead of using photocopies. This was a way for me to guarantee peer conversations I had seen students had engaged in since the first time I implemented the Peer-feedback Training Format. This new way of implementation allowed students to go over their partners’ texts and get immediate feedback, having the chance to clarify any doubts on the spot. Their pronunciation was not accurate; however, it did not impede mutual feedback and communication. Moreover, I transitioned to delivering the peer-feedback training format online to reduce paper waste, which was a primary concern among our team when we started sharing our teaching experiences. Additionally, I organized them to work in pairs for the initial writing activity on paper, followed by individually submitting the final version as a writing assignment on BN (D2L), incorporating the peer-feedback suggestions Their final product held significance as it was graded as a writing quiz, assessing their work using the same rubric parameters provided in the Peer-feedback Training Format. As a result, teamwork elements like mutual positive interdependence were crucial, with students depending on their peers’ criteria to improve their own texts and get good results.

Furthermore, I dedicated more time to the actual peer-feedback sessions conducted in pairs to clarify doubts on the spot when students were completing the format, eliminating the need to train them with sample texts. Most of the time, students engage in conversations with their peers and teachers to resolve doubts about the clarity of comments received from their classmates.

Pedagogical Insights

I was able to testify how my students started to be actively involved in a collaborative scenario when they were reviewing the Peer-feedback Format results, because they began engaging in conversations to better understand what their partners had written. At times, students wanted to clarify content in the comments sections because they were too general or lacked supporting details. On some occasions, I noticed they wanted to ensure they understood their partners’ texts well; they wanted to praise their work or mutually assist with ideas to improve their texts in terms of grammar, punctuation, and content. As I once noted down and shared with my colleagues and a research Professor by email: “Yesterday in my English 5 section 8 class, some students had very constructive conversations with their peer- feedback and continued talking even after class was over. For me in particular, it has been very gratifying to start seeing certain changes in my students, both in their attitude towards writing and in the products they are obtaining” (personal communication, 2023).

At the end of the courses we taught, my colleagues and I formulated some questions in a OneDrive Form to gather feedback from learners. In the answers they submitted, we noticed there was a shift in their attitude towards feedback, including the teacher’s one because they valued that human-close voice coming from it. Across all my courses, students consistently rated teachers’ feedback the highest and affirmed that the process significantly aided in developing their writing skills because they needed those ‘second eyes’ to gain a different perspective and find deeper meaning in writing itself.

When students incorporated the GenAI for their final speaking project to describe their writing process in the course, I asked them to rate from 1 to 5 (with 1 being the lowest score and 5 being the highest score) how valuable these types of feedback were. I used a OneDrive form for 36 students, and their ratings were as follows: Correcting model texts/paragraphs: 4.58; peer training format: 4.19; peer feedback conversations: 4.47; self-correction: 4.44; Artificial Intelligence feedback: 4.47; teacher’s feedback: 4.97.

Later, I did the same with 87 students, asking them to rate these three types of feedback, and they rated them as follows: Peer feedback conversations: 4.14; self-correction: 4.38; teacher’s feedback: 4.84. Overall, the scores indicated that correcting model texts/paragraphs, self-correction, and the teacher’s feedback were the most valuable ones.

Students also answered this question: ‘In your opinion, did the peer feedback training format received in class this term help you improve your writing skills in the course?’ In the group of 36 students, all of them answered ‘Yes’.

In the group of 87 students, the majority answered ‘Yes’; only 5 students said ‘No’. In the positive responses, some students commented: ‘Yes, it allows me to take into account my mistakes and learn from them’; ‘Yes, some difficult points in writing became more apparent with another perspective.’

The students who did not find the Peer-feedback Training Format as useful as it could be justified their answers due to the lack of detailed feedback provided by their peers. This reasoning demonstrated an important self-directed learning process because they were able to critically think about the process they had. For example, one student commented: ‘No, because the peer-feedback training format from my peers didn’t provide specific observations or help to improve in the writing activity since we received all correct.’ Another student said: ‘No, because I strongly believe that the first version of writing is never perfect, and they scored it almost perfect.’

To make them become more self-aware of their learning processes, I asked students to write a short paragraph in pairs reflecting on their peer-feedback experience; this exercise allowed me to see how they were becoming aware of strategies to boost learning; for instance, one group included in their paragraph: “Second, you can use synonyms to increase your vocabulary […]” Overall, my colleagues and I noticed that our students were making progress in their writing skills by demonstrating a better understanding of text structure and ideas development, and they also started to use metalanguage in their communication and self-reflection. These perceptions backed up the relevance of instilling in them the principle of learners becoming authors of their lifelong growth process that nobody else can substitute for.

Also, I noticed that it was necessary to reduce the time spent on the writing activities. I implemented the first time I used the peer-feedback training format due to the integrated skills syllabus design of the basic cycle in the English program. I realized that the reading skills emphasis given for English 5 and 6 was about to shift to a writing one if I dedicated too much class time to it. On the other hand, I was able to identify key elements in the process thanks to the expertise after some time of the peer-feedback training format implementation. For instance, I started to give more detailed guidance and prompt feedback at the moment of students giving actual peer-feedback to their partners’ texts, rather than spending too much class time in preparing learners and training them to implement the peer-feedback training format using sample texts.

The excessive use of photocopies and paperwork made me more ecologically aware; in consequence, I started to use the institutional Teams application to ask students in pairs to create their folders to upload the peer-feedback training format and edit it by giving their partners the corresponding feedback. This implementation also benefited students regarding the clarity of their partners’ comments because there were not illegible handwriting issues that sometimes hindered the process.

Conclusions

The Continuous Professional Development Program (CPD) at Uniandes has helped me put things into focus and keep in touch with my colleagues with whom I shared common interests and a working plan to help students foster their writing skills by following the principles of formative assessment, formative feedback, and peer-feedback. The most valuable benefits of this co-teaching experience, in particular, at the early stages of the process were, therefore two twofold: I was able to socialize the pedagogical needs I had, and I got some insight on how to fulfill them. In addition, sharing with my colleagues what went on in the teaching practice allowed me to identify weaknesses and strengths in my students’ writing processes. Concurrently, while I was working with my colleagues, I was putting into practice what I was helping my students see in their learning process, that is, the power of collaborative learning-work and self-criticism. I was able to provide students with a holistic view that implies communicative needs fulfilled when learners socialize their work and get peer-feedback. My students and myself were able to experience one of the aspects highlighted by Pherez et al. (2023) in their work on innovative assessment in Latin American higher and secondary education: “Human learning is mainly a social and cultural process that occurs through meaningful negotiation and interaction between learners” (p. 29). The student-centered teaching dynamics, where students take responsibility to respond to peers’ and teachers’ feedback, were essential in engaging students as active participants who contribute to the learning process. This approach shifted their defensive attitude, probably driven by the fear of making mistakes, to an open-minded relationship towards reality, which is the wise choice of the human being embracing reality, imitating children’s bright eyes. As it is described in Giussani & Zucchi’s book: “those who, before reality, have absolutely nothing to defend who seize everything as it is, and follow the attraction of reality according to its total implications.” (1997, p. 123). On top of that, students felt supported by peers at the same level, who acted as coaches, providing initial impressions.

The constant support and guidance provided by my colleagues in the CPD working group, as well as various university departments, have been crucial in my professional development. I have benefited greatly from a professional network dedicated to fostering successful teaching and learning environments that are in constant transformation. The classroom scenario presented here aligned with the seven principles of teaching and learning at Uniandes. These principles emphasize a holistic and autonomous approach, respectful and responsible treatment, trust and communication, self-criticism, prompt assessment, and knowledge integration and coherence.

The dedicated time for raising awareness of formative assessment using the Peer-feedback Training Format helped my colleagues and I create a growth mindset atmosphere in class that allowed us to become aware that we are in constant growth and change without being fully completed. That genuine belief in change and transformation was key for us as a co-teaching team, and for our students to focus on self-improvement. The awareness session is time-consuming, especially when students are accustomed to traditional settings; however, it is worth doing because it guarantees the peer-feedback validity and reliability (Latifi et al., 2021). Moreover, the exercises in self-monitoring fostered self-criticism and required integrating previous and current knowledge to fulfill tasks effectively.

All in all, this pedagogical reflection connects to the previous ones I have had and shared in previous testimonies because I have seen the value of my metacognitive teaching practice to develop myself as a “Professional Educator”, engaged “in a learning and self-improvement culture following the principles of reflection, significant feedback and positive criticism” (Corsi García, 2020); the institutional survey results support this advantage as an asset to my professional growth. Here I can identify one of the attributes that have been characterized for a Growth Mindset (GM) foreign language teacher. Following Atuesta Salazar’s description of self-reflection in her research on Mindset: “it involves the teacher doing a conscious and critical process of retrospection and continuous monitoring of their actions, behaviors and attitudes” (2022, p. 114). As for my vision of myself in the future, I will continue to work on being open to reality faithfully, without having to defend myself against it, but rather letting myself be drawn in by it with all its outcomes.

Aspects to Consider for Future Directions

When I experiment with something new, I am more likely to make mistakes; however, this has not prevented me from making progress and innovating. As Carol Dweck states in her book, “Even in the growth mindset, failure can be a painful experience. But it doesn’t define you. It’s a problem to be faced, dealt with, and learned from” (2008, p. 33). To illustrate this, after some time of implementing the Peer-feedback Training Format in class, I became aware of the fact that the time invested in developing writing skills was diminishing the time for the other skills that were important in the course program, as well. Consequently, it is essential to make a detailed lesson plan that aligns with the integrated skills syllabus design in any future course given, and in this specific case, in the English Courses 5 and 6 of the basic cycle, making a balance of all integrated academic English skills, keeping in mind time constraints.

The role of the learning process as a follow-up to change has taken a crucial role as important as the product itself due to a globalized learning community, including the supplementary asset of technology and GenAI; therefore, it is bottom-line to dedicate time and effort to make students aware that real learning happens if peer-feedback and self- assessment are taken into consideration. Traditional learning emphasized the teacher’s voice; nowadays, the student’s voice and their self-voice are decisive.

There are two possible ways to implement the Peer-feedback Training Format; first, students can work individually, giving peer-feedback to one partner only. Alternatively, students can work in pairs to give and receive peer feedback as small teams (pair work), with each pair of students providing feedback to another pair. However, the final draft paper should still be submitted individually to ensure positive mutual interdependence among the teams while maintaining individual accountability (Tarricone & Luca, 2002). This combination gives the teacher a detailed view of students’ individual and group performance while maximizing the teaching time. Ideally, every teacher or level coordinator should have more sample texts from former students to illustrate possible final products and ways to use the Peer-feedback Training Format according to the prompt given in the writing task.

Some checklist questions given in the Peer-feedback Training Format were more difficult to answer because they had some ambiguity. In fact, my colleagues and I had to change or polish some of them. However, every teacher or working team needs to check if the checklist questions given in the Peer-feedback Training Format align with the syllabus design they are working with, or if they need to tailor some of them in the future. The comments section could be enriched by adding some piece of advice that could raise students’ interest in providing peer-feedforward to their partners, that is, for future actions; for instance: “What is your advice to your learning partner to better provide her/his clear position on the topic?” (Latifi et al., 2021, p. 770). In this way, the main goal of formative assessment, which is to boost future learning, would be accomplished.

If students use the Peer-feedback Training Format orally, it is relevant to make sure they provide detailed and clear feedback to their peers because it is more difficult to keep track of the errors or details to correct when there is only an oral record, and learners may have problems to get the message across due to pronunciation inaccuracies. In the end, this process might be more time-consuming if students want to review the aspects discussed in the conversation and if they need to do self-correction of less significant elements or minor details. To sum up, the Peer-feedback Training Format is very flexible to be used in any context, even if there are no technological devices available.

Being environmentally conscious of paper usage in the classroom is essential. Thus, online learning platforms and applications are key to avoiding paper waste. At Universidad de los Andes I had the chance to avoid paper waste by using the online resources such as Bloque Neón (BN) in Brightspace (D2L) to submit writing assignments and Teams to create folders in certain parts of the writing process. Currently, because of technological innovations, the D2L Brightspace community is starting to implement an all-in-one teaching and learning system called Feedback Fruits that allows students to give peer-feedback while incorporating GenAI assistance. As a pioneer teacher handling this tool, I have seen how my students are shown feedback tips while reviewing their peers to help them write higher-quality feedback, making sure they are actionable with concrete suggestions for improvement (D2L Knowledge, 2024). This specific feature tackles the lack of detailed feedback that prevented learning from peers in some of my students’ cases previously described. From my standpoint, GenAI assistance in developing writing skills is key to being taken into future implementations. I identify with Romero’s research on creative applications of AI in education, when she points out the cruciality of staying up-to-date with technological developments in education and professional learning to get the most out of it (Urmeneta & Romero, 2024). Likewise, it is imperative to teach our students how to use GenAI transparently, within an ethical framework, as a learning tool to boost tuition in their learning process and productivity in their future working careers, which can never replace them as unique agents. Simultaneously, those principles apply to us teachers as fundamental promoters to drive positive change (Universidad de los Andes, 2024).

The results of this whole process led me to think that this pedagogical reflection could be used within an action-research project in the future that could contribute to pedagogical research on formative and alternative assessment that is so much needed in higher education in Latin America due to the constant changes and needs that are emerging in the teaching context nowadays (Pherez et al., 2023).

The following annexes are available here:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1FV39lnXgm-noYdQGSod1IgtT6fbioUyv

Annex 1

Canva Poster

Annex 2

Simplified Version of Rubrics

Peer Feedback Training Format

Annex 3

Writing Model Paragraphs

Annex 4

iPad teacher’s correction

Annex 5

Audio Recording Peer Feedback Training Format

Annex 6

Final Speaking Project with AI Prompt

Annex 7

Several OneDrive Form answers

Several OneDrive Form answers 2

Annex 8

Writing sample

Annex 9

Institutional survey answers

Annex 10

Principios de la docencia en Uniandes (n.d.)

Fundamentos del Proyecto Educativo Uniandino (2023)

Annex 11

Peer Feedback Student 1 Teams online

Annex 12

Peer Feedback Student 2 Teams online

Annex 13

Peer Feedback Student 3 Teams online

Annex 14

Peer Feedback Student 1 Written on paper

References

Agudelo Soto, K. E. (2016). Teachers’ and students’ perceptions of formative feedback on L2 writing. Universidad de los Andes [Master’s dissertation, Universidad de los Andes]. Repositorio Institucional Séneca. http://hdl.handle.net/1992/13517

Atuesta Salazar, L. P. (2022). Conceptualización de atributos de mentalidad de crecimiento en docentes de inglés como lengua extranjera [Master’s dissertation, Universidad de los Andes]. Repositorio Institucional Seneca. http://hdl.handle.net/1992/59450

Commission on English Language Program Accreditation (CEA). (2024). Leading by advancing standards. Retrieved December 6, 2024, from https://cea-accredit.org/

Corsi García, L. J. (2020). An attempt to foster and enhance students’ speaking skills by using VoiceThread videos within a flipped lesson plan. Voces y Silencios: Revista Latinoamericana de Educación, 11(2), 175–185. https://doi.org/10.18175/VyS11.2.2020.10

D2L Knowledge. (2024). About Feedback Fruits. D2L Brightspace Community.
https://community.d2l.com/brightspace/kb/articles/23688-about-feedbackfruits

Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset. Ballantine Books.

Giussani, L., & Zucchi, J. E. (1997). The religious sense (eBook ed.). McGill-Queen‘s University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9780773567085

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

Huisman, B., Saab, N., van Driel, J., & van den Broek, P. (2018). Peer feedback on academic writing: Undergraduate students’ peer feedback role, peer feedback perceptions and essay performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(6), 955–968.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1424318

Latifi, S., Noroozi, O., & Talaee, E. (2021). Peer feedback or peer feedforward? Enhancing students’ argumentative peer learning processes and outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(2), 768–784. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13054

Pherez, G. A., Garzón, N. N., Conde, E. K., & Hoyos, J. (2023). Evaluación innovadora de los aprendizajes en educación media y superior en América Latina: revisión sistemática. Voces y Silencios: Revista Latinoamericana de Educación, 14(2), 23–48.
https://doi.org/10.18175/VyS14.1.2023.11

Richards, J. C. (2005). Professional development for language teachers: Strategies for teacher learning. Ernst Klett Sprachen.

Tarricone, P., & Luca, J. (2002). Successful teamwork: A case study. In Quality Conversations, Proceedings of the 25th HERDSA Annual Conference, Perth, Western Australia, 7-10 July 2002 (pp. 640–646). Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia, Inc. (HERDSA).
https://ro.ecu.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5007&context=ecuworks

Tsagari, D., & Banerjee, J. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of second language assessment (Vol. 12). De Gruyter Mouton.

Universidad de los Andes. (2023). Fundamentos del Proyecto Educativo Uniandino.

Universidad de los Andes. (2024). Lineamientos para el uso de inteligencia artificial generativa (IAG). Retrieved December 10, 2024, from https://secretariageneral.uniandes.edu.co/images/documents/lineamientos-uso-inteligencia-artificial-generativa-IAG-uniandes.pdf

Universidad de los Andes. (n.d.). Principios de la docencia en Uniandes.

Ur, P. (2012). A course in English language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Urmeneta, A., & Romero, M. (2024). Creative applications of artificial intelligence in education. In A. Urmeneta & M. Romero (Eds.), Creative applications of artificial intelligence in education (pp. 3–16). Palgrave Macmillan.

van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & van Merriënboer, J. (2009). Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 270–279.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.004

.........................................................................................................................................................

Luisa Josefa Corsi García

Master en Educación con certificación CELTA. Profesora de inglés académico, en el Departamento de Lenguas y Cultura de la Facultad de Ciencias Sociales (Universidad de los Andes). Sus temas de interés se centran en la didáctica de las lenguas, aprendizaje invertido, gamificación, evaluación formativa, aprendizaje entre pares, aprendizaje colaborativo y personalizado.

---

1. * This article emerged as a result of ongoing faculty development work at Universidad de los Andes. It did not receive any funding, and there are no conflicts of interest to disclose. The contribution of the professors listed in the peer feedback table occurred as follows: Professors Aura Natalia Benavides Ardila and Elena Paola Galeano Enciso designed the peer evaluation work table. I have their consent to include it in my reflection. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Luisa Josefa Corsi García (lj.corsi@uniandes.edu.co; luisacorsidesalgar@gmail.com).