Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNumérosVol. 44 N°2Articles de rechercheEmpowering university EFL learner...

Articles de recherche

Empowering university EFL learners through peer review

L’évaluation entre pairs comme levier d’empowerment des étudiant·es en anglais à l’université
Claire Tardieu et Eva Guerda Rodriguez

Résumés

Cette étude porte sur une pratique pédagogique visant à favoriser l’empowerment et la réussite des étudiant.es, à savoir l’évaluation entre pairs (Woodward, 2015 ; Massery, 2013). Ici, l’évaluation entre pairs concerne un groupe de 16 étudiant.es francophones en troisième année d’études anglophones. Notre hypothèse est qu’un processus d’évaluation entre pairs, en amont de l’évaluation finale (présentation orale avec diaporama), favorise l’appropriation des critères d’évaluation par les étudiant.es grâce à une checklist et contribue à l’amélioration de la qualité de leur travail. Les résultats montrent que : (1) les étudiant.es tendent à sous-estimer leurs propres productions et à surestimer celles de leurs pairs ; (2) iels intègrent davantage de critères d’évaluation et révisent leur travail en conséquence ; (3) leur deuxième autoévaluation s’aligne plus étroitement sur celle de l’enseignant.e lors de la procédure d’évaluation finale ; (4) les étudiant.es évoquent un “effet miroir” lors de leur processus d’autocorrection.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

Introduction

1How can students be empowered at the university level, particularly in the area of assessment? In this study, “empowering the students” (Rappaport, 1987; Cummins, 2000) will be conceived as enabling them to understand the expectations of final evaluations better, so that they can take a critical distance from their own work—much like an external evaluator—and, in doing so, improve their performance. At university, more often than not, it is an external evaluator who holds the “power” to assess and grade students’ assignments. The more effectively a student grasps the assessment requirements, the more likely they are to achieve a higher mark. However, what accounts for the fact that some students appear more proficient at understanding these requirements than others? Is it simply a matter of class attendance, or are there implicit skills and competencies—rarely addressed explicitly during the semester—that nonetheless prove essential for success in the final assessment? In other words, could certain unspoken prerequisites influence the final grade, even when a student has attended every class?

2Each instructor may have their own expectations regarding what constitutes a successful oral presentation—for instance, the inclusion of a clear research question, appropriate use of references, and overall structure. These expectations also extend to how the presentation is delivered, both visually (e.g., balancing text and images, incorporating relevant illustrations) and orally (e.g., clear pronunciation, appropriate pacing, effective gestures, and coordinated use of visual aids). This raises an important pedagogical question: how can we ensure that all students are explicitly aware of the key components that contribute to an effective presentation? Over sixty years ago, Bourdieu and Passeron (1964) argued that students who achieved the highest grades were those with the clearest understanding of the evaluative criteria prioritized by their teachers. Thus, “good students” were those whose social background provided them with an accurate knowledge of the “codes” used for grading, or, in other words, those who were better aware of the criteria used by their teachers. Nowadays, many instructors are eager to clarify their evaluation criteria for all students; however, it remains essential for the students both to understand and to internalize them.

3To strengthen students' appropriation of the assessment framework, we implemented an experimental approach involving peer review (Woodward, 2015; Massery, 2013). This approach was part of the Eval+ project at Sorbonne Nouvelle University (2022-2023), which aimed to promote forms of positive assessment. The students were third-year undergraduates studying English as their major; their final assignment was an individual oral presentation on an issue related to the content of the course. Very early in the semester, they were presented with a grid comprising criteria to assess both the content and the language in the form of a checklist featuring the same assessment criteria that were to be used by the teacher. They were invited to fill in the checklist on several occasions: first of all, at home in a self-rating exercise (SR1); then a second time in class (SR2), when they were peer-reviewed by another student (PR). The second completion was supposed to make them aware of additional criteria that were indicated by their peer reviewers. Moreover, in this context, the use of evaluation criteria applies not only to the students’ own work through self-reflection, but also to the work of their peers during an interactive phase. Our hypothesis is that this dual movement—towards oneself and towards others—fosters a deeper awareness of both the teacher’s expectations and the assessment criteria being applied.

4During the experiment, another aspect was also observed. It is well established that in tutoring or mentoring arrangements, the tutor also benefits from the learning process by assisting their partner. Similarly, in the context of peer review, observing and listening to a peer’s presentation can reveal potential shortcomings in one’s own work. This phenomenon is what we shall refer to as “the mirror effect”. This exploratory research analyzes the results of the experiment using the marks assigned: (i) by each student to themselves, (ii) by the reviewer, (iii) by the students after the peer review session, and (iv) by the teacher (Eva Guerda) and the research observer (Claire Tardieu).

5First of all, we will present the conceptual framework around the notion of empowerment and account for the literature on peer review. Then, we will refer to the context of our study, the research protocol, and methodology. Finally, the results of our experimentation will be discussed. We argue that peer review among students is consistently beneficial for assessment, significantly improving the quality of final submissions in the perspective of positive evaluation.

1. Conceptual framework and state of the art

6The concept of empowerment appeared in the USA in the 1970s, with the women’s liberation and civil rights movements, and then spread to the fields of psychology, sociology, management, politics, and so on (Calvès, 2009). Anne-Emmanuèle Calvès (2009) notes, “among the many sources of inspiration for work on empowerment, the method of conscientization developed by the Brazilian Paulo Freire in his work Pedagogy of the Oppressed, published in 1968, occupies a prominent place” (p. 737). However, Le Bossé (1996) warns against certain practices that would justify relieving the people in charge (p. 128), since empowerment is indeed a sort of “delegation of power” (p.130). This study situates student empowerment in final assessments as a key component of a broader institutional shift toward more respectful and supportive academic working conditions at the university level.

7Indeed, in 2013, a major survey was conducted by Ferrell and Sheppard across universities in the UK (EUNIS 2013). It served as a prelude to the Jisc Assessment and Feedback Programme (September 2011 - August 2014), which aimed to promote changes in assessment practices and better meet students’ needs. This survey echoes a similar concern in France with the implementation of the “nouveau plan Licence” in 2018, in an attempt to increase student success rates. The results of Ferrell and Sheppard’s survey showed that the biggest area of dissatisfaction for students pertains to assessment and the canonical place of the essay. They also revealed that students were rarely given the opportunity to appropriate the assessment tools and criteria for making a judgment (p. 3).

  • 1 This term could lead to confusion, as it is widely used to refer to the process of evaluating artic (...)

8Waring (2008) uses the term “positive assessment” to refer to the feedback provided by the teacher to learners in the classroom. It is part of a formative assessment process that leads to measurable progress by empowering learners. The concept of “peer review” can also be considered a relevant tool since it allows students to revise their work with a peer before their final assessment, which might help them to obtain a higher grade. Indeed, the very concept of “pairing students for assessment” can be found under different terms in the literature. Why choose the designation “peer review”1, then? For Woodward (2015), peer review encompasses peer evaluation, a procedure that allows learners to assess one another’s performances by providing and receiving feedback (Mulder & Baik, 2014, p. 657 cited by Massery, 2013, p. 9). Moreover, according to Woodward, peer review can take different forms, such as peer editing, peer response, peer evaluation, and peer conferencing. In this study, the term “peer review” will encompass the following four meanings:

  1. peer editing, aiming at correcting spelling and grammar;

  2. peer response, meant to help the students modify the content of their writings through appropriate scaffolding built by the teacher, which has its limits;

  3. peer evaluation, being a form of judgment passed on a production by a peer with similar results as those of a work corrected by a teacher;

  4. peer conferencing, allowing students to discuss, progress, and revise their work among themselves, thanks to their exchanges and questions.

9Woodward also concludes that “clearly, effective and beneficial peer review must be taught” (2015, p. 40). This finding should not be disregarded within the context of a peer review experiment.

10Peer review can also be defined as a form of cooperative or collaborative learning. Cooperative learning was developed at the beginning of the 20th century in the United States with Dewey (1927) and Lewin (1944), among others, to designate a mode of learning that aims at agreement and cohesion and is initially opposed to competition (Panitz, 1999, cited by Baudrit, 2007). Conversely, the concept of collaboration, which finds its foundations in the work of Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget (1965 [1932]) and Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1962, 1978), is based on the notion of socio-cognitive conflict. Collaboration implies equality of level between partners, equitable assumption of responsibility, and co-constructed exchanges. In cooperative learning, learners help one another whereas the collaborative learning process requires fair sharing, which can lead to socio-cognitive conflict.

11Ultimately, the distinction between collaboration and cooperation depends on the difference in level between the students, but also on their degree of involvement in the task. We may assume that collaboration is more likely to define peer assessment at the university level, provided that students are equally engaged with each other. In any case, learners should be able to take ownership of all the ins and outs of the task.

12What are the advantages of peer review? Massery (2016) compiled a number of evidence-based studies on the subject of peer review. For instance, Mulder & Baik (2014, p. 664) found that peer review had a positive impact for students “in need”, that is to say, students with lower performances. Lundstrom & Baker (2009), as well as Crinon & Marin (2010), delved into the issue of the benefits induced by peer review. They discovered that it was more beneficial to provide feedback than to receive it. Indeed, providing feedback requires a lot of attention and the capacity to reflect on the partner’s work. The same degree of awareness is not necessarily obtained by the presenter. Hence, it is imperative to make sure that all participants are afforded the opportunity to engage in reciprocal interactions. Hu & Lam (2010, p. 378) analysed the feedback provided by the students and observed that 75% of it was valid, which is considered a satisfactory rate. The authors also brought to light the types of language functions mostly used by the participants—mainly advice and requests for clarification in speaking. Hu & Lam (2010) ultimately observed a general focus on peripheral aspects of writing—i.e., elements not central from the evaluator’s perspective—as well as a high rate of incorporation, indicating that peer feedback was well integrated. From these results, one should retain the idea that the participants pay more attention to elements that may seem less important to the teacher-evaluator. For example, they are sensitive to the way in which their peers cope with stress, whereas a teacher is more likely to focus on the precision of their vocabulary in writing or the accentuation of words in speaking. Kong (2013) wrote his PhD on the topic of secondary school students. His main finding concerns the assessment criteria which failed to be incorporated by the participants, and he advises us to make time to clarify all the criteria on the assessment grid with the participants prior to the peer review session. This is why we decided to discuss the assessment grid with the students beforehand and to draw their attention to all the criteria before and during the peer review session.

2. Protocol and methodology

2.1. The protocol

2.1.1. Implementation

  • 2 Attendance is not mandatory at Sorbonne Nouvelle University, and half of the students work alongsid (...)

13We conducted our experiment in the first semester of the academic year (2022-2023) with two groups of third-year undergraduate students, and we managed to collect full data for 16 of them2. The course “Main Issues in Second Language Learning” dealt with different theories of learning, with a focus on language learning.

14The peer review procedure took place in class and concerned the final task to be assessed by the teacher at the end of the course. The task itself consisted of a 10-minute individual presentation in English on a subject that the students were free to choose in relation to the content of the course. As mentioned earlier, students were asked to design a slideshow and write a full presentation script. They also needed to choose three keywords to include on their first slide.

15To carry out a production task, we used three models that break down the various stages of the process in a similar way:

  • Pre-planning, composing, and revising (Flower and Hayes, 1981)

  • Prewriting, drafting, revising, and editing (Tribble, 1996)

  • Planning, executing, controlling, and remedying (CEFR, 2001)

Figure 1. The eight stages of the peer review procedure for final oral presentations

Figure 1. The eight stages of the peer review procedure for final oral presentations

16As Figure 1 shows, the final assessment was prepared well in advance. As early as October, the students were given the criteria in the form of a personal checklist. Both the checklist and the position of the project within the syllabus were thoroughly discussed. The students were asked to write a script, prepare a slideshow, and practise at home before the peer review session scheduled for early December. They were also asked to fill in a checklist with all the criteria before the peer review session for their own performance (SR1: self-rating in stage 1). After the peer review session had occurred, students were invited to incorporate their partners’ remarks and suggestions, do some further practice, and grade their performance once more (SR2: self-rating in stage 2). At the end of the course, they were assessed by both the teacher (Eva Guerda) and the observer (Claire Tardieu).

2.1.2. Checklists and assessment grids: pedagogical tools and main data for our research

17As mentioned, the students were provided with the assessment grids which were to be used by the teacher for their final evaluation. For the sake of clarity, we will call “checklists” the grids given to the students and “assessment grids” those used by the teacher and observer, knowing that their content is identical. Each student received two copies of the checklist: one for her/his self-assessment at home, the other for the assessment of the peer in class. The grid used by the student at home was labelled “Personal checklist” whereas the grid used to advise peers was termed “Peer reviewer checklist”. The personal checklist was used twice by each student: once at home before the workshop (SR1), and once after the peer review workshop for self-reassessment purposes using a green pen (SR2). The two checklists were identical in terms of content; only the pronouns changed in the additional comments areas (e.g., “what I am already happy with or even proud of” vs. “what you can already be happy with or even proud of”). Table 1 shows all the types of data that were collected, our main data consisting of the checklists used by students and peer reviewers.

Table 1. Types of data collected

Participants

Type of data collected

N=

Used in this study

Students

Personal home assessment checklists with grades and additional comments (SR1)

16

x

Peer reviewer and Personal checklists with grades and additional comments (PR + SR2)

13

x

Short interviews after the peer review session (recorded and transcribed in 2022-2023)

18

x

Short interviews after the peer review session (recorded and transcribed in 2023-2024)

8

x

Students’ presentations: Scripts

16

Students’ presentations: Videos

16

Observer

Peer review observation report (typed)

1

Assessment grids with grades and additional comments

16

x

Teacher

Assessment grids with grades and additional comments

16

x

2.1.3. Assessment grid

18At the end of this article, both sides of the evaluation grid are presented (Appendices 1 & 2). Assessment grid side 1 displays the criteria for the content, that is to say, both the script and the text displayed on the slideshow. The quality of the content was assessed with the following five criteria: research question, content, structure, reference materials, and arguments. As for the slideshow, it was assessed with the following five criteria: spelling and grammar, attractiveness, efficiency (the ability to produce the intended effect), referencing, and efficacy (the optimization of resources) (see Appendix 1).

19Assessment grid side 2 concerns the criteria for the quality of spoken English and the oral presentation itself. The criteria for spoken English are the following: accuracy, fluency, and prosody/rhythm (see Appendix 2). The five criteria for the oral presentation are the following: presence and interaction, live speech, time management, looks, and involvement in the peer review process.

20Both sides of the grid include two additional sections for students to complete: Section 1, focusing on what is already satisfactory (i.e., “What I am already happy with or even proud of” / “What you can already be happy with or even proud of”), and Section 2, focusing on what still needs improvement (i.e., “What I would still like to improve” / “What you could still improve”).

2.2. Reliability of the grid

21Before analysing the results, it was important to measure the reliability of the grid. To this end, we compared the marks given by the teacher and the observer based on the assessment grid (see Table 2). It was important to check the gap between the marks awarded. Similar marks would suggest that the grid is reliable.

Table 2. A comparison of the observer’s and the teacher’s grades

  • 3 All student names have been changed to protect their anonymity.

Grades

teacher

observer

Gap

Lola3

15.75

17

-1.25

Rim

10.5

11

-0.5

Aline

17

17.5

-0.5

Mylene

13.75

14

-0.25

Lily

14.25

14.25

0

Viola

14.5

14.5

0

Chiara

15

15

0

Samuel

15

15

0

Ninon

15.25

15.25

0

Ponny

18.25

18.25

0

Yann

19

19

0

Kathleen

19

19

0

Arva

19.5

19.5

0

Amin

15.75

15.25

0.5

Anna

15.75

15

0.75

Nissa

18

15

3

AVERAGE

16.01

15.91

STANDARD DEVIATION

2.4

2.3

22The average score of the teacher and observer is almost identical, and so is the standard deviation, which indicates an equivalent distribution of scores on either side of the class average. The agreement between the observer’s and the teacher’s scores suggests a consistent application of the evaluation grid, thereby supporting its reliability as an assessment tool.

2.3. Research questions

23To analyse more precisely the way peer review empowered the students, we can list the following questions:

  1. What is the total number of improvement criteria available to the student, combining their self-suggestions with those offered by peers?

  2. What differences are measured between the student’s self-rating, the peer reviewer’s rating, the teacher’s rating, and the observer’s rating?

  3. Did the students note what we call a “mirror effect”?

  4. How many evaluation criteria from the grid appeared to be used by the students in their additional comments (sections 1 and 2)?

  5. How many criteria for improvement (section 2) were added by the peer reviewers in their comments?

3. Results

3.1. Case study: an analysis of an example of two grids by a pair of students

24Figure 2 shows an example of the first part of the grid (content script and slideshow). On the left-hand side is the grid filled in by Kathleen (SR1) at home (i.e., stage 3 on figure 1), and then filled again in green to take Viola (PR)’s remarks into account (i.e., stage 6 on figure 1). On the right-hand side, the same checklist is shown as used by PR (with the change of pronoun).

Figure 2. An example of side 1 of the checklist filled in by the student (SR1 in blue and SR2 in green) and by the peer reviewer (PR)

Figure 2. An example of side 1 of the checklist filled in by the student (SR1 in blue and SR2 in green) and by the peer reviewer (PR)

25On these two grids, we note that both the student (Kathleen’s first reading i.e., SR1) and the peer reviewer (PR Viola) forgot to add up the points to obtain a final mark—12.5 for SR1 Kathleen and 18.5 for PR Viola. The difference between these two marks is striking and denotes the great generosity of PR as opposed to the severity of SR1 about her own work. For instance, PR does not mention anything about the introduction or the wording of the research question, which SR1 thinks needs improvement.

26If we focus on the final sections at the end of both grids, Figures 3 and 4 show the work of the same pair of students. In Figure 3, the suggestions made by Viola appear via bullet points (“clear presentation”, “good use of the sources”, etc.). When she made suggestions for improvement, Viola wrote fuller sentences: “I think you should shorten some sentences”. In Kathleen’s additional comments, we note the use of two different colours: blue and green. On Figure 4, when she first assessed herself, Kathleen used a blue pen: “I am happy with the look of my presentation”; once she reassessed herself during the workshop (SR2), she used a green one: “I am happy with my use of photos”. Just like her peer, she wrote fuller sentences in her suggestions for improvement.

Figure 3. Peer reviewer comments by Viola (PR)

Figure 3. Peer reviewer comments by Viola (PR)

Figure 4. Kathleen’s comments at home (SR1, blue) and after the in-class peer review (SR2, green)

Figure 4. Kathleen’s comments at home (SR1, blue) and after the in-class peer review (SR2, green)

27PR Viola’s only “negative” comment concerns “efficiency”, i.e., the density of text on each slide, which is considered to be excessive. We notice that Kathleen has paid attention to this comment as she writes the following in green: “I would like to shorten the text on each slide so that there is not too much information.” She does not explicitly adopt the expression “use more keywords” stated by PR Viola; however, the general suggestion seems to be rephrased and understood. Kathleen is also reassured and convinced by PR Viola about the attractiveness of her slideshow (“clear presentation”), as well as its efficacy (“well-chosen images”), which translates as “I am happy with my use of photos”. Also, PR Viola’s comment “good use of the sources” translates as “I am happy with my referencing and my bibliography slide” in SR2 Kathleen (note that bibliography stands as a separate item of the grid).

28Table 3 summarizes the use of sections 1 (satisfactory aspects) and 2 (aspects to be improved) by Kathleen (SR1 and SR2) and Viola (PR). The total amounts to 7 satisfactory comments (with a grey background) and 6 improvement comments.

Table 3. The use of sections 1 and 2 by Kathleen (SR1 and SR2) and Viola (PR)

Criteria in the grid

Content Script (CS) and slideshow (SL)

SR1

Kathleen self-review at home

PR

Viola

SR2

Kathleen after class workshop

CS1. Research question

And perhaps to improve the wording of my research question

CS2: Content

I would also like to improve my introduction

CS3: Structure

I would like there to be more progression between slides

CS4: Reference materials

Good use of the sources

I am happy with the references

CS5: Arguments

SL6: Spelling and Grammar

SL7: Attractiveness

I am happy with the look of my presentation

Clear presentation

SL8: Efficiency (directed towards the audience)

I think you should shorten some sentences put on the slides and use more keywords.

Add a “Thank you for listening” slide

I need to shorten the script as it is too long

I would like to shorten the text on each slide so that there is not too much information.

SL9: Referencing

I am happy with my bibliography

SL10: Efficacy (overall rationality)

I would like there to be more progression between slides

Well-chosen images

I am happy with my use of photos

29So, if we are to conclude on the extent to which Kathleen internalized the whole peer-review procedure, we can notice that, before the peer review session, she filled 5 criteria out of the 10 for content (CS1, CS2, CS3, SL7, SL10), among which only one (SL7) satisfied her. PR Viola filled 4 criteria—some of them similar and others different— (CS4, SL7, and SL8 twice for a positive comment, and SL10 for a negative one). Finally, Kathleen completed 4 criteria following Viola’s feedback, only 2 of them being different. On the whole, with the one she added herself (SL9), she paid attention to 8 out of 10 assessment criteria. The two criteria omitted by both student Kathleen and PR Olivia are CS5 (Arguments) and SL6 (Spelling and Grammar), which is to some extent in keeping with Hu & Lam’s findings (2010) about the discrepancy between the students’ and the teachers’ areas of focus (peripheral versus core elements). Still, the pair paid attention to some seminal criteria, which, from our experience, have shown to be often overlooked by third-year students, such as the proper use of references and the way to display them according to bibliographical norms.

30This example illustrates the fact that this type of procedure is liable to empower students by affording them the opportunity to become aware of the assessment criteria for their work and to internalize them through their interactions with a peer. The second side of the grid is divided into two main parts: English language and oral presentation, and has been used in a similar way with 8 more criteria (see Appendix 2).

3.2. Comparison of the different grades

31The following section examines how the grades were assigned by the participants. A total of five sets of grades were collected for analysis:

  1. Student’s first rating at home

  2. PR’s rating during the in-class peer review procedure

  3. Student’s second rating after peer-reviewer’s feedback

  4. Teacher’s final rating

  5. Observer’s final rating

32In the present study, as they were found to be consistent, the grades assigned by the observer and the teacher were combined, which leaves us with four sets of grades. We shall now compare the different scores. We will begin with a brief overview of the average grades (see Table 4).

Table 4. Average grades per rating sessions

SR1

SR2

PR

Obs-teach

14.9

15.4

18.1

15.8

33The closest mark to that of the teacher-observer’s is that of students’ second rating: while the average score given by the teachers is 15.8, the average students’ second rating (SR2) is 15.4. As for the peer-reviewers, they have a clear tendency to overrate their fellows. This may be a sign that affective subjectivity prevails, or, simply, that the PRs tend to naturally display very positive and encouraging feedback. Indeed, they seem to refuse to adopt the role of a teacher.

Figure 5. Grades given by the peer reviewers vs. the teacher-observer

Figure 5. Grades given by the peer reviewers vs. the teacher-observer

34In Figure 6, we can see that a set of six students overrated themselves (large rectangle) and three of them did not modify their grades from SR1 and SR2. This phenomenon remains rare.

Figure 6. SR1 grade, SR2 grade, and teacher-observer combined grades

Figure 6. SR1 grade, SR2 grade, and teacher-observer combined grades

35Apart from these results, we see that one third of the students overrated themselves (Chiara, Yann, Rim, Viola, Kathleen, and Amin), and lastly, 10 out of 14 students awarded themselves lower marks than those given by the teacher-observer. Among these, the variations range from 1 point (Anna and Ponny) to 8 points (Arva). Table 5 shows the standard deviation.

Table 5. A comparison of the standard deviation

SR1

SR2

PR

Teach-Obs

2.7

2.7

1.2

2.4

36From this comparative analysis, one may note that the average grades and the standard deviation of the teacher-observer compared to the grades revised by students in stage 2 (SR2) are very close. This seems to indicate that the assessment criteria have been internalized by the students and that they have gained self-evaluation expertise. Conversely, peer reviewer scores are 2.5 points higher than those of the teacher-observer, and the low standard deviation testifies to the homogeneity of their appreciation. Still, this seems inevitable for different reasons: first of all, students are prone to encourage and praise their peers’ performances when asked to review their work (Kong, 2013), secondly, they may be more sensitive to what Hu & Lam (2010) call “peripheral elements” such as self-confidence and fluency, which they themselves perhaps feel they are lacking.

3.3. The mirror effect

37There is one final aspect to be mentioned in relation to student empowerment, and that is their realisation that presenting to their peer (or listening to their peers’ performance) generates what can be called a “mirror effect”. Indeed, by listening to and observing each other, they are able to self-reflect on their work both literally and figuratively, which makes them more powerful in their final assessment, as shown in the short interviews conducted at the end of the peer review sessions. Here is the verbatim of three of the participants in 2022-2023:

Interview 16_2023
I think your presentation was a lot more concise on the slideshow, and has less information, and more key points, and I realized that mine had too much information, and I like the way that you had just the key points and needed only to describe them, and I don’t need to produce my information on the slideshow. That’s what I thought.

Interview 17_2023
When I saw her keywords, when I saw the organization of her slideshow, I totally thought that mine wasn’t that great, wasn’t that organized, and now I know how to use my keywords for a better presentation.

Interview 18_2023
Student A: I think her presentation was very interesting because she talked about her personal experience, and I thought I should maybe include something of mine, too.
Student B: I think that her presentation is very well organized, and I think I have to work on my slideshow more. For example, she has a lot of keywords and in my slideshow, there is (sic) short sentences. So I think it’s better only keywords. Her presentation was helpful for me.

38The experiment was repeated in 2023-2024, and this time the question was directly posed to the students, who confirmed that the mirror effect helped incorporate certain criteria from the grid that had not been considered, either in the self-assessment or by the peer reviewer. Even though it remains difficult to measure the full benefits of the peer review exercise apart from the good grades obtained by the students, we may assume that this awareness could have beneficial effects in the longer term, as suggested by Molly in Table 6 (our comments in italics):

Table 6. The mirror effect and further assessment criteria

Students’ answers

Assessment criteria: S = Slideshow, CS = Content script; G = General; the authors’ comments are in italics

Molly

I didn’t really notice a mirror effect while reviewing my peer’s presentation but I understand the idea, and in a given context I am sure it is really helpful.

The answer is negative but potentially positive. Perhaps the student has just become aware of a possible mirror effect when reading the question.

Jean

Yes, I noticed that I forgot to put dates to my quotes while looking at my partner’s presentation.

Their powerpoint reminded me that I should improve the visual of my own presentation.

Slideshow: criteria 9; criteria 7

SR2 became aware of two more criteria for improvement

Jennifer

I did notice a mirror effect. My peer-reviewer remembered dates were missing from her slides after she saw I forgot to add them as well.

Slideshow: criteria 9

This is an instance of double mirror effect

Antonio

Yes there is a mirror effect because it’s a mutual exchange so as you write down what’s good or what should be improved, you can tell yourself “oh, I should also do that or I could do this because they had a good idea”.

General comment

Content script: Criteria 2

She uses the direct style as if she were actually talking to herself about how to improve her presentation. She was able to add one criterium for improvement thanks to the mirror effect.

Rosalind

Yes, I did while she was talking and doing her presentation it made me think about mine and what I could do to improve. Seeing her work made me understand better what I also have to do.

General comment

No precise example is given here, but the peer review itself is recognized as useful in terms of awareness.

Rachid

Yes, as my peer review was displaying her slideshow, it was full of images and very visual and it made me think about the fact that I should add more to my presentation.

Slideshow: criteria 7, criteria 8

Two more criteria for improvement have been noticed.

Malika

I didn’t notice a mirror effect while grading my classmate, however I reflected on my work while I was introducing it to her, as I was noticing what was missing and what could be improved and added.

General comment

The answer is genuine: the mirror effect occurred when she started her own presentation. So, it could be called “a time-lag mirror effect”

Julia

Yes, I noticed a mirror effect when my partner was speaking and thought of way to improve my presentation based on how they structured theirs

Content script: criteria 3

One precise criteria for improvement has been noted.

39Becoming aware of this mirror effect is also a sign of empowerment. Students come to realize that observing and listening to the work of others helped them improve their own. This is not an ordinary case of asymmetrical tutoring, but rather of mutual assistance. A new attitude towards assignments and assessment is fostered by the very format of peer review, which is based on learning from one another.

3.4. Additional analysis of the comments and suggestions

40It is also worth focusing on the quantitative results of the students’ comments in the sections on both sides of the grid: “What I am already happy with” (section 1) and “what I could still improve” (section 2), which highlight some criteria from the grid.

41In Figure 7 below, the number of different criteria indicated by the students in their additional comments is numbered and appears in blue. The satisfactory criteria, in orange. The classification from left to right is based on the number of improvement criteria implemented (blue) ranging from 6 to 2.

Figure 7. Appropriation of the assessment criteria by the students in their additional comments

Figure 7. Appropriation of the assessment criteria by the students in their additional comments

Reading note: Amin mentioned 6 criteria for improvement and 5 criteria for satisfaction; Anna mentioned 2 criteria for improvement and 1 for satisfaction

42Figure 7 shows that students took on board criteria that were more salient to them than others. Except for Samuel, who used 2 improvement criteria vs. 6 satisfactory criteria, the number of criteria taken into account is the same or higher in section 2, i.e., the “what I could still improve” section. This confirms that, overall, students are demanding of themselves, which indeed reflects a mindset geared toward progress and a desire to improve their performance. As already mentioned, further criteria from the grid are proposed by the peer reviewers in section 2 (improvement) in addition to those already noted by the students in their self-evaluation. Figure 8 reports on the number of criteria mentioned by the students in their additional comments and the number of criteria mentioned by their peer reviewers. Students who received the most suggestions for improvement from their peer reviewers are shown on the right, while those who received the fewest are shown on the left. In other words, the students whose peer reviewers were more critical of their work are on the right, and those whose reviewers were less critical are on the left.

Figure 8. Students’ improvement criteria vs. PRs’ improvement criteria

Figure 8. Students’ improvement criteria vs. PRs’ improvement criteria

Reading note 2: Mylène suggested 5 criteria for improvement and her peer-reviewer 1. Kathleen suggested 4 more criteria for improvement and her peer-reviewer 6.

43The peer reviewers were able to critically assess their classmates’ work, using the evaluation criteria as a guide. They contributed between one (Marlène and Lily’s PR) and six (Kathleen’s PR, whom we know to be Viola) additional improvement criteria.

44We observe that, except on four occasions (Nissa, Anna, Aline, Kathleen), the number of different criteria mentioned by the peer-reviewers is the same or lower than in the “what I could still improve” section, that is to say in the self-feedback provided by the student in the additional comments upon completing the checklist. This could be expected since the students had already filled in the improvement section on their personal checklist with an important number of criteria (as shown in Figure 6).

45These results tend to confirm that it is possible for students to take charge of their training and evaluation and to help their partners to do the same.

Conclusion

46This paper reported on the Eval+ project that involved third-year undergraduates enrolled in English Studies at Sorbonne Nouvelle University and consisted of implementing peer review in the overall assessment procedure as a mode of empowerment. Our main research question focused on how students were able—or unable—to internalize the assessment criteria and improve their performance, as well as the extent to which they engaged in supporting their peers’ success. The results show that students are prone to underrate their own productions and overrate those of their partners. The fact that they tend to overrate their partner’s performance is not necessarily a problem. On the contrary, praise from a fellow student has an encouraging effect that is liable to boost self-confidence. The results also show that, after the peer review session, the students were able to incorporate further assessment criteria from the teacher’s grid and revise their work accordingly, with the result that their self-rating in stage 6 (SR2) almost aligns with the teacher’s final evaluation in stage 8 (see Figure 1). Finally, the results show that some students report on a “mirror effect”, or even a “double mirror effect”, (i.e., incorporating overlooked evaluation criteria by listening to a peer’s presentation or by giving one’s own presentation after listening to a peer’s). Several comments made by the students in 2022-2023, and again in 2023-2024, in oral or written form, tend to demonstrate the importance of mutual awareness in the peer review exercise. Thus, the well-known Latin formula qui docet discit (“by teaching we learn”) rings even truer in a reciprocal context such as peer review.

47Although the scope of this study remains limited to a small number of participants, it appears that the introduction of peer review into the training and assessment procedures has had the effect of delegating responsibility for the final mark to the students themselves, making them more powerful than in an ordinary assessment. Indeed, the grade assigned by the teacher closely matched the grade students gave themselves after revising their work. As a result, the final score was less surprising and more satisfying than they had initially expected at the beginning of the course. In fact, the peer review process seems to exert a certain constraint on the empowerment of students, who feel “obliged” to take their work seriously and… to succeed. Finally, the solidarity between students, which is part and parcel of the pedagogical practice tested here, creates a very friendly atmosphere in the class and the end-of-course oral presentations are made in an atmosphere somewhat reminiscent of a fan zone.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J. C. (1964). Les héritiers. Les étudiants et la culture. Éditions de Minuit.

Calvès, A. E. (2009). « Empowerment » : généalogie d'un concept clé du discours contemporain sur le développement. Revue Tiers Monde, 200(4), 735-749. https://doi.org/10.3917/rtm.200.0735

Council of Europe (2001). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment.

Crinon, J., & Marin, B. (2010). The role of peer feedback in learning to write explanatory texts: Why the tutors learn the most. Language Awareness, 19(2), 111-128.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters.

Dewey J. (1927). The school and society. The University of Chicago Press.

Ferrell, S. (2013). Supporting assessment and feedback practice with technology: A view of the UK Landscape. ICT Role for Next Generation Universities. https://doi.org/10.7250/eunis.2013.025

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.

Freire P. (1974). Pédagogie des opprimés. Suivi de conscientisation et révolution. François Maspero.

Hu, G., & Lam, S. (2010). Issues of cultural appropriateness and pedagogical efficacy: Exploring peer review in a second language writing class. Instructional Science, 38(4), 371-394.

Kong, Y. (2013). Peer review: Exploring training and socio-cultural influences on activity theory. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.

Le Bossé, Y. (1996). Empowerment et pratiques sociales : illustration du potentiel d’une utopie prise au sérieux. Nouvelles pratiques sociales, 9(1),127-145. https://doi.org/10.7202/301353ar

Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30-43.

Massery, L. (2016). The power of peer evaluation: Rethinking pedagogy in L2 conversation courses. Nouvelle Revue Synergies Canada, 9(9). https://doi.org/10.21083/nrsc.v0i9.3672

Mulder, R.-P.-J., & Baik, C. (2014). How does student peer review influence perceptions, engagement, and academic outcomes? A case study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(6), 657-677.

Panitz, T. (1999). Cooperative versus collaborative learning: A comparison of two concepts which will help us understand underlying nature of interactive learning. US Department of Education (ERIC Document ED 448443).

Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. Free Press..

Rappaport J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 121-148.

Tribble, C. (1996). Writing. Oxford University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The Collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, Volume 1. Problems of general psychology. Including the volume thinking and speech. (R. W. Reiber and A. S. Carton, Eds.). Plenum Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1930-1934/1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

Waring, H.Z. (2008). Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback, and learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 577-594. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2008.00788.x

Woodward, G.M. (2015). Peer review in the classroom: Is it beneficial? Literacy learning, 23(1), 40-46.

Haut de page

Annexe

Appendix 1. PEER REVIEWER Checklist for self-assessment of the presentation

Script and Slideshow: 40% of the final grade

Indicators

+++

++

+

Points

Content

Script

/11

1. Research question: you have a relevant research question, you worked on the phrasing

2

1

0,5

2

2. Content: you have brought interesting information, developed main points, and original ideas

3

2

1

3

3. Structure: your presentation is well-structured (progression, hierarchy, logic…)

2

1

0,5

2

4. Reference materials: you used the documents (tables, figures, quotes...) and examples well / appropriately

2

1

0,5

2

5. Arguments: you used arguments in a convincing way

2

1

0,5

2

Slideshow

/9

6. Spelling and grammar: you made sure the software doesn’t underline any spelling or grammar mistakes (choose English as the source language).

2

1

0,5

2

7. Attractiveness: you minded the beauty of the presentation (appearance is the first thing people see) – colours, design…

1

0,5

-

1

8. Efficiency: you balanced images and text, titles, and keywords (avoid long text: the audience won’t be able to read as they listen to you)

2

1

0,5

2

9. Referencing: you were extra careful with your sources and references in APA format both on the slides and in the list of references on the last slide. If you mention an URL, it always comes with an author, year, title, journal, etc.

You ALSO gave a title to the images, tables, and figures and indicated their sources.

2

1

-

2

10. Efficacy: you used a reasonable number of slides to make your point (none are useless) – you used documents in a meaningful way, to illustrate rather than decorate

2

1

0,5

2

What I am already happy with or even proud of

What I could still improve for version 2

Appendix 2

Oral presentation: 40% of the final grade

Indicators

+++

++

+

Points

English

/9

1. Accuracy: I made sure I verified the pronunciation of all the words I wasn’t sure about, especially the three keywords. I practiced and rehearsed my pronunciation of the vocabulary out loud (script)

3

2

1

3

2. Fluency: I did my best to speak in a fluid way, rehearsing out loud as many times as needed. When needed, I used English gap-fillers. I repeated & rehearsed my script out loud to avoid stress

3

2

1

3

3. Prosody/Rhythm: I practiced stressed and unstressed syllables, intonation…

3

2

1

3

Oral

Presenta-

tion

/11

4. Presence and interaction: I talked with pleasure to /my co-worker or a well-meaning audience willing to listen and learn from me. I looked at him/her/them and I speak loud using my hands.

3

2

1

3

5. Live speech: I didn’t read a text. I used the slides to help me make my point (show the document at the same time as I speak). If needed, I occasionally took a look at my notes.

3

2

1

3

6. Time management: I kept my timing

2

1

-

2

7. Looks: I took care of my looks, I smiled, I dressed carefully…

1

0,5

-

1

8. Involvement in the peer-review exercise: I did my best to help my partner using all the sections of this checklist

2

1

-

2

What I am already happy with and proud of

What I would still like to improve for version 2

Haut de page

Notes

1 This term could lead to confusion, as it is widely used to refer to the process of evaluating articles that is commonly applied by researchers.

2 Attendance is not mandatory at Sorbonne Nouvelle University, and half of the students work alongside their studies. In addition, some participant data were missing (checklists or consent forms).

3 All student names have been changed to protect their anonymity.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Figure 1. The eight stages of the peer review procedure for final oral presentations
URL http://journals.openedition.org/apliut/docannexe/image/12271/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 248k
Titre Figure 2. An example of side 1 of the checklist filled in by the student (SR1 in blue and SR2 in green) and by the peer reviewer (PR)
URL http://journals.openedition.org/apliut/docannexe/image/12271/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 428k
Titre Figure 3. Peer reviewer comments by Viola (PR)
URL http://journals.openedition.org/apliut/docannexe/image/12271/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 136k
Titre Figure 4. Kathleen’s comments at home (SR1, blue) and after the in-class peer review (SR2, green)
URL http://journals.openedition.org/apliut/docannexe/image/12271/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 140k
Titre Figure 5. Grades given by the peer reviewers vs. the teacher-observer
URL http://journals.openedition.org/apliut/docannexe/image/12271/img-5.png
Fichier image/png, 38k
Titre Figure 6. SR1 grade, SR2 grade, and teacher-observer combined grades
URL http://journals.openedition.org/apliut/docannexe/image/12271/img-6.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 196k
Titre Figure 7. Appropriation of the assessment criteria by the students in their additional comments
Légende Reading note: Amin mentioned 6 criteria for improvement and 5 criteria for satisfaction; Anna mentioned 2 criteria for improvement and 1 for satisfaction
URL http://journals.openedition.org/apliut/docannexe/image/12271/img-7.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 260k
Titre Figure 8. Students’ improvement criteria vs. PRs’ improvement criteria
Légende Reading note 2: Mylène suggested 5 criteria for improvement and her peer-reviewer 1. Kathleen suggested 4 more criteria for improvement and her peer-reviewer 6.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/apliut/docannexe/image/12271/img-8.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 200k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Claire Tardieu et Eva Guerda Rodriguez, « Empowering university EFL learners through peer review »Recherche et pratiques pédagogiques en langues [En ligne], Vol. 44 N°2 | 2025, mis en ligne le 21 octobre 2025, consulté le 22 janvier 2026. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/apliut/12271 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/15aay

Haut de page

Auteurs

Claire Tardieu

Claire Tardieu is a Professor Emeritus of English language teaching at Sorbonne Nouvelle University in Paris and conducts her research in the Prismes-Sesylia research centre. She works on didactic terminology, language evaluation, peer review, and (tele)tandems. She is the author of a number of articles and books in the field. In particular, she co-edited Redefining Tandem Language and Culture Learning in Higher Education (Routledge, 2020) with Céline Horgues and an issue of Recherches et pratiques pédagogiques en langues (39(1)) on the same topic.
claire.tardieu[at]sorbonne-nouvelle.fr

Articles du même auteur

Eva Guerda Rodriguez

Eva Guerda Rodriguez, PhD works in Parisian universities. She teaches English as a Foreign Language and designs online courses. Her research focuses on computer-assisted language learning, listening comprehension, and student practices.
evaguerda[at]gmail.com

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont susceptibles d’être soumis à des autorisations d’usage spécifiques.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search