A thematic analysis of preservice teachers’ peer feedback in teacher education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v9i1.15928Keywords:
Peer feedback, Peer evaluation, Preservice teachers, Teacher educationAbstract
Peer feedback plays a key role as a way of encouraging reflective practice and professional learning in teacher education, but there is less understanding about how preservice teachers assess the instructional quality influenced by evaluative orientations. In this qualitative research, the researcher seeks to know the themes of peer feedback given by preservice English teachers after instructional activities. Thematic analysis was applied to the peers’ evaluative comments to determine common criteria that were used to construct the teaching effectiveness. There were three themes: (1) the focus on the relevance of the topic to the learners, (2) the importance of interactions and discussion-based activities, and (3) the lack of interest in linguistic scaffolding and pedagogical rigor. These findings show that peer feedback primarily indicates adherence to the principles of communicative language teaching, particularly learner-centeredness and interaction but does not pay sufficient attention to linguistic rigor and learning outcomes. Through the lenses of second language acquisition and teacher education, the findings imply that even though preservice teachers show conceptual approval of communicative pedagogy, they need more assistance in the creation of evaluative literacy that relates the engagement-based practices to the process of language learning and teaching. This study adds to existing literature on peer feedback in teacher education by pointing out the necessity of systematic instructions in peer evaluation practices.
References
Akpınar, M. (2019). The effect of peer feedback on pre-service teachers’ teaching practices. Education and Science, 44(200), 269-290. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2019.8077
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. Continuum.
Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Feedback in higher and professional education: Understanding it and doing it well. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203074336
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Cabello, V. M., & Topping, K. J. (2020). Peer feedback of teacher performance. What works in teacher education?, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 8(2), 121-132. https://doi.org/10.5937/IJCRSEE2002121C
Cañabate, D., Nogué, L., Serra, T., & Colomer, J. (2019). Supporting peer feedback in tertiary education: Analysis of pre-service teachers’ perceptions. Education Sciences, 9(4), 280. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9040280
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315-1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
Double, K. S., McGrane, J. A., & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2020). The impact of peer assessment on academic performance: A meta-analysis of control group studies. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 481-509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3
Ellis, R. (2012). Language teaching research and language pedagogy. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118271643
Farrell, T. S. C. (2015). Reflective language teaching: From research to practice. Bloomsbury.
Franke, U., Backfisch, I., Scherzinger, L., Tolou, A., Thyssen, C., Brahm, T., Rudolf, I., & Lachner, A. (2024). Do prompts and strategy instruction contribute to pre-service teachers’ peer-feedback on technology-integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 72, 3117 - 3138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-024-10403-8
Fu, J. (2022). The implications of Krashen’s second language acquisition hypothesis for the teaching of English enlightenment in young children: Taking Oxford Reading Tree as an example. Creative Education Studies, 10(11), 2883-2887. https://doi.org/10.12677/ces.2022.1011450
Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015). Structuring peer assessment: Comparing the impact of the degree of structure on peer feedback content. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 315-325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.019
Harmer, J. (2007). How to teach English (2nd ed.). Pearson Education.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Hornstein, J., Greisel, M., & Kollar, I. (2025). Promoting pre-service teachers’ evidence-informed reasoning through peer feedback. Instructional Science, 53, 1429-1455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-025-09745-4
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/10.1007/s10648-017-9414-5
Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2006). Feedback on second language students’ writing. Language Teaching, 39(2), 83-101. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444806003399
Iglesias Pérez, M. C., Vidal-Puga, J., & Pino Juste, M. R. (2022). The role of self and peer feedback in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 47(3), 683-692. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2020.1783526
Ion, G., Sánchez Martí, A., & Agud Morell, I. (2019). Giving or receiving feedback: Which is more beneficial to students’ learning? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 124–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1484881
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon Press.
Lichtman, K., & VanPatten, B. (2021). Was Krashen right? Forty years later. Foreign Language Annals, 54, 283-305. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12552
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative language teaching: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. C. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012589042-7/50015-3
Long, M. H. (2016). In defense of tasks and TBLT: Nonissues and real issues. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 5-33. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000057
Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., & Wiebe, E. (2010). (Eds.). Encyclopedia of case study research. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412957397.n229
Nguyen, Q. N., & Doan, D. T. H. (2025). Beyond comprehensible input: A neuro-ecological critique of Krashen’s hypothesis in language education. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1636777. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1636777
Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501-517. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003786559
Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.795518
Öztürk, M., Yüce, E. & Türker, P. M. (2025). Online peer feedback versus online teacher feedback? Effect of online feedback on students’ self-regulated learning. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. 30, 769-787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-024-09812-8
Panadero, E., & Alqassab, M. (2019). An empirical review of anonymity effects in peer assessment, peer feedback, peer review, peer evaluation and peer grading. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(8), 1253-1278. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1600186
Putman, M., Gilbert, K., Vocilka, A., & Abel, K. (2026). Peer feedback and reflection in preservice teacher education: examining changes in attitudes and practices among German and American teacher candidates. Reflective Practice, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2026.2626071
Reinholz, D. (2016). The assessment cycle: a model for learning through peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(2), 301-315. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1008982
Richards, J. C. (2006). Communicative language teaching today. Cambridge University Press.
Sato, K., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (1999). Communicative language teaching (CLT): Practical understandings. The Modern Language Journal, 83(4), 494-517. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00037
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: A conversation analysis perspective. Blackwell.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125-144). Oxford University Press.
Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Panadero, E. (2018). Developing evaluative judgement: Enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. Higher Education, 76(3), 467-481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0220-3
Topping, K. (2017). Peer assessment: Learning by judging and discussing the work of other learners. Interdisciplinary Education and Psychology, 1(1), 1-17. Article 7. https://doi.org/10.31532/InterdiscipEducPsychol.1.1.007
Topping, K. J. (2023) Digital peer feedback in school teacher education and development: a systematic review. Research Papers in Education, 38(3), 472-498. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2021.1961301
VanPatten, B. (2004). Processing instruction: Theory, research and commentary. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410610195
VanPatten, B. (2015). Input processing in second language acquisition. Routledge.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203827826
Weng, F., Ye, S. X., & Xue, W. (2023). The effects of peer feedback on L2 students’ writing motivation: An experimental study in China. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 32, 473-483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-022-00669-y
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Eunjeong Park
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish in ELTEJ agree to the following terms: Authors retain copyright and grant the ELTEJ right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) the work for any purpose, even commercially with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in ELTEJ. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in ELTEJ. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
