1 Introduction

Peer feedback refers to students’ commenting on each other’s articles in written and oral forms, or conducting interactive evaluations in groups (Yu & Lee, 2016). It is of inestimable value in helping students recognize the strengths and weaknesses of their own writing, detect existing problems, improve their affective behavior and cognitive participation in writing tasks, and enhance their learning autonomy and writing ability (Cai, 2011). As an important interactive learning method in second language writing teaching, peer feedback has drawn extensive attention from writing researchers and teaching practitioners worldwide (Fan & Xu, 2020; Rollinson, 2005). Most of the existing literature has systematically reviewed the development of peer feedback research in China (Zhang & Cheng, 2020), yet seldom analyzed systematically through international research in this area. In view of this, this study employed CiteSpace visualization technology to sort out and analyze peer feedback research in international second language writing from 2012 to 2022, aiming to clarify relevant development trends and directions and drive further development of peer feedback research in second language writing in China.

2 Research Data

With the help of the visual bibliometric software CiteSpace 6.1.R6, this study conducted processing and analysis on the literature retrieved from the SSCI and A&HCI sub-databases in the Web of Science’s Core Collection. The time span is from 2012 to 2022, and finally 152 valid pieces of literature were obtained.

First, this study utilized citation clustering analysis to sort out the core areas of peer feedback research in international second language writing in a macro way. Secondly, by means of the keyword frequency and co-citation maps, it examined the annual changes in specific research hot spots. Finally, through analyzing the literature with the highest centrality, it identified the authors and literature that played a central role in this field.

3 Research Analysis and Discussion

This study reviewed the literature on peer feedback in second language writing from 2012 to 2022 and created a knowledge map of the core areas of peer feedback in international second language writing. We obtained 14 co-citation literature network clusters (clusters 0-14), with Modularity Q=0.7941 (>0.7) and Silhouette S=0.92, indicating that the nodes within the cluster are closely connected, the topics of the nodes within the cluster are highly relevant, and the results are of reference value.

After removing the relatively broad clusters, the remaining eight clusters were classified based on their similarity and topics. They were merged into four major core areas, namely computer-assisted feedback, teacher feedback and self-feedback, writing ability, and feedback motivation.

3.1 Core Areas of Peer Feedback Research

1) Computer-assisted Feedback

Research on computer-assisted feedback focused on comparing it with other feedback forms. Pham (2022) investigated the influence of two feedback forms, namely computer-assisted feedback and traditional oral feedback, as well as their order of use on peer feedback and revision. The results showed that computer-assisted feedback followed by oral feedback easily enabled students to form revision-oriented evaluations and global revisions. Moreover, Tan et al. (2022) explored the impact of automated written corrective feedback (AWCF), asynchronous computer-mediated communication (ACMC), and their combination on the writing performance of EFL learners. It was found that the combined mode can meet individual revision needs, maximize writing efficiency, and enhance learners’ writing autonomy and initiative.

Undoubtedly, computer-assisted feedback can help L2 writers acquire knowledge and skills. However, the feedback effect and psychological experience solely provided by computer-assisted feedback cannot meet learners’ needs. In contrast, the combined-mode feedback was more favored.

2) Teacher Feedback and Self-feedback

The second major core area of peer feedback research centered on the comparative studies among teacher feedback, self-feedback and peer feedback. Some researchers deemed that the advantages of peer feedback outweighed those of teacher feedback as peer feedback can provide more meaning-centered feedback, and each piece of such feedback has an impact on the quality of revision (Cui et al., 2022). Other studies showed that both teacher feedback and peer feedback have their own merits. Teacher feedback is usually specific, has a greater quantity of feedback, and is more frequently accepted, whereas peer feedback is often non-specific and has a higher success rate of modification (Ruegg, 2015).

There were studies comparing the impact of teacher feedback and the combination of it with peer feedback on students’ writing performance, and it was found that the combined mode can enable students to make greater progress (Tai et al., 2015). Additionally, research indicated that peer feedback can enhance students’ writing performance more than self-feedback (Lu et al., 2021). However, some researchers also advocated the combined use of self-feedback and peer feedback because both feedback effectively boosted students’ writing scores (Cahyono & Rosyida, 2016).

To sum up, different feedback forms have their own pros and cons, and their effective combination can maximize the feedback effect.

3) Writing Ability

Writing is a highly demanding skill. L2 learners face more challenges in improving their English writing abilities (Bai, 2018). Research on L2 writing ability can be roughly divided into seven main clusters, namely speech perception, comprehension, academic writing, reliability, accuracy, writing corrective feedback, and evaluation (Cheng et al., 2022).

Prior studies have shown that L2 writing ability is a paramount factor in regulating students’ learning from peer feedback (Alled & Mills, 2016; Hu & Lam, 2010). In the EFL context, students’ limited L2 writing ability may prevent them from providing constructive and sophisticated comments on their peers’ writing (Hu & Lam, 2010). How to group students with different L2 writing abilities to effectively carry out group peer-feedback activities is also a hot topic among researchers.

In heterogeneous groups, students with high writing abilities may be reluctant to participate in peer feedback because they may lack confidence in the feedback provided by students with medium- and low-level abilities (Hu & Lam, 2010). However, students with high writing abilities can contribute to and benefit from group peer feedback in L2 writing classes (Yu & Hu, 2017). For example, they can refine their L2 writing knowledge by providing feedback on their peers’ writing and conduct self-reflection by commenting on their peers’ writing. These findings indicated that students with high-level writing abilities can become learning intermediaries for students with medium- and low-level writing abilities in peer-feedback activities, acting as “scaffolds” to help them make progress.

To sum up, writing ability is one of the hot spots worthy of research in field of the second language peer feedback, with a focus on the gains and influences of L2 learners with different abilities in peer feedback.

4) Feedback Motivation

Typically, there are two types of motivation: intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation (Cohen & Henry, 2019). In L2 learning, motivation is highly correlated with learners’ strategy use, confidence in target-language learning, and self-regulation. For example, Payne’s study (2012) revealed that participants driven by instant messaging tools can self-regulate their learning when undertaking challenging tasks. Hamidun et al. (2012) also found that students felt more motivated to learn when they received peer feedback and comments.

Feedback is a method of cultivating students’ learning motivation and ensuring language accuracy. However, due to the multifaceted nature of written corrective feedback and its correlation with individual differences among learners, different results have been found in the research on written corrective feedback. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct further research on error-correction feedback from the perspective of students and explore how individual differences in writing motivation predict learners’ self-evaluation judgments of teacher and peer error-correction feedback. 

Zhang et al. (2020) found that the way students praised their peers in feedback can stimulate and change their own mental states and learning motivation. Particularly, Finnish students were more inclined to give neutral praise, while Chinese students were more inclined to give process- and individual-centered praise, which reflected not only their growth mindsets but also their positive learning motivation. Therefore, it is not enough to simply teach the mindset theory in education. To correct students’ learning motivation and growth mindsets, teachers should encourage and guide students to provide process-centered feedback to their peers, helping them understand how this feedback can change mindsets and thus correct learning motivation.

In conclusion, research on feedback motivation in peer feedback in second language writing focused on the predictive effects of English learners on teacher and peer feedback, as well as the two-way influence between peer feedback and learner motivation.

3.2 Changes in Research Hotspots of Peer Feedback

This study utilized CiteSpace to conduct a keyword co-occurrence analysis on the 152 valid retrieved literature, and drew the keyword co-occurrence knowledge map of peer feedback research in the field of international second language writing.

According to the map, the prominent keywords in peer feedback research include students, 2nd language, teacher feedback, corrective feedback, collaborative learning, computer-mediated peer feedback, etc. To further analyze the characteristics of subject words and the changes in hotspots in peer feedback research, this study leveraged the data output function of Citespace to obtain statistical data on the frequency and centrality related to subject words. However, as shown in Table 1, most of the top-ten-frequency subject words are relatively broad-concept keywords. In order to obtain more specific research topics related to peer feedback research, we expanded the frequency statistical range to the top 20, and mainly analyzed the non-generalized high-frequency keywords involved therein.

Table 1 Frequency and Centrality of the Top 20 Co-cited Keywords in Peer Feedback Research

This study classified the above-mentioned subject words into feedback categories, student emotion, and writing text, and then conducted a multi-angle analysis of keywords according to their frequencies.

1) Feedback Category

In terms of the types of feedback, peer feedback (61 times), corrective feedback (25 times), teacher feedback (16 times), and computer-mediated peer feedback (14 times) were the four main categories in feedback research. Such research mainly explored the impact of peer feedback on the development of students’ writing abilities (Crinon, 2012) or comparatively examined the different effects of peer feedback, teacher feedback, and computer-mediated peer feedback on students’ writing (Lam, 2021; Wu et al, 2022).

For example, Wu et al. (2022) evaluated the supplementary role of peer feedback to teacher feedback in Chinese English-writing classrooms and found that the combination of both feedback can be applied in writing teaching. Moreover, with the development of network technology, the construction of campus networks, and the implementation of online writing, computer-mediated peer feedback has received extensive attention. Lam (2021) investigated how the use of a web-based peer feedback platform affected the response and use behaviors of teachers and peers to academic-writing feedback. His research showed that based on the mediating influence of SWoRd, peer feedback can help L2 writers improve their writing levels and unleash their writing potential.

2) Student Emotion

From the perspective of the objects of peer feedback, perceptions (16times), student engagement (15 times), attitudes (5 times), and efficacy (4 times), all of the above keywords are related to students’ emotional cognition or emotions, which proves that students’ perceptions of different feedback methods are also worthy of research, especially peer feedback that can best reflect the interactivity and participation among students (Fan & Xu, 2020; Hsia et al., 2016).

Based on the students’ perspective, this line of research can present students’ feelings and attitudes towards peer feedback in writing teaching more comprehensively and specifically. By doing so, it helps to understand the problems in specific teaching practice, enabling teachers and researchers to make corresponding adjustments and take targeted measures.

For example, Fan and Xu (2020) pointed out that students’ participation in peer feedback during writing teaching was low, and they may only respond to certain feedback. Consequently, this research utilized data such as audio recordings and written feedback of peer feedback, students’ composition drafts, as well as semi-structured interviews and questionnaires. It explored students’ participation in peer feedback in second language writing from emotional, behavioral, and cognitive aspects and discussed the teaching practice of enhancing students’ participation through peer feedback. This type of research often adopted a mixed-research method, combining textual and qualitative data to comprehensively investigate the influence of different feedback methods on students' emotional cognition.

3) Writing Text

From the perspective of students’ writing text, keywords such as accuracy (mentioned 9 times), quality (8 times), error correction (4 times), fluency (3 times), and complexity (3 times) emerged. These keywords suggest that relevant research on peer feedback also delved into, from various dimensions, the influence of implementing peer feedback methods in L2 writing teaching on the quality of students’ writing (Chen & Cui, 2022). Accuracy, fluency, complexity, and coherence are fundamental criteria for evaluating the quality of L2 writing texts (Gao & Min, 2021). Different feedback methods exert distinct impacts on students’ writing quality.

Diab (2016) conducted a quasi-experiment to explore the influence of corrective feedback from different sources (teachers, peers, self) on reducing pronoun-agreement and vocabulary errors in students’ compositions. The results indicated that student-based feedback (either from peers or self) enabled learners to concentrate on the information conveyed in their own or their peers’ writing feedback, reflect, detect errors, and make better choices. This process can assist students in enhancing the accuracy of their writing.

Subsequently, Chen and Cui (2022) integrated quantitative and qualitative data and discovered that, in comparison with students who received automated writing evaluation (AWE) feedback, those who received peer feedback showed improvements in the use of cohesive devices and the coherence of their articles during composition revision.

As can be seen from the high-frequency keywords in the aforementioned peer feedback research and their centrality, with the development of network technology, recent research hotspots have mainly shifted from relatively comparing the pros and cons of peer feedback, teacher feedback, or students’ self-feedback to the feasibility of computer-mediated peer feedback. Moreover, from the perspective of students’ writing text, the focus has been on exploring the impact of peer feedback on the quality of students’ compositions and writing abilities.

3.3 Core Literature and Authors in Peer Feedback Research

In the Citespace analysis, the node literature with high centrality is often regarded as key literature in the development process of domain knowledge (Chen, 2006). We extracted the key literature with the top 10 centralities (see Table 2), which was the core literature in the field of peer feedback in international second language writing.

Table 2 The Top Ten Literature with the Highest Centrality

Among these ten pieces of literature, Allen and Mills’ research (2016) had the highest centrality. In this study, 54 undergraduates with a foreign-language-writing background were required to give and receive feedback on two different texts. Through analyzing the quantity and type of the given and incorporated feedback, it was determined whether these feedbacks altered or retained the meaning. The results indicated that the proficiency of reviewers was significantly correlated with the number of suggestions made. Also, there were differences in giving and adopting suggestions among different pairings (i.e., matched or mixed proficiency), yet these differences were not significant.

Lundstrom and Baker’s research (2009), which ranked third, analyzed the writing abilities of 91 students to determine which method, giving or receiving peer feedback, was more conducive to improving students’ writing. The analysis revealed that those who gave peer feedback made greater progress in their own writing than the receivers. Moreover, the givers with lower proficiency made more progress compared to those with higher proficiency, and their overall performance in writing was somewhat higher than their performance in individual writing items.

The fifth research was conducted by Bai and Hu (2017) who explored the accuracy of the feedback provided by Pigai, a Chinese AWE project, and students’ understanding of such feedback. The results showed that AWE feedback could effectively supplement peer and teacher feedback in EFL writing classrooms, but could not replace the latter because the former had a very low accuracy rate in identifying a series of errors.

Generally speaking, these 10 studies were of great significance to the research on peer feedback in second language writing: First, they emphasized the role of peer feedback in second language writing. As an important means to improve learners’ writing abilities and consolidate their learning achievements, peer feedback is two-way and initiative. Therefore, in the research on peer feedback, in addition to focusing on the level of feedback itself, it is more necessary to deeply explore how to improve students’ L2 writing abilities and L2 acquisition abilities. This is also in line with the results of the centrality analysis of the extracted keywords, as L2 and EFL writing were keywords with high frequencies. Second, peer feedback in second language writing is not only conducive to improving writing levels but also promotes students’ learning attitudes and writing performance.

4 Conclusion

This study analyzed the core areas and research hotspots of peer feedback in second language writing through methods such as citation clustering and keyword co-occurrence analysis. The results indicated that in the international research on peer feedback in second language writing in the past eleven years, computer-assisted feedback, teacher feedback and self-feedback, writing ability, and feedback motivation have always been research hotspots; the comparative study of peer feedback and automated writing evaluation or other forms of feedback, and the influence of receiving and giving feedback on students’ writing abilities has gradually become a research hot spot in recent years.

In recent years, China has increasingly attached importance to the research on peer feedback in second language writing and has achieved rich research results. However, there are still some problems. First, the research content is relatively narrow, and the phenomenon of repetition is relatively serious. There is insufficient follow-up on some hot topics in second language writing research. For example, there are currently few studies on second language writing feedback in the context of artificial intelligence. Second, in terms of research methods, too much emphasis is placed on quantitative research, and there is a lack of sufficient qualitative research. In addition, quantitative research also lacks strict variable control, which may affect the reliability and accuracy of research conclusions. It should be noted that the application of qualitative research needs to be strengthened to gain an in-depth understanding of the internal mechanisms, processes, and effects of peer feedback in second language writing.

For this purpose, in-depth interviews, observations, and analysis of students’ writing processes and feedback interactions can be carried out to obtain more details and in-depth understanding. It should not be ignored that variable control should be strengthened in quantitative research to ensure the reliability and validity of research conclusions. In addition, further exploration can focus on issues such as the comparative study of peer feedback and automated writing evaluation and other forms of feedback, and the influence of receiving and giving feedback on students’ writing abilities.

Acknowledgements

This research is partly supported by the Education Planning Program of the 12th Five-year Planning Project Funded by Shaanxi Provincial Education Department (Funding No.SGH13185) in China.

This research is partly supported by the Foundation of Social Science Project in Shaanxi Province (Project No. 2019M015)

This research is partly supported by the Foundation of Social Science Project in Shaanxi Province (Project No. 2019M015)

References

[1] Allen, D., & Mills, A. (2016). The Impact of Second Language Proficiency in Dyadic Peer Feedback. Language Teaching Research, 20(4), 498-513.

[2] Bai, B. (2018). Understanding primary school students’ use of self-regulated writing strategies through think-aloud protocols. System, 78, 15-26.

[3] Bai, L., & Hu, G. (2017). In the face of fallible AWE feedback: how do students respond?. Educational Psychology, 37(1), 67-81.

[4]Cahyono, B., & Rosyida, A. (2016). Peer feedback, self-correction, and writing proficiency of Indonesian EFL students. Arab World English Journal (AWEJ), 7(1), 178-193.

[5] Cai, J. G. (2011). A Contrastive Study of Online Peer Feedback and Online Teacher Feedback on Chinese College Student’s English Writing. Foreign Language World, 143(02), 65-72.

[6] Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359-377.

[7] Chen, M. Z., Xie, Q., & Guo, Y. (2022). Visual Analysis of the Researches on L2 Writing Ability from 2015 to 2019—Based on SSCI Literature on Web of Science. Journal of Guizhou Education University, (01), 71-77.

[8] Chen, M., & Cui, Y. (2022). The effects of AWE and peer feedback on cohesion and coherence in continuation writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 57, 100915.

[9] Crinon, J. (2012). The dynamics of writing and peer review at primary school. Journal of Writing Research, 4(2), 121-154.

[10] Cui, Y., Schunn, C. D., & Gai, X. (2022). Peer feedback and teacher feedback: A comparative study of revision effectiveness in writing instruction for EFL learners. Higher Education Research & Development, 41(6), 1838-1854.

[11] Diab, N. M. (2016). A comparison of peer, teacher and self-feedback on the reduction of language errors in student essays. System, 57, 55-65.

[12] Fan, Y., & Xu, J. (2020). Exploring student engagement with peer feedback on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 50, 100775.

[13] Gao, J., & Min, S. (2021). A comparative study of the effects of L1 and L2 prewriting discussions on L2 writing performance. System, 103, 102654.

[14] Hamidun, N., Hashim, S. H. M., & Othman, N. F. (2012). Enhancing students’ motivation by providing feedback on writing: The case of international students from Thailand. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 2(6), 591–594.

[15] Hsia, L. H., Huang, I., & Hwang, G. J. (2016). Effects of different online peer-feedback approaches on students’ performance skills, motivation and self-efficacy in a dance course. Computers & Education, 96, 55-71.

[16] Hu, G. W., & S. T. E. Lam. (2010). Issues of Cultural Appropriateness and Pedagogical Efficacy: Exploring Peer Review in a Second Language Writing Class. Instructional Science, 38, 371–394.

[17] Lam, S. T. E. (2021). A web-based feedback platform for peer and teacher feedback on writing: An Activity Theory perspective. Computers and Composition, 62, 102666.

[18] Lu, Q., Zhu, X., & Cheong, C. M. (2021). Understanding the difference between self-feedback and peer feedback: A comparative study of their effects on undergraduate students’ writing improvement. Frontiers in psychology, 12, 739962.

[19] 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(1), 30-43.

[20] Payne, A. R. (2012). Development of the academic writing motivation questionnaire (unpublished master’s thesis). University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia.

[21] Pham, H. T. P. (2022). Computer-mediated and face-to-face peer feedback: Student feedback and revision in EFL writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(9), 2112-2147.

[22] Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23-30.

[23] Ruegg, R. (2015). Differences in the uptake of peer and teacher feedback. RELC Journal, 46(2), 131-145.

[24] Tai, H. C., Lin, W. C., & Yang, S. C. (2015). Exploring the effects of peer review and teachers’ corrective feedback on EFL students’ online writing performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 53(2), 284-309.

[25] Tan, S., Cho, Y. W., & Xu, W. (2022). Exploring the effects of automated written corrective feedback, computer-mediated peer feedback and their combination mode on EFL learner’s writing performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(10), 7276-7286.

[26] Wu, W., Huang, J., Han, C., & Zhang, J. (2022). Evaluating peer feedback as a reliable and valid complementary aid to teacher feedback in EFL writing classrooms: A feedback giver perspective. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 73, 101140.

[27] Yu, S. L., & Hu, G. W. (2016). Can higher-proficiency L2 learners benefit from working with lower-proficiency partners in peer feedback?. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(2), 178-192.

[28] Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2016). Peer feedback in second language writing (2005–2014). Language Teaching, 49(4), 461-493.

[29] Zhang, J. F., Kuusisto, E., Nokelainen, P., & Tirri, K. (2020). Peer Feedback Reflects the Mindset and Academic Motivation of Learners. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1701.

[30] Zhang, J., & Cheng, X. L. (2020). A Synthetic Review of a Decade of Peer Feedback Research in China: Looking Back and Looking Forward. Journal of Xi’an Int. Stud. Univ, 28, 48-56.