Systematic peer back-evaluation was associated with higher-quality feedback and stronger task performance than sampled teacher monitoring in an EFL translation course

Online peer feedback is an influential form of collaborative learning across the curriculum in higher education. However, many factors affect the quality of peer comments and the effectiveness of this computer-supported collaborative learning approach. Here, we examine two forms of co-regulation. In particular, in the context of an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) translation course, we compared sampled teacher monitoring (teachers periodically monitoring and giving students guidance) and systematic peer back-evaluation (structured evaluation by peers of received comments). Condition differences were measured in terms of cognitive feedback features (identification, explanation, solution, suggestion, and hedges), affective feedback features (general, detailed, and mitigating praise), and feedback length. We also examined differences in the peers’ academic achievement at the end of the course. Systematic peer regulation was associated with more frequent inclusion of important cognitive features in peer comments (more explanations, more solutions and general suggestions) and differences in ways of praising their peers (more general praise but less detailed praise). Students in the systematic peer back-evaluation condition also had stronger performance in later assignments. Pragmatically, instructors are encouraged to use peer-regulation mechanisms that can be conveniently used within a number of online peer feedback systems.