This study examined the changes of students’ giving and receiving peer feedback in a student writing club occurring for about a year. Thirteen students who specialized in English Education participated in this study. To determine the ways of the students’ evolving practices and perceptions about peer feedback, two surveys were given to the participants: One was administered after the fall of 2011 and the other after the spring of 2012. The findings indicated that the student writing club helped the participants to develop conducting peer feedback, implying that it contributed to improve their writing ability. In other words, they developed what and how to evaluate a piece of writing and became aware of how to apply evaluation outcomes to their own writing.
Changing Perceptions on and Practices of Peer Feedback in a Student Writing Club* 6) Ho-Jung Yu (Kyungil University) Yu, Ho-Jung (2014) Changing Perceptions on and Practices of Peer Feedback in a Student Writing Club Studies in Foreign Language Education, 28(1), pp.69-85 This study examined the changes of students’ giving and receiving peer feedback in a student writing club occurring for about a year Thirteen students who specialized in English Education participated in this study To determine the ways of the students’ evolving practices and perceptions about peer feedback, two surveys were given to the participants: One was administered after the fall of 2011 and the other after the spring of 2012 The findings indicated that the student writing club helped the participants to develop conducting peer feedback, implying that it contributed to improve their writing ability In other words, they developed what and how to evaluate a piece of writing and became aware of how to apply evaluation outcomes to their own writing Ⅰ Introduction The purpose of this study was to observe the changes of students’ giving and receiving peer feedback in a student writing club occurring for about a year The students volunteered to organize a student writing club where they read articles about educational and social issues * This study was supported by the research grant of Kyungil University in 2011 70 Ho-Jung Yu and wrote argumentative pieces or summary The reading and writing activities were conducted under the writing process which, as the participants practiced, is composed of reading and discussion, writing about the reading, peer feedback, and revising Revising was selected in the first period of the writing group and was more common in the second period of the writing group Peer feedback has been drawing researchers’ and practitioners’ attention since the process-based writing has been popular and peer feedback is considered a viable approach in the writing process where students are supposed to produce multiple drafts Each draft is reviewed possibly by peers and the teacher in the process of completing one good final draft The practical potential of peer feedback has invited a variety of research studies in ESL and EFL settings, in relation to literature-based position papers, empirical research on the features and effects of peer feedback, and the students’ perceptions on peer feedback (Ferris, 2003) In a Korean context, research attention to peer feedback has been relatively recent, and researchers’ interest is exponentially growing According to Yu (2013) who reviewed 32 research articles from 12 academic journals, attention to research on peer feedback has been on a drastic rise since 16 of the 32 articles were published after the year of 2010 The research topics vary including, “individual peer feedback, collaborative peer feedback, online feedback, leaners’ perceptions, conference, written feedback, and trained peer feedback” (p 214) Positive outcomes that Ferris (2003) summarized from research studies about peer feedback from in ESL writing included the development of confidence and critical thinking skills, diverse feedback of multiple perspectives, and the promotion of a sense of classroom community The literature analysis of Yu (2013), based on Korean EFL writing contexts, corresponds with the positive outcomes that Ferris (2003) summarized For instance, peer feedback work promoted L2 learners’ cognitive skills and benefits (Ku & Park, 2011), developed social skills (Suh, 2005), and improved their writing skills by better reviewing their own writing (Cho, 2011; Huh & Lee, 2011; Joo & Kim, 2010) On top of that, a sense of audience was cultivated through the process of peer review (Huh & Lee, 2011) Likewise, although peer feedback in writing is not the answer to learners’ writing improvement, it is definitely an agreeable strategy to promote learners’ Changing Perceptions on and Practices of Peer Feedback in a Student Writing Club 71 writing Such interest in peer feedback is expected to increase because it is associated with the increasing interest in writing in English education and collaborative learning in education in general This present study can be a contribution to peer feedback research in a growing continuum of L2 writing and peer feedback research Although there are a growing body of research studies about peer feedback, there has been few study about peer feedback which is situated in a writing context where learners control it by themselves Almost all of the up-to-date studies are contextualized in a traditional writing class where a teacher exists This study was based on a learners’ autonomous setting, not a traditional class setting This study presented the changing awareness of students toward peer feedback they practiced in the writing process within the student writing club for about 10 months Ⅱ Review of Selected Literature This present study is related to the up-to-date research studies in a Korean EFL context involving the students’ perceptions about peer feedback since the central focus of this study is on the learners’ changing awareness of peer feedback Therefore, this section intends to present some sample peer feedback studies about how learners perceived peer feedback According to Yu’s literature study (2013), 13 of the 32 studies investigated learners’ perceptions, although their research foci were slightly different from each other Therefore, the studies provided many different details in relation to how learners perceived peer feedback in different contexts of the writing process Among the above peer feedback studies, the new tendency is that researchers have brought technology into teaching writing, therefore, paying closer attention to online peer feedback (Kim, 2009; Cha, 2007, 2008; Cha & Park, 2010) Kim (2007) investigated the learners’ perceptions and attitudes toward peer response, differing from electronic to traditional modes, along with quantitative and qualitative differences between peer response in e-mode and 72 Ho-Jung Yu t-mode e-mode feedback was based on blogging; t-mode peer response sheet The participants were 24 elementary school students, who were returnees, and the study was based on survey questionnaires and an interview The findings indicated that the students of e-mode and t-mode answered positively about receiving comments from their peers and integrating those comments into their writing e-mode participants focused on the enjoyment aspect as the t-mode participants considered the benefits of the peer response itself There has been research about the perceptions of peer feedback, conducted in a traditional classroom setting The perceptions were examined from a number of standpoints: comparison of other feedback methods, comparison of different group configurations, and relation of English proficiency For instance, Lee (2011) investigated the students’ perceptions on the strengths and weaknesses of peer feedback and an ideal feedback writing classroom Sixty five university students were served for this study, as they had already experienced basic writing education The strengths of peer feedback were students’ ‘knowledge about concepts’ for getting ideas and recognition of their grammatical problems through their peers’ work Regarding weaknesses of peer feedback, students felt that their peers were not qualified to revise the grammatical aspects and tended to distrust their peers’ recommendations To students, an ideal type of feedback was anonymous peer feedback Results were anonymous peer feedback(14), closest peer feedback(7), group peer feedback(11), teacher feedback(13), combination for peer and teacher feedback(9), and self evaluation(1) Yi (2010) delved into peer feedback based on learners’ writing competence and their perceptions about feedback effects on their writing Thirty majoring in English Education were participated in the study The findings indicated that advanced-level students gave more feedback and also did it in a more definite and directive way than the beginning-level students who gave feedback without confidence One interesting finding is that even the advanced-level students preferred giving corrective feedback to formative feedback According to the researcher, the reason might be that even the advanced learners did not have enough educational experience in which writing is a type of communication and writing feedback needs to be done formatively to refine better communication Nevertheless, the students of both levels pointed out that peer feedback was beneficial to revising their work and so improving it from various aspects Changing Perceptions on and Practices of Peer Feedback in a Student Writing Club 73 There are also the studies that involved the learners’ perceptions about peer feedback effects on their subsequent writing (Cho & Sohn, 2007) Especially, Cho (2005, 2006, 2011) was dedicated to her inquiry about the students’ peer feedback which was reflected in their actual drafts One of her studies (2011) was geared toward investigating peer feedback in the form of case studies with three Korean learners The research findings indicated that even the act of giving peer feedback can help learners develop a critical view of writing and enable them to apply that same critical perspective to their own writing, resulting in their making the same kind of corrections they asked of their peers For example, based on self-initiated revisions, the participants actually revised their texts by incorporating changes they had recommended to their peers in their revisions All in all, ESL or EFL writers not trust the quality of the feedback peers make to the full extent In a similar vein, they expect writing experts like professional teachers and native speakers of English to provide it Although the above complaints are the leaners’ constant concern, the above study results have shed light on peer feedback in academic research and at the same time in practice Ⅲ Research Method Research Background and Participants This study is part of a larger study about a student-centered writing club where I comprehensively compare the changes of the participants’ writing capacity throughout the about year-long duration of the writing club This present study report primarily focuses on the perceptions that students had developed about peer feedback practices for the course of about a one-year-long student writing club from September, 2011 through July, 2012 Thirteen students who specialized in English Education participated in this study; however, eleven students served best for the analysis of this study because of their participation in this writing 74 Ho-Jung Yu club and by completing all of the works All of them were highly motivated partly because of their genuine writing improvement and partly because of their preparation for the writing-based test in the secondary English teacher appointment exam The Student Writing Club The researcher who had taught the group of students had to leave them for his transfer to another school He had built rapport for years by teaching them English composition in a regular credit-bearing course and extracurricular courses like summer and winter writing seminars They were eager to maintain their writing community so that they continued expose themselves to a writing context in order to satisfy their internal motivation – genuine writing development – and the external motivation of the intensive writing test in the national test for English teacher appointment Hence, they created their own writing club During the two distinctive periods of the student writing community: the fall of 2011 and the spring of 2012,1) the contents and procedures of the student writing club were consistent and systematic During the fall of 2011, taking turns, participants prepared an article to read about an educational issue, read it and comprehended the content of the article together Then they wrote an opinioned paragraph, and provided feedback on the paragraph During the spring of 2011, the researcher aided them in finding an article according to their request He provided articles to read and write about, whose topic was not only directly about education but also about an education-related one like psychology and technology Regarding the process of writing, the research did not assist and control the methodology of peer feedback which they practiced after reading and completing a writing piece after reading The findings about peer feedback associated with their writing development were from the genuine changes in the due process of the writing club 1) The students did not stop their writing club for the winter of 2011, but the period was served for the students to review it for the fall of 2011 and accordingly to plan for the spring of 2012 Changing Perceptions on and Practices of Peer Feedback in a Student Writing Club 75 Data Collection and Analysis To determine whether the distinctiveness could be observed in the students’ evolving practices and perceptions about peer feedback, the researcher administered two surveys: the first survey was administered after the fall of 2011 and the second after the spring of 2012 The first survey was divided into five sections: ‘writing skills,’ ‘peer feedback,’ ‘writing task,’ ‘mentoring,’ and ‘overall evaluation’; and the second survey was divided into: ‘writing skills,’ ‘peer feedback,’ ‘teacher’s participation,’ ‘Internet cafe,’ and ‘overall evaluation.’ The present study reports the detailed analysis of peer feedback, whose questions thematically include practices of giving and receiving feedback, its usefulness, and participants’ confidence in practicing feedback The participants wrote their responses in detail, although This study presents the responses to the following questions: 1) How did you provide feedback on student writing? What areas did you mostly focus on? (i.e., organization, grammar, content, cohesion, vocabulary, etc.) Why did you focus on those areas? 2) Did you find it useful to have your classmates read your draft and provide suggestions? Please describe the reasons for your answer, whether it is ‘yes,’ ‘no,’ or ‘both, and 3) Did you feel confident in providing feedback as time progressed? The analysis of students’ responses was not complicated since each question was straightforward Except for the explanation of feedback areas, the researcher directly used the students’ responses directly in most cases He, however, carefully read and reread the responses to identify and present the changes of peer feedback and the students’ perceptions between the two distinctive periods of the student writing club Responses from all of the students were not eligible to represent the results of this study since some students did not respond to the questions clearly If that was the case, the responses were excluded from the analysis of the study 76 Ho-Jung Yu Ⅳ Findings Providing Peer Feedback: How did you provide feedback on student writing? What areas did you mostly focus on? (i.e., organization, grammar, content, cohesion, vocabulary, etc.) Why did you focus on those areas? Table Comparison of Feedback Methods Students Fall of 2011 Spring of 2012 Yoon read a draft several times to understand it, pointed out every mistake, and then talked concentrated on each sentence for feedback, with the writers based on their needs also wrote general comments and explained them to the writer Yoo tried to check every error exhausting and time-consuming Min swiftly read to comprehend a draft, checked if it was based on the writing task, provided checked grammar errors that were noticeable indirect feedback on grammar if the writer had a mistake, and mostly gave feedback on content Geon moved from grammar to sentence and coherence gave feedback with the ‘memo’ function of check, gave writing hints and comments to MS Directly fixed grammar errors and left let the writer correct errors by herself summative comments about the entire writing Ha directly corrected grammar and checked corrected global errors and wrote down general illogical sentences comments with strong and weak points Seul first read the draft by checking sentences and underlined grammatical errors and put a content with comments, and then read it again question mark on unclear meaning for feedback on vocabulary and grammar Min directly fixed errors though marked errors line by line and wrote overall comments on a draft underlined wrong expressions to let the writer fix them by themselves This section reports the participants’ practice in providing feedback on student writing in term of the areas, methods, and rationale of feedback Table shows how students provided peer feedback to peers from the fall of 2011 to the spring of 2012, and the results of the feedback methods were presented in a way whereby those periods were compared Changing Perceptions on and Practices of Peer Feedback in a Student Writing Club 77 Comparing the feedback methods of the two periods, first, they can be explained, in terms of whether participants provided feedback directly and indirectly It is noticeable that students constructed direct feedback by pointing out and fixing every possible error, and the errors involved in grammar, although an infrequent response toward an indirect approach existed like ‘writing hints and comments to let the writer correct errors by herself.’ Nevertheless, direct feedback was dominant, indicated by the responses of ‘pointed out every mistake,’ ‘tried to check every error,’ ‘directly corrected grammar and checked illogical sentences,’ and ‘directly fixed errors.’ Unlike in the fall of 2011, in the spring of 2012 the participants selected more indirect feedback, and the methods of giving feedback were varying and systematic by spending more time in assessing peer’s writing For instance, according to Yoon, he first tried to understand the writer’s intention, balanced local and global comments, and finalized the feedback process by clarifying them to the writer Like Yoon, Min also allowed herself to understand what the writer tried to communicate within the context of each writing task She selected an indirect method for grammar and mostly concentrated on content One participant like Geon constructed feedback electronically by using the functions of MS Word, following the conventional but ideal patterns of giving in-text and summative comments Although giving indirect and systematic feedback is not an inclusive feedback tendency in the spring of 2012, it is definite that such way of handling feedback became more common, and the participants took feedback into consideration in a more structured and advanced way Also, they certainly constructed direct feedback, which however was contextually selected in the middle of a slightly complex but systematic peer feedback process Table Comparison of Feedback Areas Students Jin Fall of 2011 Spring of 2012 organization cohesion, organization Yoon syntactic errors → cohesion, organization cohesion, organization Yoo accuracy: grammar, sentence structure, vocabulary grammar, sentence structure, cohesion, organization, overall feelings as a reader 78 Ho-Jung Yu Min grammar, cohesion grammar, content Geon cohesion, organization, content grammar, organization, content Seon cohesion grammar, vocabulary, cohesion, organization, content Do cohesion, coherence intention: all areas, reality: grammar Ha illogical sentences, grammar coherence Seul grammar, overall flow grammar, vocabulary Soo grammar, organization cohesion, organization Table presents what areas the participants concentrated on in the fall of 2011 and the spring of 2012, showing the similarities and differences of giving feedback The areas of giving feedback became extensive, as time progressed, and it was observed that some participants realized that every area was important, ranging from local to global In the fall of 2011, it is evident that local areas like grammar are dominant areas for feedback There are a couple of reasons that students are geared toward concentrating on grammar One representing reason is that a grammar mistake is easy to notice For instance, Yoo stated, “I focused on accuracy because that part was easier for me to check than other areas.” Seul repeated the same, as in “The reason why I focus on grammatical errors is that I can find them easily.” In the spring of 2012, the participants did not overlook grammar and other local areas for their feedback focus Including those areas, students move toward being more comprehensive Yoo stated: I seem to focus on grammar and cohesion It is because that grammatical errors are the most noticeable to me while reading, and I usually pup emphasis on close and rational relationship between sentences I think the most important thing as a writer is to make readers understand its own message easily and fluently The above comment is associated to the way of providing peer feedback addressed in the previous section where many students first read through peer’s writing multiple times to construct valid and accurate feedback In a similar vein, many participants perceived that Changing Perceptions on and Practices of Peer Feedback in a Student Writing Club 79 delivering a message clearly and accurately in writing is important so that they encompass all of the aspects in constructing feedback Receiving Peer Feedback: Did you find it useful to have your classmates read your draft and provide suggestions? Please describe the reasons for your answer, whether it is ‘yes,’ ‘no,’ or ‘both.’ Table Comparison of Receiving Peer Feedback Fall of 2011 ▪ Yes (45%) ▪ Both (38%) ▪ No (15%) Spring of 2012 ▪ Yes (77%): absolutely, yes; surely ▪ Both (23%) According to Table 3, the participants became very positive as they experienced their student club peer feedback During the fall of 2011, the participants showed a mixed evaluation about the usefulness of peer feedback although positive responses somewhat overweighed the other types of responses However, during the spring of 2012, the evaluation of receiving peer feedback became noticeably positive Most of the participants did not simply state ‘yes’ to the positiveness of receiving peer feedback, but addressed their sure positiveness with the words: ‘absolutely’ and ‘surely.’ There are some examples in which participants expressed what they felt about receiving peer feedback Peer feedback in 2012 especially served the participants’ writing development since it helped them to notice weaknesses in their writing as it became more reliable than the one in the fall of 2011, as they stated in the following examples: I think it is useful I that classmates can find some errors that I don’t notice before on my writing However, I sometimes can’t make sure if their feedback is right or not when their knowledge and mine conflicted (Yoo, after the fall of 2011) 80 Ho-Jung Yu Yes, I noticed that their feedback as well as their drafts improved I received more inclusive and reliable feedback, most of which I could not disagree with Now I trust their feedback (Yoon, after the spring of 2012) Yes, always My classmates’ feedback was helpful for me My classmates had different views about writing so that he pointed out different parts which I didn’t recognize That was really helpful for me (Seon, after the spring of 2012) Affective Domain in Providing Feedback: Did you feel confident in providing feedback as time progressed? The final question about peer feedback was to determine that the participants became familiar with critiquing a peer work as the writing group continued The outcomes were drawn from 11 participants who were dedicated in the student writing group Apart from one student who did not respond to the question clearly enough, nine students expressed their improvement and comfort in providing feedback However, the tendency of improvement differs, along with their articulation about the improvement In fact, here are two students whose confidence level is not as high as the other students One student stated that she did not have any confidence in providing feedback The other student agreed that her confidence had increased only when providing comments on the writer’s repeated mistakes, however stating that she overlooked the part that she did not know very well Unlike these two students, a group of four participants delivered positiveness with their answers of ‘yes’ or ‘of course’ and elaborating in an one-sentence brief statement The responses, though brief, contained their ensured confidence, which include “Yes, I am certain that I can apply the rules that I know at least,” “Yes, I am now confident in giving feedback even more than several months ago,” and “Yes, it seems that I somewhat have somewhat the eyes for providing feedback.” Along with the increased confidence, Some students gave an account of becoming comfortable They stated that their anxiety had lowered and they could critique a writing piece of an advanced writer For instance, one student said: Changing Perceptions on and Practices of Peer Feedback in a Student Writing Club 81 In giving feedback, nowadays I it with confidence Frankly speaking, at first, I am afraid to give negative feedback when I think the students are better at English than me That time, I know that there is some prejudice to prevent me from providing real feedback After the time, I write every comment I can come up with I also learn that I can learn something from my mistakes It was definite that the other student, Yoon, could critique other writing pieces with confidence and comfort It was observed that such confidence and comfort was built by the consistent feedback practices that led her to grasp her peers’ writing styles Her related remarks are: I became comfortable with giving feedback with confidence It does not mean that I’m sure of my accuracy and analysis of others’ writing, but that I am not afraid of giving feedback itself and I know others’ usual writing styles Ⅴ Conclusion The results of this study indicated that a student writing club served the students’ development of conducting peer feedback, implying that it helped them to improve their writing ability (Choe & Yu, 2012; Huh & Lee, 2011; Yu & Choe, 2012) Throughout the writing club, they developed their skill of what and how to evaluate a piece of writing, and also they became aware of how to apply evaluation outcomes to their own writing Such outcomes of peer feedback in the student writing group enhance the positive research outcomes of the up-to-date peer feedback research Adding to the positive research outcomes, the study shows a couple of other significant implications This present study shows the extensive potential of collaborative learning along with peer feedback Peer feedback is a representation of collaborative learning in a writing context It is undoubtful that research studies in the name of peer feedback demonstrate collaborative learning in their positive outcomes However, other studies did not present collaborative 82 Ho-Jung Yu features in their entirety; they presented collaborative work’s benefits mostly associated with the students’ subsequent drafts The present study indeed shows that students themselves can create a collaborative learning community in which the students practice setting the same goals and helping themselves to reach their goals by providing social, affective, content-based assistance As a result, a peer feedback model of this study shows the extensive potential of collaborative learning that is student-centered Therefore, a teacher can flexibly utilize the learning possibility of peer work in a classroom setting More importantly, the peer feedback process in the student writing group reflected the development of the students’ cognition of writing and the practice of writing According to the analysis in table 2, the participants became inclusive, from being exclusive in providing feedback This came from the participants’ understanding of good writing, which needs to be accurately written in language usage and clearly demonstrated in content and organization In due process, the students’ learning process through the changing awareness of writing feedback demonstrated that most of them became an independent writer, who can produce a piece of writing by taking a required context and the complex writing process into account Therefore, it is safe to argue that student writing clubs are one viable approach to aid students in becoming a better second or foreign language writer of English References Cha, Y-J (2207) A study of peer feedback patterns in CMC modes on Korean EFL students Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning 10(1), 9-35 (2008) Effects of online peer feedback using CMC instrument English Teaching 64(4), 1-24 Cha, Y-J and Park, L E (2010) An analysis of synchronous interaction and its influence on EFL writers’ revisions Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning 13(2), 9-36 Cho, S-K (2005) The effectiveness of peer feedback in Korean EFL writing classrooms English Language Teaching 17(4), 33-59 Changing Perceptions on and Practices of Peer Feedback in a Student Writing Club 83 Examining attitudes of Korean EFL Learners toward peer review The New Korean Journal of English Language Literature 48(1), 207-236 (2011) The effects of giving peer feedback: Case studies of Korean learners of English English Language and Linguistics 17(2), 101-125 Cho, Y-K and Sohn, T-H (2007) Complementarity of peer and teacher feedback in Korean high school English classes English Teaching 62(3), 307-329 Choe, H-S and Yu, H-J (2012) Interactional details in group peer feedback in an L2 writing class Modern English Education, 13(1), 133-147 Ferris, D (2003) Response to student writing: Implications for second language writing New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Huh, M-H and Lee, J H (2011) Feedback on peer feedback in EFL composing: Four stories English Language and Literature 57(6), 977-998 Joo, M-J and Kim, Y-H (2010) Teacher and peer feedback: Learner perceptions and the efficacy for improvement in L2 writing English Language Teaching 22(3) 1-21 Kim, B-R (2009) Examining the effects of trained peer feedback on EFL students’ writing English Language & Literature Teaching 15(2), 151-168 Kim, J-K (2007) An emic view on peer response and the actual revisions in electronic and traditional modes.” Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning 10(2), 70-97 Ku, K Y and Park, B-J (2011) Effectiveness of two formats of peer response in college advanced academic English composition: Individuals versus groups The Journal of Linguistic Science 57, 1-24 Lee Y-H (2011) Exploring the talk in EFL students’ peer feedback: Content, perspectives, and desire English Language Teaching 23(1), 109-128 Suh, J-S (2005) Peer feedback interactions in EFL compositions: Written feedback versus oral feedback English Teaching 60(3), 91-116 Yi, J-Y (2010) The characteristics of Korean EFL college students’ peer feedback to English writing and their perception of the peer feedback Modern English Education 11(3), 134-161 Yu, H-J (2013) A review on peer feedback studies in a Korean EFL writing context from 84 Ho-Jung Yu the perspectives of research and pedagogy The New Studies of English Language & Literature, 54, 209-226 Yu, H-J and Choe, H-S (2011) The dynamics of a peer response group in a mixed-level Korean EFL writing class English Language and Linguistics 17(1), 187-212 Changing Perceptions on and Practices of Peer Feedback in a Student Writing Club 85 유호정 (2014) 학생 글쓰기 모임에서 나타난 동료피드백에 대한 인식과 활동 외국어교육연구, 28(1), pp.69-85 본 연구는 1년 정도 운영된 학생 중심 영어 글쓰기 모임에서 나타난 동료피드백 과 이에 대한 태도변화를 연구하였다 영어교육을 전공한 13명의 학생들이 본 연구에 참여하였다 동료피드백과 이에 대한 태도변화를 조사하기위해 기술식 설 문조사가 2011년 가을 이후와 2012년 봄 이후 각 1회씩 총 2회 실시되었다 연 구 결과, 학생 중심 영어 글쓰기 모임은 학생들의 동료피드백에 도움을 주었고, 이로 인해 글쓰기 실력이 향상된 것으로 여겨진다 다시 말해, 학생들은 영작의 내용과 방법적인 측면에서 어떻게 피드백을 행해야하는지 알게 되었고, 그 결과 의 자신들의 글쓰기 향상에 활용할 수 있게 되었다 Key words: Peer Feedback, Perception on Peer Feedback, L2 Writing, Student Writing Club, Collaborative Learning 동료피드백, 동료피드백에 대한 인식, 제2 언어 글쓰기, 학생 글쓰기 모임, 협동 학습 Examples in: English Application Language: English, Foreign Languages Applicable Levels: Secondary Yu, Ho-Jung School of Foreign Languages Kyungil University 50 Gamasil-gil, Hayang-eup, Gyeongsan-si, Gyeongbuk 712-701 Korea TEL: (053) 850-7422, C.P : 010-4466-8536 E-MAIL: hjyu2007@gmail.com received in December 22, 2013 revised version received in January 24, 2014 received version accepted in February 14, 2014 ... and accurate feedback In a similar vein, many participants perceived that Changing Perceptions on and Practices of Peer Feedback in a Student Writing Club 79 delivering a message clearly and accurately... effectiveness of peer feedback in Korean EFL writing classrooms English Language Teaching 17(4), 33-59 Changing Perceptions on and Practices of Peer Feedback in a Student Writing Club 83 Examining attitudes... collaborative learning in education in general This present study can be a contribution to peer feedback research in a growing continuum of L2 writing and peer feedback research Although there are