Peer feedback in an online dissertation writing workshop

Abstract

The article examines ‘in-text feedback’ and ‘overall feedback’ (KUMAR; STRACKE, 2007) on dissertation chapter drafts as well as students’ opinion about giving and receiving feedback, both before and after taking part in the peer revision activities proposed in an online dissertation writing workshop. It used a mixed method approach. The comments were categorized using qualitative analysis; then, the categories are quantified and differences between proportions were analyzed using a Z test to determine if the difference between categories were statistically significant. In addition, students’ opinions on feedback were qualitatively analyzed. As regards the in-text comments, with statistical significance, most of them consisted of basic feedback, referred to the textual model (mainly linguistic aspects) and had a directive pragmatic function. In the overall peer feedback, the textual model also prevailed but comments also included issues linked to the communicative situation and the research and a higher level of substantiated comments was noticed. This can be related to what students affirmed about the feedback received before and after the workshop: the perspectives of their peers allowed them to objectify the text or even delve into a critical evaluation of their own dissertation work. Additionally, peers’ comments allow them to redo the writing actions that took place in the making of their first draft (e.g. drafting the paragraphs, structuring the discourse, thinking about whole sections) but this time, actions were informed by different perspective, which led to an improvement of the text at different levels.