外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）【Research Brief】

Student Perception of Asynchronous Semi-Anonymous Peer
Feedback Efficacy in Online EFL Presentation Classes
Alex Blumenstock & Michael Peragine
Abstract
The goal of this study is to determine whether Japanese university students believed asynchronous semi-anonymous
peer feedback helped them improve their presentation skills in an online English as a Foreign Language (EFL)
presentation class. Previous studies regarding peer evaluation in EFL contexts rarely focus on oral presentations, and,to our knowledge, none focus specifically on students’ experiences in an online presentation course. In this study,
students of a lower-intermediate level presentation course at a Japanese university were regularly assigned peergroups and guided to provide scaffolded feedback using an anonymous online peer-evaluation system. At theconclusion of the course, opinions of the implemented feedback methods were collected via a survey that included
both Likert-type questions and open-ended questions. The results indicate that students had a generally favorable
perception of asynchronous semi-anonymous peer feedback in an online context. In conjunction with teacher and selfevaluations, implementing such peer evaluations may motivate an improved awareness of presentation skills as wellas meaningful peer interactions. However, further studies should be conducted to refine best practices.
Keywords: peer feedback, peer review, oral presentation, online, asynchronous

Introduction
Peer review is an area of research that has gained traction in the field of L2 education, particularly
with regard to student writing. Tsui and Ng (2000) explored a wide range of benefits to peer feedbacksuch as an enhanced sense of audience, raised awareness through the reading of peers’ writing,collaborative learning, and a fostered sense of ownership of students’ work—all of which may not be
achieved through the comments of one’s teacher. Despite numerous studies regarding the effects ofpeer evaluations in L2 writing courses, far less research has been conducted on its potential benefits
in contexts related to oral communication.
While peer groups may be able to accurately assess one another’s writing with the aid of a wellstructured and level-appropriate checklist, there may be discrepancies with regard to feedback
quality when it comes to oral communication. In studies of the effectiveness of self-, peer-, andteacher assessment on oral presentations, Nejad & Mahfoodh (2019) found a strong correlation
between peer- and teacher-ratings, whereas Saito (2000) reported a high level of consistency between
peer- and self-ratings. However, Shimura (2006) highlighted the role of L2 proficiency on peer
feedback, finding that assessments by upper-intermediate students most closely resembled the
instructor’s, while all proficiency levels correlated highly with regard to eye contact and gestures.
Despite variations found in different levels and contexts, research seems to indicate that students
respond positively to peer feedback on presentations (Nakamura, 2002; Nejad & Mahfoodh, 2019;
Saito, 2000).
When classes shifted online due the COVID-19 pandemic, not only was there a stronger need to
employ an online peer feedback system, but such a system could have some advantages over face-toface peer evaluation. Hosack (2003) posited that L2 learners found it difficult to suggest revisions

146

STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ASYNCHRONOUS SEMI-ANONYMOUS PEER FEEDBACK EFFICACY IN ONLINE EFL PRESENTATION CLASSES

that may appear critical of a peer’s work whereas anonymous feedback helped relieve anxiety about
the possibility of hurt feelings. In a related study at the same Japanese university, students took partin both face-to-face and anonymous peer feedback but reported less concern about making criticalcomments; however, female students overwhelmingly preferred anonymous feedback, suggestingthat even gender may affect the efficacy of peer evaluation (Coomber & Silver 2010). Furthermore,
the findings of Lu & Bol (2007) demonstrated that anonymous peers performed better on writing
performance tasks and provided more critical feedback than those participating in identifiable peer
review. Thus, the increased privacy of anonymous feedback may empower students who hesitate toprovide necessary constructive criticism. Furthermore, asynchronous feedback can be easilycollected, collated, and returned in a streamlined fashion, thus complementing teacher feedback andstudents’ self-reflection.
After ensuring our asynchronous peer feedback system was as easy to understand and use as
possible, we considered our implementation in terms of anonymity, peer groupings, and improving
peer feedback quality. From the perspective of learning outcomes, the aims of this project were as
follows:
1. Increase awareness of target presentation skills.
2. Motivate students to improve target presentation skills.
3. Increase student engagement in peers’ performances.
4. Increase opportunities for meaningful presenter-audience interactions.

MethodThis survey was conducted at a Japanese university on three freshman-level English Presentation
classes of lower intermediate proficiency (within the range of 280-479 combined TOEIC Listening &Reading scores). These classes were conducted online via Zoom due to COVID-19 response policies.
Students met for one 100-minute lesson each week over the course of a 12-week semester. Roughly
every other week, students gave prepared presentations on various topics. The aim of this compulsory
course was to improve presentation skills such as organizing presentations, supporting argumentswith evidence, using visual aids, and improving both verbal and non-verbal skills such as intonation,
gestures, and eye contact.
Before each presentation, students were assigned three peers and were instructed to pay close
attention to their presentations, with the intention of giving asynchronous feedback at the end of theround of presentations. After the presentations concluded, students engaged in self-reflection
activities in addition to providing feedback to their peers via Google Forms. The peer feedback was
divided into two components: guided questions for their assigned peers and awards voting for all of
their classmates.
The guided questions, which were called “T.A.G. Feedback” (Tell, Ask, and Give), instructed
students to respond to each of their three peers individually—to tell their peers something positive
about their presentations, ask a question about their peers’ presentations, and give advice on how to
improve their next presentation. In each category, the students were provided with sentence stems
to assist them in providing specific feedback to their peers (see Appendix A).
The voting component asked students to select the “smoothest” presentation, the “mostinteresting” presentation, and the presentation with the “most effective” slides. These categories
roughly correlate to the rubric’s categories of “physical elements,” “content,” and “visuals.” Thewinners of each category were announced in the following class, along with a brief explanation from147

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

the teacher about what made each presentation successful in its respective category. After students
submitted their peer feedback, the data was collated and returned anonumously via individualized
documents for presenters to review (see Appendix B).
The authors’ feedback systems were nearly the same, but there were some notable variations.
Regarding peer grouping, both assigned three peers. However, teacher B included a mid-semester
group presentation and asked students to provide T.A.G. feedback for each of the five groups. The“Ask” feedback questions were then used to practice Q&A skills. In addition, in the second half of thecourse, teacher B required students to directly ask at least two questions, which negated the need for“Ask” feedback. Therefore, students were required to provide “Tell” and “Give” feedback to allclassmates on days they had not been assigned to present.
Following the final lesson, students were asked to complete a survey via Google Forms about
the feedback they received throughout the course. The first ten questions (see Table 1) asked theextent to which students agreed or disagreed with the statements using a four-point Likert-type scale.
The survey concluded with the following two open-ended questions: (1) What did you like about thepeer feedback system? (ピアフィードバック・システムの好きなところは何ですか？) and (2) How
could the peer feedback system be improved? (どうすればピアフィードバック・システムがより良いものになると思いますか？).

Results & Discussion
Student responses to Likert-type survey items are presented in Table 1 below.
Table 1Student responses to Likert-type items on the survey (N=38)
No.

M

SD

1

The peer feedback system was easy to understand. ピアフィードバック・システムは分かり
3.63
やすかった。

Item

0.67

2

The peer feedback system was easy to use. ピアフィードバック・システムは使いやすかっ
3.53
た。

0.76

3

When I gave my classmates feedback, I tried my best to give them helpful advice. クラスメー
3.47
トのフィードバックを行う際は、参考になるようなアドバイスをするように心がけた。

0.56

4

I always read the feedback from my classmates. 常にクラスメイトからのフィードバックを3.05
読んで確認していた。

0.8

5

The feedback from my classmates helped me improve my presentation skills. クラスメートか
3.37
らのフィードバックは、プレゼンテーションスキルを向上させるのに役立った。

0.79

6

The awards (for smoothest presentation, most interesting presentation, and best slides)
motivated me to try my best. 各アワード(最もスムーズなプレゼンテーション、最も興味深 3.42
いプレゼンテーション、ベスト・スライド)がある事で、頑張ろうという気持ちになった。

0.83

7

I liked the peer feedback system. ピアフィードバック・システムが気に入った。

3.24

0.75

8

I improved my presentation skills this semester. 今学期で、プレゼンテーションスキルが向3.74
上したと思う。

0.6

9

I always read the feedback from my teacher. 常に講師からのフィードバックを読んで確認し
3.66
ていた。

0.75

10

The feedback from my teacher helped me improve my presentation skills. 講師からのフィー
3.71
ドバックは、プレゼンテーションスキルを向上させる助けとなった。

0.61

Note: 1= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree

148

STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ASYNCHRONOUS SEMI-ANONYMOUS PEER FEEDBACK EFFICACY IN ONLINE EFL PRESENTATION CLASSES

Students reported having positive feelings about the presentation course overall, indicatingstrong agreement (M= 3.74[0.6]) with the statement that they improved their presentation skills in
the course. Regarding the peer feedback system, students indicated strong agreement that thesystem was easy to understand (M= 3.63[0.67]) and easy to use (M= 3.53[0.76]).
Survey results also indicated strong agreement that they tried to give each other helpful
feedback (M= 3.47[0.56]) and received helpful feedback (M= 3.37[0.79]), suggesting that students
were engaged and took their social responsibility to provide feedback seriously. However, students
indicated only moderate agreement that they always read the feedback from their classmates (M=3.05[0.8]), suggesting that presenter-audience interactions could be improved, perhaps byincorporating the reading of peer feedback into in-class assignments or self-reflection activities. In
contrast, students indicated strong agreement that they always read the feedback from their teacher(M= 3.66[0.75]). Likewise, participants indicated that teacher feedback was more helpful (M=3.71[0.61]) than peer feedback (M= 3.37[0.79]), which would seem to support Tsui and Ng’s (2002)
assertion that L2 students favor the feedback of instructors over peers. Despite this, one respondent
wrote, “I understand that other people concentrate [on] my presentation,” emphasizing the impact ofwhat Tsui and Ng (2000) described as an enhanced sense of audience. Students know that those wholack the motivation to pay attention will now be tasked with listening carefully to their ideas, which inturn compels speakers to improve their performance. However, it remains unclear whether thissentiment is applicable to the student-selected awards as participants did not elaborate on this aspectof peer-feedback despite strong agreement indicating such awards had increased motivation (M=3.42[0.83]).

Semi-Anonymous Feedback
Although students knew who their peers were, our system made it difficult to identify which
member of their peer group made a particular comment. In addition to the constraints of online
classes, our decision to partially anonymize peer feedback was motivated by research indicating L2
students tend to feel less hesitant about providing critical feedback anonymously (Hosack, 2003; Lu& Bol, 2007). Overall, our survey results support this notion. One student wrote:
I’m happy to know what I did well in my presentation, but more importantly, because it’sanonymous, I can ask people to point out exactly what I’m lacking and what I need to improveon, and conversely, I can honestly tell them what other people did well and give them advice. (自分のプレゼンの良かった点が分かるのも嬉しいですが、それ以上に、匿名であることもあって、自分の足りない点や改善が必要な点を的確に指摘してもらうことができ、反対に私からも他の方の良かったところやアドバイスを率直に伝えることができます。)
Two more students echoed this preference for anonymity, noting that they were happy to receive“candid” or “objective” opinions. In addition, another student wrote, “I think it would be better if I
could use chat, etc.” (チャットなどが使えたらよりよくなると思う). Although less anonymousthan our system, using a chat function would still provide increased privacy over direct face-to-face orvideo communication, as students wouldn’t see each others’ faces or reactions. Thus, some anonymity
appears to increase students’ comfort with giving and receiving peer feedback.

Peer-group Size
In attempting to strike a balance between over- and under-utilizing students’ attentive resources,149

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

we decided to use peer groups typically of four students in our peer-feedback process, with threepeers for each presenter. Student reaction to peer-group size was mixed. Many expressed that they
were happy to receive the attention of their peers, but a student in Teacher A’s class seemed to preferlarger peer groups: “I would prefer that the number of people giving feedback be more than three”(フィードバックを返す人の人数を三人から増やす).
However, as teacher B’s final presentations required students to provide feedback for up to ten
peers, students had differing opinions about peer-group size, with one student saying, “Reduce thenumber of people who write” (書く人数を減らす). Conversely, another student acknowledged thechallenge but seemed to find it worthwhile:
It may increase the workload for both of us, but I felt that I could develop my skills better if I
could get feedback from as many people as possible. (互いに負担は増えてしまうかもしれませんが、できるだけ多くの人からフィードバックがもらえると、より力を伸ばせるように感じました。)
In future iterations of this feedback system, it may be worth reconsidering the size of peer groups, assome prefer feedback from more peers while others might find it too taxing or unnecessary.

Guided Feedback (Tell, Ask, and Give)
When responding to peers, students were given guidelines in terms of the kind of feedback toprovide, along with sentence stems (see Appendix A). The aim of this guided feedback was tosimplify the process by providing points of focus for students while also enhancing the overall qualityof comments. Many students agreed that the prompts were helpful. One student wrote that “I can get
specific advice on how to improve my presentation skills” (自分のプレゼンテーションのスキルを上げる具体的なアドバイスを知ることができるところ). Two others commented on the structured
nature of the T.A.G. system by saying, “topics were still set, so I can advice classmate easily” and “thequestions were clear, and I was able to write my impressions more smoothly compared to tasks thatjust ask for a reaction” (質問が明確で、感想をかく課題よりスムーズにできた). However, otherstudents were more critical, saying, “I would like to get more specific advices” and “let me write more
freely” (もっと自由に書くことを決められるようにする). This would indicate that perhaps it
needed to be explicitly stated that the sentence stems were a guideline rather than a requirement,
which might provide guard rails for students with less confidence while liberating some students able
to express themselves more freely.

Conclusion
In face-to-face classes as well as online classes, peer review can be a valuable tool for helping
students reflect on their achievement of course objectives. As L2 students often lack confidence intheir own ability and may therefore hesitate to provide direct criticism, asynchronous peer feedback
may be preferable—even in face-to-face contexts, as students have time to independently reflect on
their peers’ performances. In addition, curriculum-oriented sentence stems can support students ingiving meaningful and specific feedback, though some students may prefer to write more freely. Yeton the whole, participants in this survey generally reported both providing and receiving helpful peer
feedback, suggesting overall approval of the system.
One downside of asynchronous feedback is that it needs to be read and applied after it isreceived. Although most students reported that they read their peers’ feedback, some reported that

150

STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ASYNCHRONOUS SEMI-ANONYMOUS PEER FEEDBACK EFFICACY IN ONLINE EFL PRESENTATION CLASSES

they did not. In addition, although students’ perceptions are that the feedback helped them improve,
whether the peer feedback actually impacted future performances is a question for further research.
In a relevant study discussing Japanese university students enrolled in a similar presentation course,
Shimura (2006) suggested that the proficiency of learners may impact their ability to provide accurate
and meaningful peer feedback. Indeed, variations among groups of learners may occur for any
number of reasons, so it may be difficult to draw broad conclusions about the efficacy of peer
feedback in terms of improving language or presentation skills.
While the survey would seem to indicate marked support for the system of feedback used in thisstudy, it cannot be overstated that peer feedback in isolation is not a silver bullet for increasing
students’ motivation to improve. Peer feedback can be valuable for obtaining a direct response fromone’s audience. However, teacher feedback, peer feedback, and student self-reflection should be seen
as complementary, as each yields a different perspective of the presentation and has the capacity toassist students in improving different aspects of their presentation abilities.
However, while most literature about peer review focuses on writing, it is important to do more
research on peer feedback as it relates to oral tasks such as presentation. Another needed directionof research is to further explore the relative values, strengths, and weaknesses of peer, self, andteacher evaluations and how they can better complement each other.

References
Coomber, M., & Silver, R. (2010). The effect of anonymity in peer review. In A. M. Stoke (Ed.),
JALT2009 Conference Proceedings, 621-631. Tokyo: JALT. https://jalt-publications.org/archive/
proceedings/2009/E063.pdf
Hosack, I. (2003). The effects of anonymous feedback on Japanese university students’ attitudes
towards peer review. Ritsumeikanhougaku bessatsu, 1, 297-322. http://www.ritsumei.ac.jp/acd/
cg/law/lex/kotoba04/Ian%20Hosack.pdf
Lu, R., & Bol, L. (2007). A comparison of anonymous versus identifiable e-peer review on college
student writing performance and the extent of critical feedback. Journal of Interactive Online
Learning, 6, 100-115. http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/6.2.2.pdf
Nakamura, Y. (2002). Teacher assessment and peer assessment in practice. Educational Studies, 44.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED464483
Nejad, A. M., & Mahfoodh, O. H. A. (2019). Assessment of oral presentations: Effectiveness of self-,
peer-, and teacher assessments. International Journal of Instruction, 12, 3, 615-632. Retrieved
from http://www.e-iji.net/dosyalar/iji_2019_3_37.pdf
Saito, H. (2000). Peer, self, and instructor ratings of group presentations in EFL classrooms: A pilot
study. The Journal of Rikkyo University Language Center, 2, 76-86.
Shimura, Mika. (2006). Peer- and instructor assessment of oral presentations in Japanese university
EFL classrooms: A pilot study. Waseda Global Forum 3, 99-107. http://hdl.handle.net/2065/11344
Tsui, A. B., & Ng, M. (January 01, 2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments?
Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 2, 147-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/S10603743(00)00022-9

151

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

Appendix A
Question items on the peer feedback form completed by students via Google Forms after
presentations.
Section 1 – TAG (tell/ask/give) feedback:1. TELL something you like about your classmate’s presentation (i.e. The best part of yourpresentation was...because... / One thing you did really well was...because... / I’m really impressed
with...because...)2. ASK something about your classmate’s presentation (i.e. Wh-...? / I wanted to know more about...
/ One thing that was not clear to me was... / What did you mean by...?)
3. GIVE a suggestion for improvement (i.e. To make your presentation better, I would suggest... /You need more/less...because... / Your presentations will be higher quality if you...)Section 2 – Awards:
1. Whose presentation was the smoothest? (i.e. appeared confident, good delivery, natural intonation,etc.)
2. Whose presentation was the most interesting? (i.e. you learned something new or surprising)
3. Whose slides were the most effective? (i.e. made the presentation more enjoyable or easier tofollow)

152

STUDENT PERCEPTION OF ASYNCHRONOUS SEMI-ANONYMOUS PEER FEEDBACK EFFICACY IN ONLINE EFL PRESENTATION CLASSES

Appendix B
Example of peer feedback as received by a presenter via Google Drive document.
TELL
The best part of your presentation was explaining because it is simple and clear to understand.
The best part of your presentation was speaking speed because it was easy to understand.
It’s a place I want to go, so it was fun to listen to.
ASK
I wanted to know more about attractions.
I wanted to know more about character.
Do you live in Osaka?
GIVE
To make your presentation better, I would suggest emphasizing.
You need more inflection of words.
I want you to speak a little more slowly.

153