The use of feedback (peer- and teacher-generated feedback) for learning and assessment purposes has been extensively researched in higher education across many fields of study, including teacher training, teaching and learning English, medical studies, to mention just a few. It has been established that it is a powerful tool to improve learning and achievement if it is effective, and that its effectiveness is related to the student’s ability to self-regulate one’s own learning (Boud & Molley, 2013; Carless et al., 2010; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Huang, 2018; Liu & Carless, 2006; Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006, among others). It has been also reported that the impacts feedback makes on students’ learning and performance depend on its type and the way it is provided to them (Chen, 2016; Day et al., 2022; Gan et al., 2021; Filius et al., 2018; Gikandi & Morrow, 2016; Pham, 2021; Ruegg, 2018; Yang, 2016, among others).

In the field of teaching and learning English, research has been focused on educational effects of peer feedback on ESL/EFL and ESP language competence and transferable skills (Burkšaitienė, 2012; Chen, 2016; Pham, 2021; Ruegg, 2018; Yang, 2016, among others). To illustrate, Yang’s (2016) research findings showed that online peer feedback fostered students’ EFL reading and writing skills, raised their language awareness and promoted critical thinking. In the field of ESP, Burkšaitienė (2012) explored the use of peer feedback for fostering undergraduate law students’ metacognitive skill of reflecting on learning. The results indicated that feedback providers were actively engaged in the process and that their feedback directed its receivers towards further learning. Pham (2021) used two forms of peer feedback (asynchronous computer-assisted written feedback and traditional oral face-to-face feedback) to promote future engineers’ ESP writing skills. It was found that computer-assisted written peer feedback was perceived by its users as more useful than traditional oral face-to-face feedback (Pham, 2021).   

Although the effects of peer feedback on student learning have been extensively investigated in many fields of study, there is lack of research into its use in translator training in Lithuania to date. To fill in this gap and to contribute to the knowledge in this field, this study focuses on the use of written peer feedback for fostering future translators’ oral performance. It aims at establishing translation students’ views regarding their peers' ESP presentations so that to support them to succeed better in the future. To this end, this study addresses the main research question: “What areas in ESP oral performance are identified by peer feedback providers as those that need further improvement?”.

The theoretical framework of this study is the theory of self-directed learning. It puts students at the centre of learning and aims at enabling them to become lifelong learners and self-directed learners (Brookfield, 1985; Garrison, 1997; Loeng, 2020, Burkšaitienė et al, 2021, among others). The most relevant theoretical assumption underlying this theory is that self-directed learning is a process aimed at reaching meaningful educational outcomes and that its essence is “taking responsibility to construct personal meaning” (Garrison, 1997, 30). This is important for the present study as feedback should reduce discrepancies between students' current understandings, their performance and the goal (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). According to the latter authors, this can be achieved by supporting and directing learners to move forward on the level of the task, process, self-regulation, and self. Moreover, to help students to improve, their ability to provide feedback for future learning should be fostered, which includes not only identifying shortcomings in one’s performance, but also reflecting on them, suggesting ways of how to improve, and presenting them to peers (Huang, 2018).

Participants and the research context The study participants were 42 second-year translation students enrolled in an ESP course at a university in Lithuania. The course lasted for 16 weeks and included different mandatory and optional assignments. Making a presentation on a freely chosen topic (focused on environmental, educational, financial, legal, medical, political, social, etc. actualities) was a mandatory assignment which had to be prepared individually and accounted for at the end of the course. To support the students, the teacher’s consultations were available, and four performance criteria were pre-taught. The latter included: presentation structure, the use of ESP language, answering the problem question, and presentation delivery mode. During the presentation seminars, the students had to listen to their peers’ presentations, compare their performance against the pre-taught criteria and present written feedback on each criterion to their peers. After the presentations, the feedback receivers analysed the feedback and discussed it with its providers and the teacher. All students acted as both feedback providers and feedback receivers. Data collection and analysis To carry out the research, a qualitative approach was chosen. The data were drawn from the students’ written feedback sheets and analysed using inductive content analysis. The suitability of this method for the present study is supported by the literature. According to Elo and Kyngäs, “it is used in cases where there are no previous studies dealing with the phenomenon or when it is fragmented”, and it allows to establish content-related categories that result in a comprehensive description of the phenomenon (Elo & Kyngäs, 2007, p. 107). The data for the present research were analysed following the analysis procedure described by Elo and Kyngäs (2007). During the preparation stage, students’ responses were read several times and the units of analysis that were relevant to the research question were selected. The second stage consisted of (i) open coding (the headings reflecting aspects of peer-identified performance gaps and peer-perceived ways how to close them were written down and initial categories were generated); (ii) grouping (lists of categories were grouped under higher order headings), and (iii) abstraction (each category was named, subcategories identified and grouped). During the final stage, samples illustrating each subcategory were provided. The sample size of this study could be recognized as its main limitation. However, it should be noted that at the time of the research it could not have been bigger as it included all second-year undergraduate translation students.

The study revealed four presentation areas (categories) in which students’ performance gaps (subcategories, n = 10) were disclosed. The major problem area was presentations’ delivery mode. It was established that 36% of presenters were reading their presentations rather than talking to the audience. This was followed by speaking not loudly enough (21%), using little eye contact (14%), and exceeding presentation time limit (5%). It can be concluded that these students’ communication skills and the skill of making presentations should be fostered, which can be achieved by acting on the feedback and making more presentations. The use of presentation slides was the second problem area. The results demonstrate that half of the slides contained too much text, which means that some students’ academic skills of summarising and generalising should be developed. The use of language, which included pronunciation mistakes (38%) and grammar mistakes (5%), was the third problem area. These results indicate that pronunciation of ESP terms was challenging, whereas grammar did not pose much difficulty. The latter may be explained by the fact that translation students usually have B2 or C1 level of general English (according to CEFR), whereas pronunciation problems must have been caused by the novelty of ESP language. The finding that the number of gaps identified in presentations' content (i.e., unclearly formulated ideas or using unsupported ideas) was very low (5% each) allows to conclude that most presenters met presentation content-related requirements successfully. To sum up, peer feedback, as used in the present study, was a tool providing students with directions for further learning. Reflecting and acting on the identified problem areas and gaps in students' ESP oral performance can enable them to achieve better results in the future. Finally, future research could analyse how peer feedback is perceived and how students act on it.

Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: The challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698-712. Brookfield, S. (1985). Self-directed learning: a conceptual and methodological exploration. Studies in the Education of Adults, 17(1), 19-32. Burkšaitienė, N. (2012). Peer feedback for fostering students’ metacognitive skills of thinking about learning in a course of English for Law. Societal Studies, 4(4), 1341-1355. Burkšaitienė, N.; Leščinskij, R.; Suchanova, J.; Šliogerienė, J. (2021). Self-Directedness for sustainable learning in university studies: Lithuanian students’ perspective. Sustainability, 13, 9467. Chen, T. (2016). Technology-supported peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing classes: A research synthesis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(2), 365-397. Day, I. N. Z., Saab, N., & Admiraal, W. (2022). Online peer feedback on video presentations: Type of feedback and improvement of presentation skills. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(2), 183–197. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2007). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115. Filius, R. M., et al. (2018). Strengthening dialogue peer feedback aiming for deep learning in SPOCs. Computers & Education, 125(2018), 86-100. Gan, Z., et al. (2020). Feedback behaviour and preference in university academic English courses: associations with English language self-efficacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(5), 740–755. Garrison, D.R. (1997). Self-Directed learning: Toward a comprehensive model. Adult Education Quarterly, 48, 18–33. Gikandi, J. W., & Morrow, D. (2016). Designing and implementing peer formative feedback within online learning environments. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(2),153-170. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 8-112. Huang, S.-C. (2018). A GEARed peer feedback model and implications for learning facilitation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(7), 1194-1210. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218. Pham, H. (2021). Computer-mediated and face-to-face peer feedback: Student feedback and revision in EFL writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 35(9), 2112–2147. Loeng, S. (2020). Self-directed learning: A core concept in adult education. Education Research International, 2020, 1-12. Ruegg, R. (2018). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on changes in EFL students’ writing self-efficacy. The Language Learning Journal, 46(2), 87-102. Yang, Y.-F. (2016). Transforming and constructing academic knowledge through online peer feedback in summary writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 683-702ng, 29(4), 683-702.