A Comparative Study Of Real-name And Anonymous Peer Feedback On Chinese Efl Learners’ Writing

Though peer feedback (PF) enjoys solid theoretical and empirical support, thereare still reservations about the practice of PF in Chinese EFL classrooms, becauseunder the influence of collectivism and face, Chinese students are reluctant to offernegative feedback when doing PF, rendering PF less fruitful than it is supposed to be.Deindividuation in anonymous PF can hopefully lessen Chinese students’ concernabout the harmonious personal relationship and enhance the efficiency of PF.This study sought to make a comparison of real-name PF and anonymous PFthrough a two-week empirical study among46Chinese first-year English majorsfrom two intact classes. Three questions were addressed:1) To what extent areChinese EFL learners’real-name PF and anonymous PF different in terms of positivePF and negative PF?2) To what extent are Chinese EFL learners’ real-name PF andanonymous PF different in terms of feedback focus?3) What are Chinese EFLlearners’ perceptions of real-name PF and anonymous PF?The study was conducted in two sessions. In Session1, both classes were firstrequired to write a composition on the same topic and then were given10minutes tocomplete the background information questionnaire. In Session2, the participantsfirst did real-name PF, and then anonymous PF, followed by answeringperception-eliciting questions.Based on the analysis of writing drafts with real-name PF, writing drafts withanonymous PF and perceptions of PF, four major findings were achieved:1) Theparticipants provided significantly more negative PF than positive PF no matterwhen they did real-name PF or anonymous PF. In comparison with real-name PF,anonymous PF generated significantly more negative and less positive feedback.2)In terms of feedback focus, for both real-name PF and anonymous PF, feedback ongrammar predominated in quantity, while feedback on mechanics occupied the smallest fraction, and the participants offered significantly more surface changesthan meaning changes. However, while engaging in anonymous PF, the participantsmade significantly more comments on content and did significantly more meaningchanges than when they did real-name PF.3) Most participants (80.4%) reported thatthey performed differently when doing real-name and anonymous PF. When theparticipants did real-name PF, their identification and contribution were transparent,so they tended to be responsible, but conservative and focused on surface changes.While doing real-name PF, the participants had background knowledge of their peers.Though such knowledge could help the participants understand their peers’ writingbetter, it might bring about biased feedback. What’s more, real-name PF madepost-PF discussion possible. In contrast, when doing anonymous PF, the participantshad their identification kept secret. As a result, they felt freer, and their feedback wasmore incisive and focused on meaning changes. On the other hand, anonymity mightresult in irresponsibility. Besides, when doing anonymous PF, the participants had nobackground knowledge of their peers and hence were more objective.4) Despite theadvantages and demerits of the two types of PF, more participants (65.2%) showedpreference for anonymous PF for various reasons, such as enabling them to be freeror more objective, or being good for maintaining harmonious personal relationshipor protecting privacy. A number of participants (34.8%) expressed their preferencefor real-name PF, because of the possibility of post-PF discussion, pushing them tobe more responsible, or enabling them to make more suitable and pertinentcomments with rich background knowledge of their peers.The study has at least two pedagogical implications for PF in Chinese EFLcontexts. First and foremost, though it seems that anonymous PF has an edge overreal-name PF for boasting more merits and popularity, it is advisable for teachers toadopt real-name PF and anonymous PF according to their specific needs due to theunique advantages of real-name PF. Second, teachers should give students properguidance and training to help students provide balanced feedback in the process of doing PF.