Studies in Educational Evaluation 64 (2020) 100821

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Studies in Educational Evaluation

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/stueduc

The effects of peer assessment on learner autonomy: An empirical study in a T

Chinese college English writing class
⁎
Bin Shena, Barry Baib, , Weihe Xuec
a
Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, CKB606, Chen Kou Bun Building, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong
b
Faculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, HTB115, Ho Tim Building, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong
c
Jinshan College of Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University, A911, Jinshan Building, Fuzhou, Fujian Province, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The study reports on a one-semester-long intervention study of peer assessment in a college English writing class.
Peer assessment The purpose of the study was to investigate the effects of peer assessment on learner autonomy (LA). Seventy
Learner autonomy English major sophomores from an independent college in China participated in the study, who were randomly
Chinese college English writing class divided into two groups of 35 students each. Traditional teacher feedback was used in the control group while
English major
peer assessment was adopted for the experimental group. A questionnaire on LA was administered to both
groups as the pre-test and the post-test. A number of ANCOVA analyses were run to measure the effects of peer
assessment on students’ LA. The results indicate that peer assessment enhanced the students’ learner autonomy.
Peer assessment significantly reduced learners’ dependence on the teacher and boosted the students’ confidence
in learning ability, while failing to make noticeable improvement in the other aspects of LA.

1. Introduction on the relationship between them has been undertaken. As a result, a

study investigating the effects of peer assessment on LA in the Chinese
As orientations to examination and teacher-centered teaching mode college context and other similar settings will be a novel and significant
are firmly embedded in the Chinese educational context (Deng & attempt.
Carless, 2010), Chinese students may display relatively low abilities for
self-study and a shortage of learning strategies (Chen, 2006; Guo & Qin, 2. Literature Review
2010). Consequently, when entering university, most of them are not
well adapted to English classes, where teachers’ roles shift from mere 2.1. Learner autonomy
instructors to facilitators and moderators, which may yield negative
effects on English learning, including students’ disorientation in 2.1.1. Definition
learning methods, and the decline in learning motivation and satisfac- Learner autonomy has been regarded as a complicated construct
tion (Xu, 2014). This serious issue has attracted a great deal of attention and the definition is yet to be agreed on. The most widely accepted
from researchers, teachers, and even policy makers. Since the issuance version is Holec’s (1981) “ability to take charge of one’s own learning”
of English Course Requirements for Non-English Majors by Ministry of (p. 3). Building upon this broad definition, researchers came up with
Education in 2004, autonomous learning has been advocated, for the their operationalized definitions to suit their particular research pur-
first time, as a significant part of reform in university English teaching, poses and paradigms (Nguyen, Tangen, & Beutel, 2014). For instance,
which makes the enhancement of learner autonomy (LA) a key issue in Cotterall (1995) defined LA as “the extent to which learners demon-
the discipline of English language learning and teaching in China (Lin, strate the ability to use a set of tactics for taking control of their
2018). Peer assessment is an effective approach to English teaching and learning” (p. 195). For Cotterall, autonomous language learning may be
learning with proven benefits. For example, better motivation has been supported by a particular set of beliefs and/or behaviors. In other
recommended as an important part of students’ learning (Adachi, Tai, & words, the concept of LA also comprises learners’ beliefs and behaviors.
Dawson, 2018; Shih, 2011; Zhao, 2010). However, it is worth noting
that while a considerable number of studies have been carried out on 2.1.2. Dimensions
learner autonomy and peer assessment respectively, not much research The fuzziness of the LA definition resulted from its

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: 1155099187@link.cuhk.edu.hk, 80176713@qq.com (B. Shen), barry.bai@cuhk.edu.hk (B. Bai), 273033643@qq.com (W. Xue).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.100821
Received 6 March 2019; Received in revised form 29 September 2019; Accepted 30 September 2019
0191-491X/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B. Shen, et al.
multidimensionality (Benson, 2001). Different taxonomies of LA were
proposed based on various stances taken (Benson, 1997; Crabbe, 1993;
La Ganza, 2008; Oxford, 2003). Among them, Benson’s (1997) three
basic versions of autonomy is probably the most influential and fre-
quently adopted, i.e., the technical version, the psychological version,
and the political version. According to Benson (1997), the technical
perspective of understanding the concept of LA is concerned with the
technical skills (e.g., techniques and strategies) required to manage
autonomous learning. The psychological perspective considers the
learner’s internal mental capacities (e.g., beliefs and attitudes). The
political version sees knowledge construction as dependent on pre-
vailing political and social ideologies, with issues of power relation-
ships and rights. This perspective emphasizes learners’ control over the
learning process and highlights how to achieve the structural conditions
that allow learners to exert control over their individual learning and
the institutional context. The political perspective has, however, be-
come gradually abandoned because LA is likely to be pedagogical rather
than political (Benson, 2001). To be specific, questions are less com-
monly asked about the broader political concerns (i.e., social or edu-
cational aims) of autonomy, which are increasingly substituted with
more specific issues on how to develop strategies/abilities for LA
(Pennycook, 1997). In addition, the positivist paradigm is much more
prevalent in researching autonomy, for which the technical and psy-
chological ends would be more suitable for quantitative research
(Pennycook, 1997). In light of the quantitative research paradigm of the
current study, Benson’s (1997) technical and psychological versions of
LA were adopted, which were also compatible with Cotterall’s (1995)
learners’ behaviors and beliefs.
2.1.3. Key constructs of LA: agency and metacognition
Taken from a sociocultural perspective, agency, as a key construct,
refers to one’s ability to act, to make choices, and to reflect on their
actions in relation to themselves and the social environment (Ahearn,
2001). Agency is closely related to self-efficacy (an individual’s belief
about his/her ability to perform on a particular task), control, and self-
regulation (Dörnyei, 2005; van Lier, 2010). Therefore, as a core con-
struct to interpret LA, agency entails both learners’ active control over
their own learning and self-efficacy in learning, the former of which can
be reflected in learners’ level of dependence on the teacher and their
ability to assume independent learning while the latter in learners’
confidence in study. According to Cotterall (1995), viewing teachers as
facilitators is consonant with autonomous learners’ beliefs, while
holding the authoritarian view on the teacher’s role is to the opposite.
Besides, independent learning is also deemed a characteristic of an
active and good learner (Wenden, 1991), which is in line with Boud’s
(1988) idea of the autonomous learner being an independent agent.
Furthermore, confidence is one of the frequently used concepts in de-
scriptions of LA, which makes it also a key area to measure autonomy
(Cotterall, 1995; Fazey & Fazey, 2001; Wenden, 1991). Therefore,
learners’ level of dependence on the teacher, level of independent
learning and confidence in study all embody the agency construct and
can be assessed in the form of learners' beliefs that resonate with
Benson’s (1997) psychological perspective.
From a cognitive perspective, metacognition is another key com-
ponent of LA (Sinclair, 2009). Gan, Humphreys, and Hamp-Lyons
(2004)) view metacognition as “control or management of cognitive
processes through planning, monitoring, and evaluating activities or
strategies, or both” (p. 231). Autonomous learners should be able to
step back from what they are doing and reflect upon their learning
process in order to make decisions about what they next need to do and
experience (Breen & Mann, 1997). In a similar vein, Cotterall (2009)
holds that learners start to develop autonomy only after they have
possessed metacognitive abilities, which are composed of learners’
abilities to reflect upon their learning process and awareness of learning
strategies to be employed for tasks. Therefore, the metacognition con-
struct can be well reflected in learners’ evaluation of their learning
2
Studies in Educational Evaluation 64 (2020) 100821
process and their learning strategy use, both of which can be measured
as techniques or strategies, from Benson’s (1997) technical perspective
of understanding LA.
2.1.4. Empirical research on learner autonomy
Learner autonomy has been found to be positively related to English
learning achievements (Little, 2007; Vickers & Ene, 2006). Therefore,
English teachers have been seeking ways to promote LA in the class-
room. In a study to investigate Chinese postgraduate students’ auton-
omous English learning (AEL) level and influencing factors, Guo and
Qin (2010) found that the students’ self-perception of English profi-
ciency and time spent on out-of-class study greatly affected their AEL
competence, and their attitude towards AEL moderately impacted AEL.
For Benson (2001), skills for self-management, self-monitoring and self-
assessment are key ingredients of autonomous learning. Thang (2009)
maintained that desires and initiatives to think for oneself are the most
important for autonomous skill training.
Compared to the research on what is LA, and how to promote LA,
there are a rather small number of studies on how to measure au-
tonomy. Cotterall (1995) suggested a quantitative way to investigate
learners’ level of autonomy. Dam (2009) preferred more qualitative
techniques of evaluating LA by using the learner diary or logbook.
Aiming to develop a brief and psychometrically sound measure of au-
tonomous learning to facilitate empirical research, Macaskill and Taylor
(2010) produced a questionnaire with 12 items under two subscales.
Dixon (2011) developed a quantitative tool with a longer list of 256
items and a shorter list of 50 items. Only in recent years have re-
searchers started to conduct quantitative studies on the measurement of
LA under the Chinese educational context (Xu, Peng, & Wu, 2004; Zhu
& Xu, 2007).
2.2. Peer assessment
2.2.1. Peer assessment in writing
Peer assessment, also known as peer evaluation, peer feedback, peer
review, or peer critique, refers to “a communication process through
which learners enter into dialogues related to performance and stan-
dards” (Liu & Carless, 2006, p. 280). As a form of formative assessment
and collaborative learning in second language (L2) writing curricula
and courses, peer assessment can give writers the opportunity to discuss
their texts and discover others’ interpretations of them (Hyland, 2000),
improve students’ writing quality by integrating peer assessment in
revisions (Zhao, 2010), arouse students’ motivation to write (Shih,
2011), and scaffold students' writing process and enhance critical
thinking (Joordens, Pare, & Pruesse, 2009). More importantly, peer
assessment can help promote LA (Yang, Badger, & Yu, 2006). Peer as-
sessment has been increasingly researched and discussed in the English
as a second/foreign language (ESL/EFL) writing context, though occa-
sionally practiced in Chinese classroom teaching (Zhao, 2018). Re-
search topics included comparative effectiveness of peer assessment
and teacher assessment (Lam, 2013; Yang et al., 2006), students’ per-
ceptions/attitudes towards peer assessment (Wang, 2014; Zhu &
Carless, 2018), teachers’ perceptions/attitudes towards peer assessment
(Liu & Carless, 2006; Zhao, 2018), computer-mediated peer assessment
(Chan, 2013; Wen & Tsai, 2006), dynamic processes in peer assessment
(Yu & Lee, 2016; Zheng, 2012), and peer assessment training (Min,
2005; Yang & Meng, 2013). Some contextual challenges were reported
for its limited use in the Chinese EFL writing class. First, peer assess-
ment is viewed as incompatible with the exam-oriented education
system because it may be more time-consuming yet less effective than
teacher assessment in preparing students for examinations (Zhao,
2018). Second, students’ insufficient language proficiency may disable
them to carry out the activity effectively (Panadero, 2016). Third,
students may not take peer assessment seriously or be fully engaged in
the task (Ashraf & Mahdinezhad, 2015; McConlogue, 2015). Fourth,
peer assessment may be in conflict with the entrenched teacher-driven
B. Shen, et al.
practice, which makes students lack confidence in providing peer as-
sessment and makes them distrust their peers’ recommendations
(Nelson & Carson, 2006; Tsui & Ng, 2000).
Despite the research on the effects of peer assessment on writing
competence in the Chinese EFL writing context, its effects on LA have
been under-researched. With the possible difficulties of applying peer
assessment among Chinese students, it is important that teachers should
provide proper support and explanations in peer assessment training to
dispel students’ concerns and distrust about peer assessment.
2.2.2. Peer assessment training
To improve the quality, students’ attitudes and evaluative skills,
effective methods for applying peer assessment should be explored (Van
Zundert, Sluijsmans, & Van Merriënboer, 2010). Some ESL/EFL writing
researchers have shifted their attention to peer assessment training.
Positive effects of training on enhancing the quality of peer assessment
with various models or activities have been reported (Ashton & Davies,
2015; Boon, 2013; Min, 2005). Among them, grading rubrics/checklists
have been frequently reported as an effective component. Some other
useful forms of training include video watching, explicit instruction,
teacher modeling, teacher-student conferences, and role-play activities
(Min, 2005; Stanley, 1992; Yang & Meng, 2013; Zhao, 2014). A typical
routine of Min’s (2005) training comprised in-class demonstration and
modeling in front of the whole class, and after-class teacher-student
conferences with a four-step procedure, i.e., clarifying writers’ inten-
tions, identifying problems, explaining the nature of problems, and
making suggestions by giving specific examples. Stanley’s (1992) 7 h
training session consisted of role-play, genre analysis, and the discovery
of rules for effective oral communication, where role-plays were uti-
lized to teach reviewers how to communicate their ideas effectively to
writers. Yang and Meng (2013) implemented online peer assessment
training for 12 weeks, which included teacher instruction and student
practice. In order to address learners’ concerns over peer assessment,
Zhao (2014) proposed a teacher-supported peer assessment model that
advocated the teacher to provide ongoing support throughout the
whole course by encouraging the students to highlight problems and
offering hints when they were unable to provide revision suggestions,
and when they were seeking help in settling disagreements with their
peer collaborators.
The above-reviewed peer assessment models are expected to offer
some insights into the design of the peer assessment in the current
study. In order to yield more convincing and reliable results of the
present study, peer assessment procedures should be carefully designed,
and prior training must be adequately provided to the students.
2.3. Effects of peer assessment on learner autonomy
Although studies that explicitly draw links between LA and peer
assessment are not immediately easy to locate, some studies on peer
assessment have reported its impacts on boosting LA as a side finding.
With regard to the effects on LA in general, peer review may be
favored by most students and it can promote LA and learner initiatives,
while the actual efficacy of peer assessment in Chinese college writing
classes remains under-explored (Xu, 2000). Peer feedback was found to
be associated with a greater degree of students’ autonomy when com-
pared with teacher feedback in the Chinese EFL writing class (Yang
et al., 2006). In a similar vein, Mo (2007) came to the same conclusion
that peer feedback increased Chinese students’ autonomy in EFL
writing.
On the other hand, some other studies detected the role of peer
assessment on certain learner features that are believed to be key
constructs of LA, including agency as reflected in decreasing depen-
dence on the teacher (Liu & Carless, 2006), self-efficacy in English
writing for non-English major students in China (Wu, 2013), learners’
confidence in general English learning for international students (Chew,
Snee, & Price, 2014), control over study in EFL writing (Tsui & Ng,
3
Studies in Educational Evaluation 64 (2020) 100821
2000), and metacognition as manifested in the ability to evaluate one’s
learning (Chew et al., 2014) and to monitor one’s own learning for
students in a research course (Carnell, 2016). Specifically, Tsui and Ng
(2000) identified four functions of peer comments that contributed
positively to the EFL writing process, among which raising learners’
awareness and owning autonomy over the subject matter are both
features of agency required for an autonomous learner.
To sum up, there are some gaps in the existing research on the ef-
fects of peer assessment on LA. First, despite many existing studies on
peer assessment and LA respectively, there is still a limited amount of
research specifically tapping into the influences of peer assessment on
LA, especially in the Chinese college EFL writing context. Second, there
is also a great need for more intervention studies to examine what
specific benefits can peer assessment bring to Chinese college English
majors with regard to their LA.
To fill the gaps of research, the present study aimed to evaluate the
effects of using peer assessment in an English writing class to enhance
Chinese college students’ LA, and two research questions formulated
were: (1) What are the effects of using peer assessment in an English
writing class on fostering learner autonomy? (2) What aspects of
learner autonomy can be improved significantly?
3. Methodology
3.1. Research context
The study was undertaken at an independent college located in the
southeastern part of China. An independent college is usually set up by
a private education provider and affiliated to a degree awarding in-
stitution (e.g., public universities), with generally lower entry re-
quirements, compared to the state-owned universities in China. The
academic standing of this college is ranked about top 50% of all in-
dependent colleges in China. Students admitted into the English studies
program at the college have passed the line for “second batch uni-
versities” in the Chinese college entrance examination (“Gaokao”).
Their scores ranked at about top 34% of all students’ in “Gaokao” and
their average “Gaokao” English score is about 110 out of 150. Their
English level is roughly equivalent to B2 according to the Common
European Framework of Reference for Language (CEFR). The program
of English studies at this college is intended to cultivate students with
balanced integrated skills of reading, writing, listening, and speaking,
awareness of western cultures, and basic knowledge of the business and
finance industries. Accordingly, the students take English reading,
writing, listening, and speaking courses, together with courses on the
western cultures, English and American literature, and Business
English. They have on average 10–12 hours of English classes per week.
3.2. Participants
The study involved 70 second-year English major students, who
were taking the same English writing course. There were five male
students (7.14%) and 65 female students (92.86%), and their ages
ranged from 19 to 20 (M = 19.6). They have been through similar
learning experiences with other students of the same age group in
China. The participants were randomly divided into two groups of the
same number (35 for the control group and 35 for the experimental
group).
3.3. Peer assessment training in the present study
To prepare the students for the peer assessment activities, Min’s
(2005) peer assessment training model together with her four-step
procedure was adopted as the peer assessment framework in the study
for the following reasons. First, Min’s (2005) model successfully ad-
dressed two major causes for EFL university students’ unsuccessful peer
assessment provided, i.e., misunderstanding of writers’ intentions and
B. Shen, et al.
vague comments. Second, Min’s (2005) model may work well for an
EFL teaching environment where there are time constraints in class.
Written feedback can be conducted outside class so that class time can
be better distributed to communicating and clarifying unclear points.
Furthermore, for the reviewers, the written mode provides them with
more time to organize their ideas in English, while for the writers, they
could review the comments as many times as they want while making
revisions. It is also worth noting that Zhao’s (2014) teacher-supported
peer assessment strategy was also incorporated, to guard against the
contextual challenges and thus to better facilitate the implementation
of peer assessment.
Guided by Min’s (2005) training model, a two-hour in-class training
on peer assessment (extra class time) was explicitly given by the re-
searcher to the experimental group in the first week before the inter-
vention took place. The training consisted of explaining what peer as-
sessment was, providing model/guidelines on how to give assessment,
giving out specific rubrics/guidance sheet ahead of time to make stu-
dents informed, modeling how to respond to a text, and asking students
to practice giving peer assessment to a given essay in class. Homework
that asked students to give peer assessment to their partner’s writing
pieces was assigned.
The in-class demonstration and modeling was followed by after-
class researcher-student conferences where several individual meetings
(approximately 1 h each) were held, each time between the researcher
and two students. During the conferences, student pairs performed
giving and responding to oral peer assessment, which was part of their
previous assignment that comprised both written and oral forms of peer
assessment. The written part was supposed to be finished before they
conducted the face-to-face peer assessment. The researcher offered as-
sistance when the activity did not go smoothly, and pointed out pro-
blems and provided suggestions later when the session ended. The
teacher was invited to observe the conferences as she would be pro-
viding teacher support to assist in the peer assessment activity in class
in light of Zhao’s (2014) teacher-supported peer assessment strategy.
3.4. Measures
3.4.1. Questionnaire
The content validity of the questionnaire was established following
Petric and Czárl’s (2003) proposed guidelines. Firstly, established LA
instruments should be critically reviewed to lend construct validity to a
questionnaire (Dörnyei, 2010). After an extensive review of the litera-
ture, an initial LA questionnaire was drafted, adapted and modified
based on Cotterall’s (1995) taxonomy of factors that reflect learners’
readiness for autonomous learning and Dixon’s (2011) Online Measure
of Autonomy in Language Learning (OMALL). There were originally six
factors in Cotterall (1995), including role of the teacher, role of feed-
back, learners’ independence, learners’ confidence in study ability, ex-
perience of language learning, and approach to studying. “Role of
feedback” was termed so because Cotterall’s students liked getting
feedback, a form of external evaluation. Such a way of phrasing may
result in lack of generalizability to a wider population. Besides, self-
evaluation, rather than external evaluation, should be more emphasized
in LA. Thus this factor could be better labelled as “learners’ ability to
evaluate learning process” which resembles “reflection on one’s own
performance” in Dixon (2011). And “approach to studying” was re-
phrased as “learning strategy use” for better clarity. On top of that,
Cotterall (1995) interpreted “experience of language learning” as
“awareness about themselves, about language learning and about
strategies”, in other words, metacognitive knowledge (1995: 201),
which entailed both the ability to reflect on learning and learning
strategy use. It overlapped with two factors shown in Cotterall (1995),
i.e., “learners’ ability to evaluate learning process” and “learning
strategy use” and was therefore deleted, to avoid overlapping with the
other factors. Therefore, our finalized questionnaire comprised five
dimensions, i.e., learners’ expected role of the teacher, learners’
4
Studies in Educational Evaluation 64 (2020) 100821
independence, learners’ confidence in study ability, learners’ ability to
evaluate learning process, and learning strategy use with a 5-point
Likert scale (1-Strongly Disagree, 2-Disagree, 3-Neutral, 4-Agree, 5-
Strongly Agree). With reference to Cotterall (1995), the first three di-
mensions refer to leaners’ beliefs whereas the latter two show learners’
behaviors.
The selection procedure included eliminating peripheral items (e.g.,
items that failed to reflect the five dimensions and items related to
reading, speaking, or listening) and adding items related to writing
autonomy. An initial list of 35 items were generated. Three experts in
the field of EFL writing and LA, and one university English writing
teacher were invited to scrutinize the initial list. They specifically ex-
amined whether the questions could measure the hypothesized con-
struct based on the theoretical rationale. This expert judgement step
resulted in elimination and refinement of items. According to Dörnyei
(2010), the credibility and quality of the items can be better guaranteed
by involving targeted learners in the item-generating process. The re-
vised list was then given to 10 students, who filled out the whole
questionnaire to check the items for clarity and readability. The fore-
going steps resulted in a questionnaire with 25 items.
To validate the questionnaire structure statistically, exploratory
factor analysis (EFA) with Varimax rotation was conducted to this 25-
item questionnaire to explore how the items would cluster, thus testing
our proposed structure using SPSS 23.0. The EFA analysis yielded 5
dimensions, which matched perfectly well our proposed dimensions.
Some items with factor loading of lower than 0.40 and some that failed
to load neatly on a single factor were deleted. The finalized ques-
tionnaire contains 20 statements (see Appendix A). The model could
explain 68.69% of the total variances. It is worth noting that the five
items in the first dimension were designed as negative items, since the
more important students’ expected role of the teacher is, the lower
autonomous learning abilities they may display. Therefore, reverse
scoring was adopted for Questions 1-5. The inclusion of negative items
in questionnaires could help prevent respondents from marking only
one side of the rating scale (Dörnyei, 2007).
3.4.2. Teacher’s interview and students’ interviews
In an attempt to obtain various sources of data for the purpose of
data triangulation, facilitating explanations of questionnaire results as
well as advancement of the intervention design, the writing teacher and
students were interviewed after the intervention. The post-intervention
teacher’s interview comprised three aspects, i.e., the teacher’s overall
evaluation of the intervention, the effects of the intervention on the
students’ autonomous learning, and suggestions for improvement. The
questions included 1) How did the peer assessment intervention go in
class? 2) Do you have any suggestions for its future implementation?
and 3) Do you see any change in the students’ LA level for the experi-
mental group?
Ten students (five in the experimental group and five in the control
group) were interviewed individually after the intervention to further
understand their beliefs and behaviors related to autonomous learning
with a special focus on the underlying reasons, their change in LA after
the intervention (experimental group only) and their feedback on the
peer assessment activity (experimental group only). The interview
questions centered around the five dimensions of LA with a focus on the
students’ changes as a result of the intervention. For example, before
and after the intervention, how much do you depend on your teacher in
your study and why? Are you an independent learner and why? Are you
confident in your study and why? Are you able to evaluate your
learning process and why? What kind of learning strategies do you
employ in your study?
All the interview questions were raised in English, but the teacher
and students were allowed to choose their preferred language to answer
the questions and all of them answered the questions in Chinese.
B. Shen, et al.
3.5. Analyses
One hundred and forty questionnaires (70 pre-test and 70 post-test)
were collected. Descriptive statistics of the two questionnaire admin-
istrations were obtained with SPSS 23.0. The post-test questionnaire
results were compared with the pre-test questionnaire results to ex-
amine the differences in the students’ LA level before and after the
intervention. In order to partial out the pre-existing differences in LA
level between the experimental and the control groups if any, a one-
way between-groups analysis of co-variance (ANCOVA) on the ques-
tionnaire data was conducted. Besides, the effect size or strength of
relationship between the independent variable and the dependent
variable was also calculated as an important measure of the effects of
peer assessment on LA.
All the interviews with the teacher and students were transcribed
for analysis. The interview data served to further strengthen the ana-
lysis of the post-intervention change in students’ autonomy. Situated in
a positivist paradigm, the research used interviews as a supplementary
means to cross-validate the quantitative results as well as to facilitate
discussion with deeper insights into the reasons behind the students’
beliefs and behaviors. Thematic analysis was applied to identify, ana-
lyze and interpret themes that emerged from the data (Braun & Clarke,
2006).
3.6. Procedure
The LA questionnaire was administered to the two groups before the
study to evaluate their LA level. For the experimental group, the writing
intervention course lasted 15 weeks, with two consecutive sessions
(90 min) per week, and was instructed by Miss Alice (pseudonym). The
students in the control group were also taught by Miss Alice, who used
her conventional teaching methods for English writing lessons during
the 15 weeks. When it comes to assessing the students’ writing as-
signments, the traditional teacher assessment was adopted for the
control group while peer assessment for the experimental group. Except
for this, there were no noticeable differences in the teaching content,
teaching materials, teaching means, and teaching progress for the two
groups, which were confirmed by weekly class observations made by
the researcher to both groups as a measure to maintain treatment fi-
delity. To ensure valid results, the same questionnaire (as the pre-test
questionnaire) was administered to the two groups to investigate the
students’ change in the LA level after the intervention, if any. It is no-
teworthy that as an ethical consideration to ensure relatively equal
chances to educational resources, peer assessment training was given to
the control group after the study and the teacher was encouraged to
implement peer assessment in the control group class in the following
semester.
4. Results
The internal consistencies (Cronbach's coefficient alpha) for the
overall scale and each of the five dimensions were 0.799 (overall),
0.878, 0.843, 0.768, 0.768, and 0.800 respectively for the pre-test
questionnaire administration and 0.862 (overall), 0.827, 0.806, 0.757,
0.770, and 0.772 for the post-test questionnaire administration. The
pre-test (covariate) scores were found to be highly related to the post-
test, with r = 0.435, p < 0.001.
Inter-correlations of the five dimensions are reported in Table 1.
There were significant correlations among the first three dimensions
(learner beliefs), where the learners’ expected role of the teacher was
moderately correlated with learners’ independence (r = 0.371), and
learners’ confidence in study ability (r = 0.490). Besides, learners’ in-
dependence also had a small correlation with learners’ confidence (r =
0.294). With regard to the latter two dimensions (learner behaviors),
there was a small correlation between learners’ ability to evaluate
learning process and learning strategy use (r = 0.140). However, the
5
Studies in Educational Evaluation 64 (2020) 100821
positive correlations between some factors (i.e., learners’ ability to
evaluate learning process and learners’ expected role of the teacher,
learners’ ability to evaluate learning process and learners’ in-
dependence, and learning strategy use and learners’ independence)
failed to achieve a significant level, suggesting that these may be in-
dependent factors for this group of students. These insignificant cor-
relations were unexpected findings because learner beliefs supposedly
lead to certain learner behaviors, both of which constitute important
aspects of LA. However, there is also empirical evidence that some
learner beliefs may not be consistent with learner behaviors for college
students in China (Xu, 2014). Another possible reason may be the re-
latively small sample size in the present study. Therefore, there were
positive correlations among some factors but the correlations could not
reach a significant level.
4.1. The effects of peer assessment on overall LA level
Pre- and post-test statistics were generated to show an overall pic-
ture of the pre-post differences between the means of the two groups’
questionnaire scores and the effects of the intervention on the students’
LA (see Table 2 and Fig. 1). There was a slight pre-post increase found
in the control group’s overall LA score, and the mean score was
somewhere between “disagree” and “neutral” and close to “neutral”,
indicating that the participants in the control group generally did not
see themselves as autonomous learners. For the experimental group, the
students rated between “disagree” and “neutral” before the interven-
tion, while after the study, they opted for somewhere between “neutral”
and “agree”, which demonstrated an increase in the students’ self-per-
ception as autonomous learners, from not believing to somewhat be-
lieving in their LA.
Differences were also found between the mean scores of the two
groups’ overall LA level after the intervention. To determine whether
such differences were statistically significant and to answer research
question one, i.e., the effects of using peer assessment on fostering LA,
ANCOVA was conducted to measure the effects of peer assessment on
the students’ LA. The independent variable was peer assessment and the
dependent variable was the students’ post-intervention LA level. The
pre-intervention questionnaire score was used as a covariate to adjust
for any pre-existing differences in the participants’ LA level.
The results of the ANCOVA test showed that there was a significant
difference between the mean scores of the two groups on post-test
questionnaire scores, with a large effect size, p = 0.002 (< 0.05), par-
tial Eta squared (η2) = 0.138 (close to 0.14). The partial eta squared
(η2) was used as an estimator of the effect size of the intervention (peer
assessment) in this study. Three levels are proposed for Eta squared in
the literature: small effect = 0.01, moderate effect = 0.06 and large
effect = 0.14 (see Dörnyei, 2007).
4.2. The effects of peer assessment on specific aspects of LA
To answer research question two, post-intervention change on each
aspect of LA was measured and analyzed by a series of ANCOVAs.
With respect to learners’ expected role of the teacher, the mean
score of the experimental group increased from somewhere between
“strongly disagree” and “disagree” to somewhere between “disagree”
and “neutral”, suggesting that the participants heavily relied on the
teacher before the intervention and such dependence relaxed a bit
afterwards (see Table 2). On the other hand, such teacher dependence
varied little in the pre- and post-administration for the control group as
they basically maintained the level of “disagree”. ANCOVA results re-
vealed that a positive effect of treatment was found with a moderate to
large effect, η2 = 0.086 p = 0.014, < 0.05. The analysis indicated that
as a result of the peer assessment intervention, the students in the ex-
perimental group performed better than their counterparts in their
expected role of the teacher.
The descriptive statistics for learners’ independence showed a slight
B. Shen, et al. Studies in Educational Evaluation 64 (2020) 100821

Table 1
Inter-correlations for the five dimensions.
Dimensions Learners’ expected role of Learners’ independence Learners’ confidence in Learners’ ability to evaluate Learning strategy
the teacher study ability learning process use

Learners’ expected role of the teacher 1

Learners’ independence 0.371** 1
Learners’ confidence in study ability 0.490** 0.294* 1
Learners’ ability to evaluate learning 0.215 0.072 0.393** 1
process
Learning strategy use 0.541** 0.192 0.338** 0.140* 1

** Correlations are significant at p < .01.

* Correlations are significant at p < .05.

Table 2
Descriptive statistics of the pre- and post-tests.
Dimensions Group Pre-test Post-test ANCOVA Sig. Effect size (η2)

Mean SE Mean SE

Overall Experimental 2.74 0.06 3.18 0.06 0.002 0.138

Control 2.88 0.06 2.98 0.07
Learners’ expected role of the teacher Experimental 1.86 0.12 2.37 0.10 0.014 0.086
Control 1.98 0.10 2.06 0.11
Learners’ independence Experimental 3.54 0.12 3.64 0.07 0.670 0.003
Control 3.62 0.10 3.59 0.14
Learners’ confidence in study ability Experimental 2.44 0.13 3.25 0.08 0.002 0.136
Control 2.66 0.09 2.83 0.11
Learners’ ability to evaluate learning process Experimental 2.69 0.13 3.26 0.10 0.355 0.013
Control 2.90 0.11 3.11 0.12
Learning strategy use Experimental 3.09 0.11 3.52 0.08 0.282 0.017
Control 3.24 0.09 3.39 0.10

Fig. 1. Descriptive statistics of the pre- and post-tests.

6
B. Shen, et al.
decrease for the control group mean score and a slight increase for the
experimental group, all of which fell between “neutral” and “agree”,
illustrating that the participants somewhat believed they were in-
dependent learners. However, no significant treatment effect was
found, η2 = 0.003 p = 0.67 (> 0.05). As such, the analysis demon-
strated that the level of learners’ independence for the experimental
group after the intervention was not significantly different from that for
the control group.
In terms of learners’ confidence in study ability, the participants in
the experimental group were not confident or unsure about their con-
fidence in the beginning but gestured towards slight confidence in study
ability, while for the control group, the participants remained un-
confident or unsure for the two administrations. ANCOVA yielded
evidence of a significant treatment effect with a large effect, η2 = 0.136
p = 0.002 (< 0.05), suggesting that the participants showed more
confidence in study ability than their counterparts in the control group
after the intervention.
Both the control and experimental groups saw improvement in the
mean scores of learners’ ability to evaluate their learning process.
Specifically, they were mostly uncertain about their ability to evaluate
their learning process. However, ANCOVA yielded insignificant effects
after partialling out prior differences, η2 = 0.013 p = 0.355 (> 0.05).
In other words, the students’ perceptions of their ability to evaluate
their learning process were not statistically different between the two
groups after the intervention.
As regards learning strategy use, increases were reported for both
groups. The participants showed some degree of agreement towards
their use of certain learning strategies. However, the post-intervention
difference between the experimental and the control group failed to
achieve a significant level, η2 = 0.017 p = 0.282 (> 0.05).
In sum, among the five aspects of LA, significant treatment effects
were detected on two aspects, i.e., learners’ expected role of the teacher
and learners’ confidence in study ability. Although the experimental
group outperformed the control group for the other three aspects of LA
after the intervention, there were no significant treatment effects.
4.3. Teacher’s interview and students’ interviews
Both the teacher’s and students’ post-intervention interviews lent
some support to the quantitative results of the study. Some showed
evidence of the effects of the peer assessment treatment, and some of-
fered insights into their feedback on the intervention program.
Several themes became salient including “shortage of learning
strategies”, “independence”, “teacher reliance” and “boosting con-
fidence”. When asked to describe the students’ beliefs and behaviors of
autonomous learning, Miss Alice reported that the majority of English
major students were serious about their study and worked hard. They
may need the teacher to tell them what to do in details since they lacked
learning strategies and were not self-initiative enough, but they were
able to accomplish their assignments quite independently without
seeking much external help. For the experimental group, an obvious
elevation in the LA level was reported by the teacher as she witnessed
throughout the intervention that the students gradually began to trust
each other and showed increasing reliance on their peers while less on
the teacher. At the same time, the students exhibited stronger will-
ingness to collaborate with their peers. Miss Alice embraced the design
overall but highlighted the importance of prior training. The students
were getting more confident when they became more familiar with the
peer assessment process and thus suggested that more time be assigned
to the training session.
The students’ responses to their beliefs and behaviors of LA were
quite in line with the questionnaire reports. They admitted “I like the
teacher to tell me what to do”. Most believed they were not very con-
fident in study and were short of learning strategies and metacognitive
skills. But they also mentioned they could study independently if given
instructions on what to do. After the intervention, Joe (pyeudonym)
7
Studies in Educational Evaluation 64 (2020) 100821
expressed experiencing the role of a teacher to critique his peer’s
writing gave him a sense of achievement, boosting his confidence in
taking control of his study without always relying on the teacher. When
sharing her attitude towards peer assessment, Annie (pyeudonym)
displayed her uncertainty in the beginning as she was not convinced of
her competence for the task, but the specific guidelines provided in the
training and more practices given helped her through the process and
ultimately transformed her into a more autonomous learner.
5. Discussion
The current study aimed to explore the effects of peer assessment on
English major students’ LA in a college English writing class. The results
confirmed that the intervention of peer assessment significantly im-
proved the students’ general LA level, supporting previous research
findings (Yang et al., 2006). With regard to the specific aspects of LA,
noticeable improvements were found on learners’ expected role of the
teacher and learners’ confidence in study ability, both of which were
the learners’ beliefs/psychological perspective of autonomy. The effect
size was 0.086 and 0.136 respectively, close to a large effect, suggesting
a great effect of peer assessment on the two aspects. In other words, the
perceived importance of the teacher’s role declined and learners’ con-
fidence in study ability increased, indicating that the learners began to
show more agency in taking control of their learning and becoming
more self-efficacious. But no significant improvements on the other
three aspects (i.e., learners’ independence, learners’ ability to evaluate
learning process, and learning strategy use) were identified.
Peer assessment exerted significant effects on the change of learners’
expected role of the teacher. With peer assessment implemented and
the teacher’s role stepping back, the learners gradually began to eval-
uate their own learning process through their peers’ help and their own
critical judging ability, making the teacher no longer the only assessor
or judge. Meanwhile, the learners started to take more charge of their
own learning. Thus, the learners’ dependence on the teacher greatly
reduced. This was further corroborated by both the teacher’s and stu-
dents’ post-test interviews. The learners’ change in beliefs of the tea-
cher’s importance suggested they may have more active self-control
over their learning, a significant manifestation of increased agency, and
hence enhanced learner autonomy. The findings agreed with Liu and
Carless’s (2006) claim that peer assessment also reduced students’ de-
pendence on the lecturer as the only expert, and supported the idea of
incorporating peer assessment into classroom teaching to reduce the
teacher’s burden in heavily teacher-relied context (Mo, 2007).
Concerning the effects on learners’ independence, peer assessment
did not exert a significant effect on enhancing the students’ beliefs of
learners’ independence. For the experimental group, peer assessment
was replacing traditional teacher assessment, thus changing the as-
sessor from the teacher to peers, yet without completely eliminating the
assessor and placing learners in a totally independent learning en-
vironment. Therefore, the degree of their self-positioning as an in-
dependent learner may not have been largely affected by peer assess-
ment since the learners still had to have someone to depend on. Besides,
interestingly noted, the participants in general scored higher on “lear-
ners’ independence” as compared to the other aspects of LA with the
average mean closer to “agree”, indicating that the participants almost
thought that they were independent learners, which was confirmed by
the interview results. With the teacher’s clear instructions, the students
were able to conduct independent learning, which justified the seeming
conflict between the students’ heavy dependence on the teacher and at
the same time perceiving themselves as independent learners. Earlier
research on Chinese college students’ autonomous learning lent em-
pirical support to this finding. Chen (2006) concluded that Chinese
students were able to conduct their own study independently as they
preferred individual study to group learning.
Peer assessment greatly raised learners’ confidence in study ability.
In the peer assessment activity where the students started to take a
B. Shen, et al. Studies in Educational Evaluation 64 (2020) 100821

leading role, replacing the teacher’s role as an assessor, and assumed questionnaire should be conducted in the future to further validate the
the responsibilities of correcting and editing other students’ work as instrument of LA. Fourth, there is a possibility of Type I error rate in-
well as self-editing and modification. The students successfully man- flation with running multiple tests, but considering the relatively small
aged to complete the writing task without over dependence on the sample size in the study, Bonferroni adjustment of alpha level was not
teacher, which helped them recognize their own potential, and boost applied to avoid Type II error. In future research where a larger sample
their confidence. This was echoed by the students’ post-intervention is accessible, Bonferroni adjustment should be applied to achieve more
interview reports. Gaining confidence or raising self-efficacy again in- accurate results. Last but not least, as an experimental design, the study
dicated elevated agency for learners, and a higher level of LA. Thus, may suffer from its inherent limitations including the ethical concerns
peer assessment has positive effects on raising learners’ confidence in of placing the control group at a disadvantageous situation by not ex-
study ability, leading to more autonomy over learning. The result was posing them to the treatment. In our study, alternative measures have
in line with the previously reviewed studies (Chew et al., 2014; Guo & been taken to minimize the possible disadvantages for the control group
Qin, 2010). as described in the procedure section. Apart from ethical concerns,
Compared with agency, the level of metacognition did not sig- there may also be internal validity threats of diffusion or imitation of
nificantly increase in the present study. This was an unexpected finding treatment, or John Henry effect. The control group, learning about the
because beliefs normally lead to behaviors to some extent. Probably, treatment of the experimental group or knowing they are placed in a
the peer assessment activity in the present study only required the group without the treatment, may give themselves the treatment or
students to evaluate each other’s writing and provide suggestions fol- work even harder to outperform the experimental group, both of which
lowing Min's (2005) model. The participants were not required to ex- may invalidate the comparisons between groups. To offset the con-
plicitly monitor and evaluate their own learning process, nor did the tamination between groups, teacher and researcher observations of
intervention explicitly include learning strategy training. Therefore, students’ class performance would, to a certain extent, detect any
there was no significant increase on these two aspects of LA. Similarly, unusual behaviors of students if any and measures should be taken
Xu (2014) also noted that the learners’ beliefs did not necessarily lead accordingly.
to their behaviors. Future research should consider addressing this by
focusing on both learners’ beliefs and behaviors. In other words, (non) Appendix A. Questionnaire for Learner Autonomy in English
target variables should be made clear before the intervention. Re- Writing
searchers should also clearly define the (non)target variables that are
included in the questionnaire (Second author, 2015). Because self- Mark the corresponding number after each statement according to
management, self-monitoring and self-assessment skills are key to au- the scale provided below:
tonomous learning, it is of importance to increase learners’ ability to 1-Strongly disagree 2-Disagree 3-Neutral 4-Agree 5- Strongly agree
evaluate their learning process and learning strategy use, which reflect Learners’ expected role of the teacher (5 items)
learners’ metacognitive abilities and are essential components of LA
(Benson, 2001). For example, future research can include weekly re- 1 I like the teacher to tell me what to do
flective journals that ask learners to regularly keep track of their 2 I like the teacher to tell me how long I should spend an activity
learning progress. 3 I like the teacher to tell me what my difficulties are
4 I like the teacher to offer me help
6. Conclusion 5 I like the teacher to tell me how I am progressing

The findings of the study indicated that peer assessment employed
in an English writing class, in place of teacher assessment, could en-
hance students’ LA, with marked effects on reducing learners’ depen-
dence on the teacher, and boosting learners’ confidence in study ability.
However, the other aspects of LA did not see significant improvements,
which underscored the importance of a very focused intervention with
clearly defined target variables.
The present study can draw some implications. First, peer assess-
ment can be an effective method of English writing instruction in that it
can promote students’ autonomous learning ability. With proper
training guided by an effective framework, the effects of an intervention
can also be maximized. Second, to address the problem of learners’ lack
of ability to evaluate their learning process and to use learning strate-
gies, teachers should pay more attention to metacognitive strategy
training and strategy awareness raising, by using reflective journals and
other means.
7. Limitations
The study is not exempt from limitations. First, the study targeted
English major students in an independent college in China, which may
lack generalizability to a wider Chinese college student population.
Therefore, research aiming for students from a wider range of majors
should be carried out in the future. Second, the study adopted a
quantitative method mainly to investigate students’ LA change as a
result of peer assessment, while in future studies, quantitative research
methods can be triangulated with some qualitative research methods
(e.g., interviews and stimulated recalls) to improve the overall validity
and uncover underlying reasons. Third, convergent validity of the
Learners’ independence (5 items)
6 I have a clear idea of what I need English for
7 I have clear objectives to achieve after taking the writing class
8 I can study independently
9 I know why I did well or did badly
10 It is my job to check my work for mistakes
Learners’ confidence in study ability (3 items)
11 I know how to study languages well
12 I know how to write in English well
13 I feel confident in English writing class
Learners’ ability to evaluate learning process (3 items)
14 I have my own ways of testing how much I have learned
15 I have been successful in language learning in the past
16 I know what I have acquired after learning
Learning strategy use (4 items)
17 I know how to organize my time for studying
18 I can choose the method of learning that suits me best
19 If given the chance, I would like to choose my course materials
20 I can describe the learning strategies I use

8
B. Shen, et al.
References
Adachi, C., Tai, J. H., & Dawson, P. (2018). Academics’ perceptions of the benefits and
challenges of self and peer assessment in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation
in Higher Education, 43(2), 294–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.
1339775.
Ahearn, L. M. (2001). Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology, 30, 109–137.
Ashraf, H., & Mahdinezhad, M. (2015). The role of peer-assessment versus self-assessment
in promoting autonomy in language use: A case of EFL learners. Iranian Journal of
Language Testing, 5(2), 110–120.
Ashton, S., & Davies, R. S. (2015). Using scaffolded rubrics to improve peer assessment in
a MOOC writing course. Distance Education, 36(3), 312–334. https://doi.org/10.
1080/01587919.2015.1081733.
Benson, P. (1997). The philosophy and politics of learner autonomy. In P. Benson, & P.
Voller (Eds.). Autonomy and independence in language learning. London: Longman.
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. Harlow:
Pearson Education.
Boon, S. (2013). The role of training in improving peer assessment skills amongst year six
pupils in primary school writing: An action research enquiry. Education 3-13, 43(6),
664–680.
Boud, D. (1988). Developing student autonomy in learning (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Breen, P., & Mann, S. (1997). Shooting arrows at the sun; perspectives on a pedagogy for
autonomy. In P. Benson, & P. Voller (Eds.). Autonomy and independence in language
learning. London: Longman.
Carnell, B. (2016). Aiming for autonomy: Formative peer assessment in a final-year un-
dergraduate course. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(8), 1269–1283.
Chan, W. M. (2013). Combining electronic commenting and face-to-face interaction in peer
review: A case study of the ESL writing classroom in. Hong Kong: University of Hong
Kong Ph.D. dissertation.
Chen, D. (2006). Shi lun zi zhu xue xi zai wo guo da xue ying yu jiao xue zhong de ding
wei [A probe into an orientation of autonomous learning to college English teaching
in China]. Foreign Language World, 3, 32–37.
Chew, E., Snee, H., & Price, T. (2014). Enhancing international postgraduates’ learning
experience with online peer assessment and feedback innovation. Innovations in
Education and Teaching International, 53(3), 247–259.
Cotterall, S. (1995). Readiness for autonomy: Investigating learner beliefs. System, 23(2),
195–205.
Cotterall, S. (2009). Learner autonomy in a mainstream writing course: Articulating
learning gains. In R. Pemberton, S. Toogood, & A. Barfield (Eds.). Maintaining control:
Autonomy and language learning. Hong Kong: HKUP.
Crabbe, D. (1993). Fostering autonomy from within the classroom: The teacher’s re-
sponsibility. System, 21(4), 443–452.
Dam, L. (2009). The use of logbooks – A tool for developing learner autonomy. In R.
Pemberton, S. Toogood, & A. Barfield (Eds.). Maintaining control: Autonomy and lan-
guage learning. Hong Kong: HKUP.
Deng, C., & Carless, D. (2010). Examination preparation or effective teaching: Conflicting
priorities in the implementation of a pedagogic innovation. Language Assessment
Quarterly, 7, 285–302.
Dixon, D. (2011). Measuring language learner autonomy in tertiary-level learners of
EnglishPhD thesis. University of Warwick.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005). Language learning strategies and student self-regulation. In Z.
Dörnyei (Ed.). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second
language acquisition (pp. 162–196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research: Construction, administration,
and processing. New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
Fazey, D. M. A., & Fazey, J. A. (2001). The potential for autonomy in learning:
Perceptions of competence, motivation and locus of control in first-year under-
graduate students. Studies in Higher Education, 26(3), 345–361.
Gan, Z., Humphreys, G., & Hamp-Lyons, L. (2004). Understanding successful and un-
successful EFL students in Chinese universities. Modern Language Journal, 88(2),
229–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0026-7902.2004.00227.x.
Guo, Y., & Qin, X. (2010). Yan jiu sheng ying yu zi zhu xue xi neng li ji xiang guan ying
xiang yin su de yan jiu [A study of postgraduates’ autonomous English learning
competence and influential factors]. Journal of Beijing International Studies University,
6, 66–71.
Holec, H. (1981). Autonomy and foreign language learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Hyland, F. (2000). ESL writers and feedback: Giving more autonomy to students.
Language Teaching Research, 4(1), 33–54.
Joordens, S., Pare, D. E., & Pruesse, K. (2009). PeerScholar: An evidence-based online
peer assessment tool supporting critical thinking and clear communication.
Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on E-Learning, 236–240.
Lam, R. (2013). The relationship between assessment types and text revision. ELT Journal,
67(4), 446–458.
La Ganza, W. (2008). Learner autonomy – Teacher autonomy: Interrelating and the will to
empower. In T. Lamb, & H. Reinders (Eds.). Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts,
realities, and responses. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Lin, L. (2018). Da xue ying yu cu jin xue xi zhe zi zhu yan jiu: Fang fa wen ti yu si
kao——Ji yu 2004-2017 nian wai yu lei CSSCI qi kan wen xian fen xi [promoting
learner autonomy in college English teaching—Methods, problems, and implications:
A literature review of CSSCI journals of foreign languages published from 2004 to
2017]. Foreign Language World, 5, 80–88.
9
Studies in Educational Evaluation 64 (2020) 100821
Liu, N.-F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment.
Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290.
Little, D. (2007). Language learner autonomy: Some fundamental considerations re-
visited. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 1(1), 14–29. https://doi.org/10.
2167/illt040.0.
Macaskill, A., & Taylor, E. (2010). The development of a brief measure of learner au-
tonomy in university students. Studies in Higher Education, 35(3), 351–359. https://
doi.org/10.1080/03075070903502703.
McConlogue, T. (2015). Making judgements: Investigating the process of composing and
receiving peer feedback. Studies in Higher Education, 40(9), 1495–1506.
Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2),
293–308.
Mo, J. (2007). Tong ban hu ping: Ti gao da xue sheng xie zuo zi zhu xing [Peer review:
Increasing student autonomy in writing]. Journal of PLA University of Foreign
Languages, 30(3), 35–39.
Nelson, G. L., & Carson, J. G. (2006). Cultural issues in peer response revisiting ‘Culture’.
In F. Hyland (Ed.). Feedback in second language writing contexts and issues (pp. 42–59).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nguyen, N. T., Tangen, D., & Beutel, D. (2014). Exploring the concept of learner au-
tonomy in cross-cultural research. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 5(3),
202–216.
Oxford, R. L. (2003). Toward a more systematic model of L2 learner autonomy. In D.
Palfreyman, & R. C. Smith (Eds.). Learner autonomy across cultures: Language education
perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Panadero, E. (2016). Is it safe? Social, interpersonal, and human effects of peer assess-
ment: A review and future directions. In G. T. L. Brown, & L. R. Harris (Eds.).
Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 247–266). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Pennycook, A. (1997). Cultural alternatives and autonomy. In P. Benson, & P. Voller
(Eds.). Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 35–53). London:
Longman.
Petric, B., & Czárl, B. (2003). Validating a writing strategy questionnaire. System, 31(2),
187–215.
Second author (2015).
Shih, R. C. (2011). Can Web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning English
writing? Integrating Facebook and peer assessment with blended learning.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(5), 829–845.
Sinclair, B. (2009). The teacher as learner: Developing autonomy in an interactive
learning environment. In R. Pemberton, S. Toogood, & A. Barfield (Eds.). Maintaining
control: Autonomy and language learning. Hong Kong: HKUP.
Stanley, J. (1992). Coaching student writers to be effective peer evaluators. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 1(3), 217–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/1060-3743(92)
90004-9.
Thang, S. M. (2009). Investigating the learner autonomy of Malaysian ESL learners:
Towards a redefinition. In S. M. Thang, & B. Sinclair (Eds.). Learner autonomy:
Research and practice in Malaysia and Singapore (pp. 13–32). Malaysia: Pearson
Longman.
Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments?
Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 147–170.
van Lier, L. (2010). Foreword: Agency, self and identity in language learning. In B. O’
Rourke, & L. Carson (Eds.). Language learner autonomy: Policy, curriculum, classroom
(pp. ix–xviii). Switzerland: Peter Lang.
Van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & Van Merriënboer, J. (2010). Effective peer assessment
processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4),
270–279.
Vickers, C. H., & Ene, E. (2006). Grammatical accuracy and learner autonomy in ad-
vanced writing. ELT Journal, 60(2), 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci097.
Wang, W. (2014). Students’ perceptions of rubric-referenced peer feedback on EFL
writing: A longitudinal inquiry. Assessing Writing, 19, 80–96. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.asw.2013.11.008.
Wen, M. L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2006). University students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward
(online) peer assessment. Higher Education, 51(1), 27–44.
Wenden, A. L. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice
Hall.
Wu, Y. (2013). Tong ban hu ping dui zi wo xiao neng gan de ying xiang——Yi xiang ji yu
da xue ying yu xie zuo de shi zheng yan jiu [Effects of peer review on self-efficacy: An
empirical study of college English writing]. Shandong Foreign Language Teaching
Journal, 6, 68–72.
Xu, Y. (2000). Ying yu xie zuo zhong xue sheng hu gai de jiao xue fang fa chu tan [A probe
into peer review as a teaching method in English writing]. Foreign Affairs Review, 4,
86–89.
Xu, J., Peng, R., & Wu, W. (2004). Fei ying yu zhuan ye da xue sheng zi zhu xing ying yu
xue xi neng li diao cha fen xi [A survey and analysis of non-English major under-
graduates’ autonomous English learning competence]. Foreign language teaching and
research, 36(1), 64–68.
Xu, J. (2014). Wo guo da xue sheng ying yu zi zhu xue xi neng li xian zhuang yu si kao
[the current situation and reflection on Chinese college students’ autonomous English
learning abilities]. Language and Education, 2(4), 2–7.
Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback
in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179–200.
Yang, Y. F., & Meng, W. T. (2013). The effects of online feedback training on students’ text
revision. Language Learning and Technology, 17(2), 220–238.
Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2016). Exploring Chinese students’ strategy use in a cooperative peer
feedback writing group. System, 58, 1–11.
Zhao, H. (2010). Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher
feedback on writing: A comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom.
B. Shen, et al.
Assessing Writing, 15(1), 3–17.
Zhao, H. (2014). Investigating teacher-supported peer assessment for EFL writing. ELT
Journal, 68(2), 155–168.
Zhao, H. (2018). Exploring tertiary English as a Foreign Language writing tutors’ per-
ceptions of the appropriateness of peer assessment for writing. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(7), 1133–1145. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02602938.2018.1434610.
Zheng, C. (2012). Understanding the learning process of peer feedback activity: An eth-
nographic study of exploratory practice. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 109–126.
Zhu, H., & Xu, K. (2007). Fei ying yu zhuan ye da xue ben ke sheng ying yu zi zhu xue xi
neng li wen juan diao cha yu fen xi [A survey of non-English major college student’s
autonomous learning ability]. Journal of South-Central University for Nationalities
(Humanities and Social Sciences), 27(4), 175–177.
Zhu, Q., & Carless, D. (2018). Dialogue within peer feedback processes: Clarification and
negotiation of meaning. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(4), 883–897.
10
Studies in Educational Evaluation 64 (2020) 100821
Bin Shen is currently a PhD student at the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The
Chinese University of Hong Kong. She was a lecturer of English at Fujian Agriculture and
Forestry University in China from 2012-2017. Her research interests include second
language writing, learner autonomy, and self-regulation. She has published in Journal of
Education for Teaching.
Barry Bai is an assistant professor at the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The
Chinese University of Hong Kong. His research interests include second language writing,
ESL/EFL learners’ self-efficacy, and teacher education. His articles have appeared in
Computer Assisted Language Learning, TESOL Quarterly, Language Teaching Research, Asia-
Pacific Education Researcher, System, and Journal of Education for Teaching.
Weihe Xue is a lecturer of English writing at Jinshan College of Fujian Agriculture and
Forestry University in China from 2015. Her research interests include second language
writing, and business English translation.