PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences

ISSN 2454-5899

Wanchid & Charoensuk, 2023

Volume 9 Issue 1, pp. 01-22
Received: 1st December 2022
Revised: 31st January 2023, 2nd March 2023
Accepted: 4th March 2023
Date of Publication: 15th March 2023
DOI- https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2023.91.0122
This paper can be cited as: Wanchid, R. & Charoensuk, V. (2023). Thai And Non-Thai Instructors’
Perspectives on Peer Feedback Activities in English Oral Presentations. PEOPLE: International Journal
of Social Sciences, 9(1),01-22.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ or send a
letter to Creative Commons, PO Box 1866, Mountain View, CA 94042, USA.

THAI AND NON-THAI INSTRUCTORS’ PERSPECTIVES ON

PEER FEEDBACK ACTIVITIES IN ENGLISH ORAL
PRESENTATIONS

Raveewan Wanchid
Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Department of Languages, Faculty of Applied Arts, King Mongkut’s
University of Technology North Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
raveewan.w@arts.kmutnb.ac.th

Valaikorn Charoensuk
Ph.D., Department of Languages, Faculty of Applied Arts, King Mongkut’s University of
Technology North Bangkok, Bangkok, Thailand
valaikorn.c@arts.kmutnb.ac.th

Abstract
The purposes of this research were 1) to investigate Thai and non-Thai teachers’ perspectives on
peer feedback activities in English oral presentations; 2) to compare the perspectives on peer
feedback activities of Thai and non-Thai teachers, and 3) to explore possible reasons affecting the
Thai and non-Thai teachers’ perspectives on peer feedback activities in their real classroom
practices. The study was conducted with 5 Thai and 5 foreign instructors. Questionnaires,
interviews, and classroom observations were used to collect the data. Descriptive statistics and

1
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

content analysis were employed in the data analysis. The results revealed that 1) in general both
Thai and non-Thai instructors moderately agreed that peer feedback was beneficial for students,
2) the perspectives of Thai and non-Thai teachers in most items were not significantly different,
and 3) there were six possible reasons why Thai and non-Thai teachers have different perspectives
on some issues towards the use of peer feedback activities.
Keywords
English Oral Presentations, Peer Feedback Activities, Thai, Non-Thai

1. Introduction
Nowadays, alternative assessment has a major role to play in English as a foreign
language (EFL) instruction, especially peer assessment. Topping (2009) stated that peer
assessment is “an arrangement for learners to consider and specify the level, value, or quality of a
product or performance by other equal-status learners” (p.20-21). Considerable advantages of peer
assessment are shown in a great deal of research. For example, peer assessment can promote
students’ critical skills and their learning, and allow them to be more active, responsible, and
autonomous learners (Cheng & Warren, 2005). However, most of the studies yielding positive
results of peer assessment were conducted with L1 and L2 learning contexts. When this
pedagogical activity has been used by EFL practitioners, many problems have unexpectedly
emerged such as the lack of confidence and ability to give quality peer feedback, unfair assessment,
and being afraid of creating bad relationships. As a result, the calls for research in an EFL context
are required.
English Presentations is a new elective English course at the researchers’ workplace that
first allowed students to enroll in the first semester of the academic year 2018. Undoubtedly, no
research has been conducted on this subject.
Peer assessment is introduced to the course as one of the course assessments in Oral
Presentations due to the advantages of this pedagogy and the constraints of teaching and learning
contexts. Normally, the course instructors have to deal with a large class size of 45-50 students
with mixed English abilities; it is impossible to allow an individual student to give a presentation
each week and receive quality teacher feedback; and for a teacher to give instruction within class
time of 3 hours per week. As the aforementioned constraints of teaching and learning context, this
study is, therefore, trying to fill the gap by designing oral peer feedback activity model in the
English Oral Presentations course, where students collaboratively work in a small group to prepare

2
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

their group presentations, give oral comments to other groups’ presentations, analyze peer
comments and suggestions from other groups, and use them to improve their practice before
presenting in front of the class. Therefore, collaborative learning in which students work in a small
group, and Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development believing students’ ability will be boosted
through peer teaching or guidance, is applied as the theoretical framework of this study.
As peer assessment is first used in an English oral presentation course, most of the
instructors have not experienced this type of assessment before. Some of them are not familiar
with it or may feel awkward using it in their class as they may have different backgrounds, teaching
experiences, and perspectives in English language instruction. Previous research found a
relationship between teacher beliefs and classroom behaviors (Borg, 2006). A number of studies
explored teachers’ beliefs about feedback on students’ writing; few have been done with teachers’
beliefs and attitudes towards peer feedback on oral presentations (Wang et. al., 2018). Therefore,
it is worth studying what beliefs the teachers hold in oral presentation instruction and what they
perceive about the use of peer feedback activities implemented in their class. The principal
objectives of the study were as follows.
1.1. To investigate Thai and non-Thai teachers’ perspectives towards the use of peer
feedback activities.
1.2. To compare the perspectives towards the use of peer feedback activities of Thai and
non-Thai teachers.
1.3. To explore possible reasons affecting the Thai and non-Thai teachers’ perspectives
towards the use of peer feedback activities in their real classroom practices.

2. Review of Literature
Assessment is believed to be very influential for learning, especially in higher education
(Boud et. al., 1999). To utilize the learning outcome, assessment should also provide feedback for
the learners in order that they will know what they have done well and what they should improve
(Price et. al., 2011). Normally, assessors are teachers or experts in the field. However, the
engagement of learners in the assessment task or peer assessment has been proved to be beneficial
for learners; therefore, it has been increasingly used as one of the learning methods in tertiary
education (Falchikov, 1995; Rust, Price, & O’Donovan, 2003; Smyth, 2004; Sluijsmans et. al.,
2003; and Race et. al., 2005). Black and Wiliam (2006) explain that, with peer assessment, learners

3
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

are able to understand and make sense of assessment criteria better from their own work and their
peers’ as they also have to take role of examiner.
However, within EFL context, a lot of drawbacks have been found from the use of this
practice. Since effective oral presentation and the assessment from peer feedback require all four
skills, low proficiency EFL learners seem to confront some problems. Huxham, Campbell, and
Westwood (2010) and Joughin (2007) state that oral presentation brings about high level of anxiety
in learners. They explain that learners’ anxiety arises when they have insufficient knowledge,
skills, experience, and understandings about the topic and how to assess the works of their peers;
moreover, as a consequence they sometimes feel that they may look foolish, even more foolish if
there are any questions they fail to answer. Findings regarding signs of anxiety revealed that over-
use of gestures, speaking fast, or speaking in a very low voice when participating or interacting in
class (Mouhoubi-Messadh, 2017). According to Cheng and Warren, (1997), Smith, Cooper, and
Lancaster (2002), and Wen, Tsai, and Chang (2006), in general, students feel satisfied with peer
assessment; but criticisms from their peers are what they do not want to face. However, Boston
(2002) indicated that peer feedback is quite beneficial with low achieving learners.
According to Ajzen (2005), one’s intention and behavior are influenced by his/her
belief, attitude, awareness of social norms, as well as levels of control he/she perceives. In
classroom, it is the teacher who take the main responsibility to facilitate classroom activities.
Teachers’ beliefs direct themselves on understanding educational policies, choosing what is
important for students, and determining what should be included in classroom (Fives & Buehl,
2012). In fact, the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and classroom behaviors has been paid
much interest since the 1990s and there are increasing numbers of studies on this issue (Borg,
2006).
As playing a major role in classroom practices, the teachers are the one who decide
whether peer assessment (PA) should be implemented in the settings (Panadero & Brown, 2017).
Panadero and Brown (2017) and Rubie-Davies et. al., (2012) also agree that classroom practices
can be predicted from teachers’ conceptions. Considering the aspect of peer feedback/peer
assessment, suitable conception on assessment is very important that they navigate teacher’s belief
system to employ this practice to classroom and provide cognitive and affective responses to
novice assessors (Boud, 2016 and Xu & Brown, 2016). Similar ideas have been suggested by
Cowie and Harrison (2016) and Harris and Brown (2013). They point out that teacher’s beliefs

4
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

and actions are crucial to be the first step of embedding peer assessment as classroom culture to
enhance students’ skills from their differences. Xu and Brown (2016) assert that teachers’
conception of PA should rather be focused than the PA literacy training. Ultimately, some experts
conclude that whether the implementation of peer assessment will be successful depends on
teachers’ motivation and their abilities to train the students to be ready for peer assessment (Harris
& Brown, 2013 and Panadero & Brown, 2017).
Nevertheless, realizing and experiencing many problems, the majority of teachers still
apply PA to their classes and reflect the difficulties they have confronted in order to improve the
practicality of this process. The reflections include the issues on the focus of feedback, individual
students, the classroom, as well as the teachers themselves. This research aims at discovering the
perspectives of teachers who are from different teaching and learning cultures.

3. Research Methodology
The participants of this study were 10 English language instructors (five Thai and five
non-Thai teachers) who were teaching the English Oral Presentations course in the first semester
of the 2019 academic year. The teachers were from the Department of Languages, in a Thai public
university.
Four of Thai instructors were female, and one was male. Their age range was between
34 to 65 years old. Three of them had master’s degree, and two instructors received a doctoral
degree. Three of them were full-time instructors. Their English language teaching experience
varied from 2.5 years to 30 years.
Among the non-Thai instructors, they were male, their age range was between 33-63
years old. Three received a master’s degree, one held a doctoral degree, and one held a bachelor’s
degree. Four were full-time, and one was a part-time lecturer. The range of teaching experience
was 9-35 years.
Normally, there are approximately 700 undergraduate students from five different
faculties namely Applied Science, Architecture and Design, Business and Industrial Development,
Engineering, and Technical Education enrolling in this subject, divided into 15-20 sections each
semester.
English Presentations is an elective English course for undergraduate students who are
required to first pass fundamental English I and II before taking this course. The class duration is

5
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

3 hours, once a week over a period of 15 weeks. The commercial English textbook, Speaking of
Speech (new edition), 2009, by David Harrington and Charles LeBeau, is used due to its relevance
with the course objectives. The textbook focuses on three main components of oral presentation
skills – the physical message, the visual message, and the story message. All sections are required
to follow the same syllabus. It means that students experience the same textbook, classroom
activities, assessment criteria, and course evaluation. Regarding the course evaluation, throughout
a semester, students have to get into groups of 4-5 to prepare and perform seven mini-presentations
(46%), one final presentation (21%), seven peer feedback activities (21%), class attendance (6%),
and end of class quizzes (6%).
For the peer feedback activities, on the weeks of seven mini-presentations, each group
was required to assess the performance of another group based on the provided peer assessment
guideline, and they need to present their peer feedback orally in class. A teacher had a role to play
as a facilitator to make the classroom activity flow and to reach the course objectives. A teacher
gave teacher feedback on each group’s presentations and commented on the quality of feedback
the students provide to their classmate presenters. It is noted that all the instructors were required
to follow the syllabus, so it means that they were teaching the same way in all sections.
3.1. Data Collection
For quantitative data, a teacher questionnaire was sent to the 10 participants after the
course had ended. The questionnaire was designed to elicit the teachers’ responses regarding their
perspectives toward peer feedback activities by using five-point Likert scales ranging from
strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The instruments were validated by 3 experts, and the
overall Index of Item Objective Congruence of the qualitative instruments (IOC) was 1. The
reliability of the questionnaire was calculated by the Cronbach Coefficient Alpha, SPSS, which
was 0.79. The questionnaire was distributed to the teachers at the end of the course (Week 16).
Besides, classroom observations were allowed by one Thai and one non-Thai
instructors: one before the midterm exam week and one before the final exam week. The role of
the researcher was to observe what happened in the classes, and the details of how the instructors
organized the peer feedback activities. The observer sat in the back of the classroom quietly while
she was writing down the information.
After receiving the questionnaire results, one Thai and one non-Thai instructors were
privately interviewed after the course ended to gain more in-depth data about the teachers’

6
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

perspectives - the nature of oral presentations, feedback strategies, assessment methods, teachers’
presentation focus, and their classroom behaviors. Besides, the problems and possible limitations
that might downgrade the effectiveness of the peer feedback activity model used in the presentation
course were also discussed. The interview took 30 minutes each.
3.2. Data Analysis
To answer the research questions, the data from the questionnaire were analyzed using
a statistical analysis software program, and the data of Thai and non-Thai respondents were
presented by means and standard deviation. The independent t-test was used to compare whether
their responses are significantly different. The interview and observation data were transcribed,
qualitatively analyzed, and then categorized for the result presentation. Both quantitative and
qualitative results were used to analyze the possible reasons that may have affected the teachers’
attitudes and real classroom practices.

4. Results of the Study

After the online questionnaire had been returned, the data were analyzed. A five-point
Likert scale, ranging from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5), was used. To make the
data clearer, the teachers’ perspectives were interpreted by using the evaluation criteria described
below:
1.00-1.80 means that the teachers strongly disagree with the statement. (SD)
1.81-2.60 means that the teachers disagree with the statement. (D)
2.61-3.40 means that the teachers moderately agree with the statement. (M)
3.41-4.20 means that the teachers agree with the statement. (A)
4.21-5.00 means that the teachers strongly agree with the statement. (SA)
There are two main parts of the questionnaire. Each part will be reported respectively.
4.1. Thai and non-Thai Teachers’ Perspectives in the Instruction of Oral English
Presentations and the Comparison between Thai and Non-Thai Teachers

7
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

Table 1: Perspectives in the Instruction of Oral English Presentations

Thai Non-Thai Differences
Statements Related to Perspectives in the
Mean
Instruction of Oral English Presentations S.D. Mean S.D. t -test Sig
(𝑥̅ )
1. Speech comprehensibility such as speaking
4.00 4.20
speed and pronunciation is one of the key 0.71 0.45 -.54 .608
(A) (A)
factors for successful presentations.
2. Knowledge on a presentation topic is one of 4.40 3.40
0.55 0.55 2.89 .020
the key factors for successful presentations. (SA) (M)
3. Organization such as signposting and
3.80 4.00
speech structure (Story Message) is one of the 0.45 0.00 -1.00 .347
(A) (A)
key factors for successful presentations.
4. PowerPoint design (Visual Message) is one 4.00 3.80
0.00 0.45 1.00 .347
of the key factors for successful presentations. (A) (A)
5. Presence such as posture and eye contact
3.60 4.20
(Physical Message) is one of the key factors 0.89 0.45 -1.34 .217
(A) (A)
for successful presentations.
6 .Only t eacherfeedback is sufficient for
2.60 2.60
studentsto improve their presentation 0.89 0.89 0.00 1.00
(D) (D)
performance.
7. To help students improve their presentation
3.60 3.40
performance, praise is necessary in teacher 0.89 0.55 .43 .681
(A) (M)
feedback.
8. To help students improve their presentation
3.80 4.60
performance, suggestions are necessary in 1.10 0.55 -1.46 .182
(A) (SA)
teacher feedback.
9. To help students improve their presentation
3.40 3.40
performance, criticism is necessary in teacher 0.89 0.55 0.00 1.00
(M) (M)
feedback.

8
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

Thai Non-Thai Differences

Statements Related to Perspectives in the
Mean
Instruction of Oral English Presentations S.D. Mean S.D. t -test Sig
(𝑥̅ )
10. Oral feedback is more effective than 3.60 3.60
0.55 0.89 0.00 1.00
written feedback. (A) (A)
11. Immediate feedback is better than delayed 4.40 4.80
0.55 0.45 -1.27 .242
feedback. (SA) (SA)
12. Giving feedback in private is better than 3.40 2.80
0.55 0.45 1.90 .094
giving feedback in public. (M) (M)
13. Teachers should provide specific feedback
4.00 4.00
to each individual student in a group 0.00 0.00 -.89 .397
(A) (A)
presentation.
14. Teacher feedback should be selective 3.40 3.80
0.89 0.45 .447 .667
rather than comprehensive. (M) (A)
15. I think teacher feedback is more effective 3.80 3.60
0.45 0.89 0.00 1.00
than peer feedback. (A) (A)
16. Students only need feedback from the 3.00 3.00
1.00 0.71 -1.63 .141
teacher on their presentation performance. (M) (M)
17. I think peer feedback is as helpful as 3.20 4.00
0.84 0.71 .949 .371
teacher feedback. (M) (A)
18. Students have an adequate ability to assess 2.40 1.80 -
1.34 0.45 .299
their own presentation performance. (D) (SD) 1.109
(Source: Self)
Table 1 illustrates Thai and non-Thai teachers’ perspectives towards the instruction of
English oral presentations. On the whole, the perspectives of both groups were quite similar.
Considering the factors for successful presentation, speech comprehensibility, organization,
PowerPoint design, and presence were believed to be the key factors. Interestingly, one factor
which was viewed a bit differently is knowledge. That is, while Thai teachers strongly agreed that
it was one of the key factors (x̄ = 4.40, S.D. = 0.55), non-Thai teachers agreed just only at a
moderate level (x̄ = 3.40, S.D. = 0.55).

9
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

For the assessment in form of feedback, teachers’ feedback to each individual student
was agreed to be essential; however, they denied that only teacher feedback was enough (x̄ = 2.60.
S.D. = 0.89). Moreover, they both admitted that oral feedback was better than written one (x̄ =
3.60, S.D. = 0.55) and immediate feedback was rather needed than the delayed one (item 11),
emphasized by non-Thai teachers (x̄ = 4.80, S.D. = 0.45). In order to help students to improve their
skills, praise, suggestion, and criticism were agreed upon both groups to be necessary (items 7-9).
To be more specific, suggestion was highly recommended by non-Thai teachers (x̄= 4.6, S.D. =
0.55).
According to Table 2, the perspectives of the teachers towards the use of peer feedback
activities on student oral presentations in English presentations course were revealed. Even though,
both Thai and non-Thai teachers moderately agreed that peer feedback was beneficial for teachers
of presentations in higher education (x̅ = 3.40, x̅ = 3.00) and believed that students could gain
benefits from both teacher and peer feedback (x̅ = 3.80, x̅ = 4.00), there were some different
opinions among the two groups of teachers. Focusing on the students, Thai teachers reflected their
disagreement that students had an adequate ability to assess their friends’ presentation performance
(x̅ = 2.60, S.D. = 134), while groups of non-Thai teachers moderately agreed with this point (x̅ =
3.40, S.D. = 0.89). Moreover, it was disagreed by Thai teachers that students could provide honest
feedback (x̅ =2.60, S.D. = 1.14). Non-Thai teachers agreed that their students had fun when they
gave feedback to their friends (x̅ = 3.60, S.D. = 0.55). On the other hand, this point was disagreed
by Thai teachers (x̅ = 2.40, S.D. = 1.52). As a consequence, students were moderately agreed by
non-Thai teachers to like peer feedback activities (x̅ =3.4, S.D. = 0.89). In contrast, Thai teachers
disagreed that students liked this kind of activity (x̅ = 2.60, S.D. = 1.34).
Table 2: Perspectives of the Teachers towards the Use of Peer Feedback Activities on Student
Oral Presentations in English Presentations Course and the Comparison between Thai and Non-
Thai Teachers
Thai Non-Thai Differences
Statements Related to Perspectives towards
Mean
the Use of Peer Feedback Activities S.D. Mean S.D. t-test Sig
(𝑥̅ )
1. Students have an adequate ability to assess 2.60 3.40
1.34 0.89 -2.058 .074
their friends’ presentation performance. (D) (M)

10
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

Thai Non-Thai Differences

Statements Related to Perspectives towards
Mean
the Use of Peer Feedback Activities S.D. Mean S.D. t-test Sig
(𝑥̅ )
2. I believe the use of peer feedback in English 2.80 4.00
1.10 0.71 -.802 .446
presentations course is useful for students. (M) (A)
3. Teaching English presentation is more
3.00 3.60
interesting when peer feedback activities are 1.41 0.89 .667 .524
(M) (A)
used.
4. Peer feedback is beneficial for teachers of 3.40 3.00
1.34 0.00 -2.530 .062
presentations in higher education. (M) (M)
5. I think peer feedback is fair. 2.80 4.40
1.10 0.89 -1.206 .035
(M) (SA)
6. I think peer feedback is reasonable. 3.00 3.80
1.41 0.45 -.343 0.05
(M) (A)
7. I believe students can gain benefits from both
3.80 4.00
teacher feedback and peer feedback. 1.10 0.71 -2.746 .740
(A) (A)

8. Students can provide honest feedback to their 2.60 4.00

1.14 0.00 -2.271 .050
friends. (D) (A)
9. Students can provide useful feedback or 2.80 4.20
1.30 0.45 -.730 .486
suggestions to their friends. (M) (A)
10. Students put their full efforts into peer 2.20 2.60
1.10 0.55 -1.109 .299
feedback activities. (D) (D)
11. Students like peer feedback activities. 2.60 3.40
1.34 0.89 -1.664 .135
(D) (M)
12. Students have fun when they give feedback 2.40 3.60
1.52 0.55 -.343 .050
to their friends. (D) (A)
13. Students appreciate the feedback they 3.00 3.20
1.22 0.45 -.632 .545
received from their friends. (M) (M)

11
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

Thai Non-Thai Differences

Statements Related to Perspectives towards
Mean
the Use of Peer Feedback Activities S.D. Mean S.D. t-test Sig
(𝑥̅ )
14. I enjoy using peer feedback activities in my 3.60 3.80
0.55 0.45 -1.177 .273
oral presentation class. (A) (A)
15. I recommend using peer feedback in the
3.40 4.00
English presentations course for the next 0.89 0.71 -1.414 .195
(M) (A)
semester.
(Source: Self)
To compare the beliefs and attitudes towards the use of peer assessment of Thai and
non-Thai teachers, it could be said that both Thai and non-Thai teachers carried numerous similar
perspectives towards the use of peer feedback activities which are shown from the questionnaire
results. They both perceived that the use of peer feedback activities could benefit students in terms
of presentation skills; but it could not help in terms of language accuracy and English
pronunciation. Praise, suggestion, and criticism were agreed upon both groups to be necessary in
this practice. Apart from peer feedback, teacher feedback and feedback for individual student were
believed to still be necessary for students. They both believed that teacher feedback was more
effective than that of peers.
In addition, Thai and non-Thai teachers’ perspectives revealed that peer feedback
activities could enhance student engagement in their peers’ presentation. Both groups insisted that
this activity would not make the learning atmosphere stressful or would be too harsh for students.
On the contrary, big different perspectives among the two groups of teachers were
learners’ abilities and readiness in participating in peer feedback activities. To illustrate, non-Thai
teachers seemed to be more confident than the other group of teachers that their students could
achieve the goals in this practice. In contrast, Thai teachers reflected higher levels of worry on
students’ readiness. Due to different levels of students’ English proficiency, especially the ones
with low abilities, the idea that peer feedback might be unclear and unreliable were reflected more
by Thai teachers. On the other, non-Thai teachers seemed to not consider this issue a big matter.
Moreover, it was found that Thai teachers seemed to perceive some students’ discomfort when
giving feedback to their friends.

12
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

According to the questionnaire, the results revealed that the perspectives of Thai and
non-Thai teachers were quite similar in all the four aspects. Only a few items were significantly
different, so the differences of the Thai and non-Thai perspectives were not clearly shown.
To answer the third research question investigating the possible reasons that affect the
Thai and non-Thai teachers’ perspectives towards the use of peer feedback activities in their real
classroom practices, the interview was conducted with one female Thai and one male non-Thai
instructors because these two instructors were willing to join the interview, and both of them
allowed the researcher to observe their oral presentation classes twice: before the midterm and
final examination weeks.
Therefore, the interview was conducted in order to gain more in-depth viewpoints of the
Thai and non-Thai instructors. For the Thai instructor, she was female at the age of 38. For the
non-Thai instructor, he was male at the age of 35. Both received master’s degree in Languages,
and they have been teaching English for 7 and 10 years respectively. Thai teacher has never used
peer feedback in her class before, while the non-Thai teacher has had some experienced in using
peer feedback in a writing class. It could be said that they have never applied the peer feedback
activities in an oral presentation course. They were quite similar in terms of age range, level of
education, EFL teaching experience. They were asked the same questions about what and how
they conducted the peer feedback activities in their oral presentation classes.
Although the Thai and non-Thai instructors’ perspectives towards the use of peer
feedback activities were not significantly shown in the questionnaire results, the open-ended
questions, class observations, and the interview results possibly showed some of the possible
reasons that affect the Thai and non-Thai teachers’ perspectives towards the use of peer feedback
activities in their real classroom practices, which are 1) students’ low English proficiency, 2)
students’ unfamiliarity to peer feedback activities, 3) experience of teaching oral presentation, 4)
experience of using peer feedback activities, 5) teaching styles, and 6) teacher’s gender.
4.3. Students’ Low English Proficiency
Since the use of peer feedback activities in classroom required a great deal of English
proficiency of students, lacks of this ability or low ability in English could result in the failure of
peer feedback process. Most of the teachers believed that students’ low English proficiency was
one main reason to obstruct peer feedback process. There were various fields of English
proficiency that seemed to be the problem. Firstly, no matter what content on feedback about the

13
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

presentation were, if the feedback could not be conveyed, it was useless. Therefore, students
needed, at least, to be able to communicate in English in order to give comments to their peers.
That is, the students required listening and speaking skills in this process. They had to listen to
what the presenters said and spoke out to give feedback to what were good points or weak points
the presenters had done. Secondly, pronunciation seemed to be another problem for Thai students.
One of the teachers emphasized that their students could give feedbacks on superficial issues about
the articulation; for example, the loudness or the clarity of presenters’ speech. For the
pronunciation, there was little peer feedback on this issue since the teachers believed that their
students lacked knowledge on English pronunciation. Lastly, the majority of teachers stated that
low proficiency of English word choice played role in the success of ‘constructive’ peer feedback.
With a limited number of word choice, the students seemed unable to explain and give suggestions
to their peers effectively and constructively. One teacher pointed out their students could only say
that the presentation was good. However, when she asked them to clarify what was ‘good’, they
couldn’t explain anything more. From these reasons, in the view of one of the teachers, peer
feedback was believed to be effective only with students with high English proficiency.
4.4. The Unfamiliarity to Peer Feedback of Thai EFL Learners
The unfamiliarity to peer feedback of Thai EFL learners was believed by the majority
of non-native teachers to be one of the reasons that might obstruct peer feedback. To illustrate,
normally, Thai students are shy, reserved, and humble. These characters make them avoid giving
direct feedback or critiques which may lead to some problems on their relationship. Moreover,
with the folk that Thai students are trained to respect the seniors or the older, most of them tend to
stay silent in class. This results in their less opportunity to speak up in class with both their
classmates and their teachers. Due to their characters and this passive learning style, Thai students
were not familiar with peer feedback which they had to directly comment their friends. This might
affect their relationship. All Thai and non-Thai teachers agreed that this was something very new
to their students. In addition, some teachers reflected that there were also some students who were
lazy and reluctant to participate in class activities. However, most of the teachers reported that
their students were more attentive. This might due to that there are some assessment and points
gained from peer feedback activities.

14
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

4.5. Experience of Teaching Oral Presentation

The experience of teaching oral presentation of the participants seemed to be one of the
factors affecting Thai and non-Thai teachers’ perspectives towards the use of peer feedback
activities in their class. With not enough of this kind of experience, one of the teachers reported
that she did not master to train her students what the features of good oral presentation were and
found it difficult to demonstrate the presentation. She also stated that she was quite worried that
she could not provide effective feedback on oral presentation to her students. Some teachers
believed that it might be better if there were more details for each of the topic in oral presentation
skills.
4.6. Experience of Using Peer Feedback
Giving peer feedback is not only new to the students, but it is also to the teachers. A few
teachers have used peer feedback in their teaching before; for example, one teacher said that she
employed peer feedback in her English writing class. Some teachers used it just to check the
students’ understandings and it was also group feedback, not an individual one. None of them had
ever used it in speaking class, especially in oral presentation class. One teacher reflected that, with
lack of experience in using this process, she was afraid that she did not master in facilitating this
kind of classroom. So, it was quite time-consuming. Another native teacher believed that in order
that using peer feedback would be effective, teachers and students required a clear understanding
of the concepts on commenting the others.
4.7. Teaching Styles
From the class observation, it was found that teaching styles seem to affect the use of
peer feedback activities. The Thai teacher seemed to have an activity style while the non-Thai
teacher tended to have a lecture style. In the peer feedback activity, teachers have to play a role as
a facilitator, so teachers who have an activity style seem to fit well with the assigned peer feedback
activity model.
4.8. Teacher’s Gender
Besides, gender seemed to have some influence on the class atmosphere. From the class
observation and open-ended questions, a teacher’s gender seemed to have some role to play in this
study. The reflection from Thai female teachers seemed to show more understandings in their
students’ feelings with peer feedback process. On the contrary, most of male teachers did not talk
or give much details about this. The majority of female teachers agreed that they could feel that

15
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

most of their students felt uncomfortable to give comments to their friends. They reported that they
noticed that some of these students were insecure and stressed when giving feedback. This might
due to that, when the students gave peer feedback or direct comments, it was quite difficult for
them to give constructive feedback and most of the time negative feedback could not be avoided.
This might weaken their good relationship. Moreover, it was reported by one of these female
teachers that she could see that her students felt uncomfortable to give feedback to their peers since
they felt that they were not capable enough to do so. One female teacher also suggested that it
could be better if they could give feedback in closed group or in a team. It could make the students
felt more personal and relaxed.

5. Discussions
Due to the fact that there are still limited research studies on the teachers’ perspectives
towards the use of peer feedback in English oral presentation course, especially in the EFL context,
this present study enlightens more insight on this issue. As the major role of classroom conductor
to achieve each period’s set goal, teachers take large responsibility in the success of peer
assessment in classroom (Harris & Brown, 2013; Panadero & Brown, 2017; and Adachi et. al.,
2017). With this reason, experts emphasized the importance of the beliefs and attitudes held by the
teachers (Fives & Buehl, 2012; Rubie-Davies et. al., 2012; Harris & Brown, 2013; Boud, 2016;
Xu & Brown, 2016; Cowie & Harrison, 2016; and Panadero & Brown, 2017).
There are a large number of research studies confirming that the implementation of peer
assessment and feedback practice in classrooms is useful for learners in terms of learning and
performance, problem-solving skills, self-regulated learning, as well as metacognition ( Lynch &
Golen, 1992; Zevenbergen, 2001; Chang & Warren, 2005; Hwang, Hung & Chen, 2014; Bryant
& Carless, 2009; Nicol, 2010; Kim & Ryu, 2013; Spandorfer et. al., 2014; Panadero et. al., 2016;
and Panadero & Brown, 2017).
The beliefs in this idea of using peer feedback in English oral presentation course are
reflected by both Thai and non -Thai teacher participants in this study. It is found that this process
is acknowledged to be able to improve communicative competence rather than other specific
language skills. This finding corresponds to Brooks and Wilson’s idea (2014).
There are still some concerns on role of learners as novice assessors and presenters
reflected by both groups of teachers. Moreover, Thai teachers are found to reflect higher level of

16
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

worry, especially in the aspects of uncertainty on learners’ abilities and readiness for this method.
The issue of learners’ inadequate ability is also echoed in the studies of Chaqmaqchee (2015) and
Boston (2002). Also, the unfamiliarity to peer feedback of Thai EFL learners is admitted to have
effects on the process. The idea of getting used to their passive traditional learning method are also
concerned in many studies (Liu & Carless, 2006; Harris & Brown, 2013; Adachi et. al., 2017;
Zhao, 2018).
From this finding, it can be concluded that Thai teachers, experiencing and being more
familiar with Thai norms, seemed to clearly express caring and interest in learners which
corresponds to what Brookhart (2008) has mentioned. Besides, this study also discovers both
groups of teachers’ voices on problems on learners’ emotional responses and their relationship
with other partakers. The problems include willingness to criticize, face value, self-confidence,
pressure, trust, honesty, anonymity which is similar to the findings of many studies (Lynch &
Golen, 1992; Noonan & Duncan, 2005; Joughin, 2007; Harris & Brown, 2008; Huxham et. al.,
2010; Harris & Brown, 2013; Vanderhoven et. al., 2015; Wang et. al., 2018; Rotsaert et. al., 2018).
In addition to the practices and learners, according to the views of the participants, the
influencing factors also include the teachers and the policies of their educational institutions. It
was found that some teacher reflected their hesitation in carrying expertise on this practice.
Furthermore, some of them seemed to be not sure that they were capable to effectively conduct
classroom with peer assessment due to the influence of their educational organization’s policies.
These reflections correspond to the studies of many experts (Muijs & Reynolds, 2005; Harris &
Brown, 2013; Brown, 2008; Brown et. al., 2009; Harris & Brown, 2013; Zhao, 2018). Considering
the gender of teachers, from the participants, all non-Thai teachers were male and they were found
to have more positive attitudes. The similar findings echoed in Wen et. al. (2006) and Fitzpatrick
(1999). This seems to be because female teachers tend to illustrate more on how they felt.
Therefore, they seem to have more understandings and reflection on worries than their male
counterpart.
All in all, Thai and non-Thai teachers have reflected perspectives towards the use of
peer feedback activities in English oral presentation course. These perspectives have been
influenced by divergent partakers in the process. They include the idea of peer feedback and oral
presentation, the role of learners, the role of teachers, the classroom relationship, and the
educational institution. The findings from this study will be very useful for the implementation of

17
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

peer feedback in English oral presentation in EFL classroom. The related partakers in the process
will realize what enhance and hinder the success of using this practice, especially from the view
of the most influencing party in the classroom. As a result, students will gain the highest learning
benefits from use of peer feedback and the authentic practice of communication by using oral
presentation.

6. Conclusion
The use of peer feedback in the EFL presentation class yields undeniable benefits which
are reflected by both Thai and non-Thai language instructors. However, some possible reasons that
might influence the differences of these two groups’ perspectives are varied from their learners’
English proficiency, teaching experiences, beliefs, cultures, teaching styles, and gender. The
limitation of this research is the number of participants, so the results of this study cannot be
generalized to other teaching and learning contexts. To make the comparison between Thai and
Non-Thai teachers’ perspectives on the use of peer feedback more crystal clear, a larger number
of language instructors are highly recommended.

REFERENCES
Adachi, C., Tai, J. H. M., & P. Dawson. (2017). Academics’ perceptions of the benefits and
challenges of self and peer assessment in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation
in Higher Education: 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1339775
Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Open University
Press.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2006). Developing a theory of formative assessment.
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and Practice London:
Continuum.
Boston, C. (2002). The Concept of Formative Assessment, Practical Assessment, Research, and
Evaluation, 8(1), 1-6. doi: 10.7275/kmcq-dj31
Boud, D. (2016). Current influences on changing assessment: Implications for research to make a
difference. Invited keynote address at EARLI SIG 1 Assessment & Evaluation
Conference. Munich, Germany.

18
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999). Peer learning and assessment. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education 24(4), 413 – 426.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293990240405
Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. Virginia: Association
for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Brooks, G., & Wilson, J. (2014). Using Oral Presentations to Improve Students’ English
Language Skill. Japan: Kwansei Gakuin University – Humanities Review, 19: 199-
212.
Brown, G. T. L. (2008). Conceptions of assessment: Understanding what assessment means to
teachers and students. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
https://doi.org/10.1037/t01348-000
Brown, G. T. L., Kennedy, K. J., Fok, P. K., Chan, J. K. S., & Yu, W. M. (2009). Assessment for
student improvement: understanding Hong Kong teachers’ conceptions and practices
of assessment, Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 16:3, 347-363.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09695940903319737
Bryant, D. A., & Carless, D. R. (2009). ‘Peer assessment in a test-dominated setting:
Empowering, boring or facilitating examination preparation?’, Educational Research
for Policy and Practice, 9(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-009-9077-2
Chaqmaqchee, Z. A. (2015). Empowering learning: students and teachers outlook on peer
assessment for oral presentation. Journal of Education and Practice, 6, 75-81.
Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (1997). Having second thoughts: student perceptions before and after
a peer assessment exercise. Studies in Higher Education, 22, 233–239.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079712331381064
Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (2005). Peer assessment of language proficiency. Language Testing,
22(1), 93-121. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532205lt298oa
Cowie, B., & Harrison, C. (2016). Classroom processes that support effective assessment.
Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: Developing peer assessment. Innovations in
Education & Training International, 32(2), 175–187.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1355800950320212

19
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

Fitzpatrick, C. (1999) Students as evaluators in practicum: examining peer/self-assessment and

self-efficacy, paper presented at the National Conference of the Association for
Counselor Education and Supervision, New Orleans, LA, 27–31 October.
Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2012). Spring cleaning for the “messy” construct of teachers' beliefs:
What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us?
https://doi.org/10.1037/13274-019
Harris, L. R., & Brown, G. T. L. (2013). Opportunities and obstacles to consider when using
peer- and self-assessment to improve student learning: Case studies into teachers'
implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36(0)), 101–111.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.008
Huxham, M., Campbell, F., & Westwood, J. (2010). Oral versus written assessment: a test of
student performance and attitudes. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.515012
Hwang, G. J., Hung, C. M., & Chen, N. S. (2014). Improving learning achievements,
motivations and problem-solving skills through a peer assessment-based game
development approach. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(2),
129-145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-013-9320-7
Kim, M., & Ryu, J. (2013). The development and implementation of a web-based formative peer
assessment system for enhancing students’ metacognitive awareness and performance
in ill-structured tasks. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4),
549-561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9266-1
Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment.
Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279-290.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680582
Lynch, D. H., & Golen, S. (1992). Peer evaluation of writing in business communication classes.
Journal of Education for Business, 68(1), 44–48.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.1992.10117585
Mouhoubi-Messadh, C. (2017). Reflections on Hidden Voices in the EFL Classroom: The
“Anxious” Learner and the “Caring” Teacher. PEOPLE: International Journal of
Social Sciences, 3(3), 14-25. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2017.32.1425

20
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass
higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–517.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003786559
Noonan, B., & Duncan, C. R. (2005). Peer and self-assessment in high schools. Practical
Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(17).
Panadero, E. & Brown, G.T.L. (2017). Teachers’ reasons for using peer assessment: positive
experience predicts use. European Journal of Psychology of Education 32(1): 133-56.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-015-0282-5
Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Strijbos, J. W. (2016). Scaffolding self-regulated learning through
self-assessment and peer assessment: Guidelines for classroom implementation.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39211-0_18
Price, M., Carroll, J., O’Donovan, B., & Rust, C. (2011). If I was going there, I wouldn’t start
from here: a critical commentary on current assessment practice. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education 36(2), 479 – 492.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903512883
Race, P., Brown, S., & Smith, B. (2005). 500 Tips on assessment. London: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203307359
Rotsaert, T., Panadero, E., & Schellens, T. (2018). Peer assessment use, its social nature
challenges and perceived educational value: A teachers’ survey study. Studies In
Educational Evaluation, 59, 124-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.07.001
Rubie-Davies, C., Flint, A., & McDonald, L. (2012). Teacher beliefs, teacher characteristics, and
school contextual factors: what are the relationships? The British journal of
educational psychology, 82, 270-88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02025.x
Rust, C., Price, M., & O’Donovan, B. (2003). Improving students’ learning by developing their
understanding of assessment criteria and processes. Assessment and Evaluation in
Higher Education, 28, 147-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930301671
Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Bastiens, T. J. (2003). The
training of peer assessment skills to promote the development of reflection skills in
teacher education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 29, 23-42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-491X(03)90003-4

21
PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences
ISSN 2454-5899

Smith, H., Cooper, A., & Lancaster, L. (2002). Improving the quality of undergraduate peer
assessment: a case for student and staff development. Innovations in Education and
Teaching International, 39(1), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/13558000110102904
Smyth, K. (2004). The benefits of students learning about critical evaluation rather than being
summatively judged. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 29, 369-378.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293042000197609
Spandorfer, J., Puklus, T., Rose, V., Vahedi, M., Collins, L., Giordano, C., & Braster, C. (2014).
Peer assessment among first year medical students in anatomy. Anatomical Sciences
Education, 7(2), 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.1394
Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48, 20-27.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577569
Vanderhoven, E., Raes, A., Montrieux, H., Rotsaert, T., & Schellens, T. (2015). What if pupils
can assess their peers anonymously? A quasi-experimental study. Computers &
Education, 81, 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.001
Wang, B., Yu, S., & Teo, T. (2018). Experienced EFL teachers’ beliefs about feedback on
student oral presentations. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language
Education. 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-018-0053-3
Wen, M. L., Tsai, C. C., & Chang, C. Y. (2006). Attitudes towards peer assessment: A
comparison of the perspectives of pre-service and in-service teachers. Innovations in
Education and Teaching International, 43(1), 83-92.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14703290500467640
Xu, Y., & Brown, G. T. L. (2016). Teacher assessment literacy in practice: A econceptualization.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 58, 149–162.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.010
Zevenbergen, R. (2001). Peer assessment of student constructed posters: assessment alternatives
in pre-service mathematics education, Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 4,
95–113. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011401532410
Zhao, H. (2018). Exploring tertiary English as a foreign language writing tutors’ perceptions of
the appropriateness of peer assessment for writing. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 43 (7), 1133-1145. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1434610

22