Exploring Discourse Features of Peer Feedback and Their Role in Promoting Deep Learning in Blended Teaching

Authors

  • Ruiwen Song

    Fakulti Pendidikan (FPEND), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor 43300, Malaysia
  • Amelia Alias

    Fakulti Pendidikan (FPEND), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor 43300, Malaysia
  • Khairul Azhar Bin Jamaludin

    Fakulti Pendidikan (FPEND), Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Selangor 43300, Malaysia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i12.12150
Received: 17 September 2025 | Revised: 20 October 2025 | Accepted: 29 October 2025 | Published Online: 12 November 2025

Abstract

Deep learning has become a central theme in contemporary educational reform, representing a critical indicator of learning quality. Peer feedback, as an interactive and learner-centered approach, has been shown to foster students' cognitive and meta-cognitive growth and holds significant potential for facilitating deep learning. This study constructed a peer assessment framework to promote deep learning in blended teaching and designed corresponding activities and implementation procedures. Drawing on CIMO-logic, the study examined how peer assessment triggered mechanisms such as personal engagement, seeking and providing relevant feedback, iterative exploration, and understanding one's own learning process. Data were collected through the SOLO taxonomy, rubrics, and questionnaires, complemented by discourse analysis of peer feedback comments. The linguistic analysis revealed that metalinguistic explanations and elicitation questions were associated with cognitive and ability development, while praise and politeness strategies primarily supported emotional engagement. The findings provide empirical evidence that peer assessment promotes deep learning across cognitive, ability, and emotional dimensions, and demonstrate that linguistic strategies in feedback are integral to how students process and internalize learning. This study provides theoretical insights into the occurrence of deep learning and offers practical implications for designing peer feedback activities to enhance learning quality in blended educational settings.

Keywords:

Peer Feedback; Deep Learning; Blended Teaching; Discourse Features

References

[1] Jin, H.Y., Cutumisu, M., 2024. Cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal deeper learning domains: A systematic review of computational thinking. Education and Information Technologies. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12744-6

[2] Hsu, C.-Y., Wu, T.-T., 2023. Applications of business simulation games in flipped classrooms to facilitate student engagement and higher-order thinking skills for sustainable learning practices. Available from: https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202311.0082.v1 (cited 11 September 2025).

[3] Waladi, C., Lamarti, M.S., 2024. Designing effective pedagogical scenarios for blended learning environments. In: Advances in Educational Technologies and Instructional Design. IGI Global Scientific Publishing: Hershey, PA, USA. pp. 192–208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-1206-3.ch008

[4] Azimi, S., 2025. Teaching the social media generation: Rethinking learning without sacrificing quality. arXiv:2505.02770. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.02770

[5] Huisman, B., Saab, N., van Driel, J., et al., 2018. Peer feedback on academic writing: undergraduate students’ peer feedback role, peer feedback perceptions and essay performance. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 43(6), 955–968. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1424318

[6] Carless, D., Winstone, N., 2020. Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy. Teaching in Higher Education. 28(1), 150–163. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1782372

[7] Winstone, N., Boud, D., Dawson, P., et al., 2021. From feedback-as-information to feedback-as-process: a linguistic analysis of the feedback literature. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 47(2), 213–230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1902467

[8] Wu, X., Zhao, M., 2025. The mechanisms of peer feedback strategies in facilitating deep learning for university students in virtual exhibition environments. Frontiers in Education. 10, 1662330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1662330

[9] Ding, L., Wu, S., 2024. Digital transformation of education in China: A review against the backdrop of the 2024 World Digital Education Conference. Science Insights Education Frontiers. 20(2), 3283–3299. Available from: https://bonoi.org/index.php/sief/article/download/1294/826/2684

[10] Double, K.S., McGrane, J.A., Hopfenbeck, T.N., 2020. The impact of peer assessment on academic performance: A meta-analysis of control group studies. Educational Psychology Review. 32(4), 1007–1049. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3

[11] Eckstein, G., 2023. Feedback on student writing for early career teachers: Effective strategies for teacher, peer, and self-feedback. In: Insights into Teaching and Learning Writing. Castledown: UK. pp. 155–166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29140/9781914291159-12

[12] Li, G., Zhou, Y., 2023. Exploring student engagement with computer-mediated peer feedback on L2 writing. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4431434 (cited 11 September 2025).

[13] Panadero, E., Alqassab, M., 2019. An empirical review of anonymity effects in peer assessment, peer feedback, peer review, peer evaluation and peer grading. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 44(8), 1253–1278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1600186

[14] Nicol, D., 2020. The power of internal feedback: exploiting natural comparison processes. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 46(5), 756–778. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1823314

[15] Weng, C., Chen, C., Ai, X., 2023. A pedagogical study on promoting students' deep learning through design-based learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 33, 1653–1674. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-022-09789-4

[16] Shi, H., Lan, P., 2024. Exploring the factors influencing high school students' deep learning of English in blended learning environments. Frontiers in Education. 9, 1339623. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1339623

[17] Tian, X., Park, K.H., Liu, Q., 2023. Deep learning influences on higher education students' digital literacy: The mediating role of higher-order thinking. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy. 13(6), 33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v13i6.38177

[18] Huisman, B., Saab, N., van den Broek, P., et al., 2018. The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: a meta-analysis. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 44(6), 863–880. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896

[19] Bond, M., Bedenlier, S., Buntins, K., et al., 2020. Facilitating student engagement in higher education through educational technology: A narrative systematic review in the field of education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education. 20(2). Available from: https://citejournal.org/volume-20/issue-2-20/general/facilitating-student-engagement-in-higher-education-through-educational-technology-a-narrative-systematic-review-in-the-field-of-education

[20] De Bruijn-Smolders, M., Prinsen, F.R., 2024. Effective student engagement with blended learning: A systematic review. Heliyon. 10(23), e39439. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39439

[21] Luo, R.-Z., Zhou, Y.-L., 2024. The effectiveness of self-regulated learning strategies in higher education blended learning: A five years systematic review. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 40(6), 3005–3029. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.13052

[22] Heilporn, G., Lakhal, S., Bélisle, M., 2021. An examination of teachers’ strategies to foster student engagement in blended learning in higher education. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 18, 25. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00260-3

[23] Essa, E.K., 2023. The effectiveness of hybrid learning in enhancing academic mindfulness and deeper learning of university students. International Journal of Research in Education and Science. 9(1), 188–202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.3081

[24] Raphalen, Y., Clavel, C., Cassell, J., 2022. You might think about slightly revising the title: Identifying hedges in peer-tutoring interactions. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Dublin, Ireland, 22–27 May 2022; pp. 2160–2174. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.153

[25] Poucke, M.V., 2025. Appraising feedback stance in higher education: A corpus-assisted discourse study of student and academic perceptions, perspectives and preferences. Corpus Pragmatics. 9, 337–366. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-025-00196-3

[26] Bauer, E., Greisel, M., Kuznetsov, I., et al., 2023. Using natural language processing to support peer-feedback in the age of artificial intelligence: A cross-disciplinary framework and a research agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13336

[27] Abdi, A., Sedrakyan, G., Veldkamp, B., et al., 2023. Students feedback analysis model using deep learning-based method and linguistic knowledge for intelligent educational systems. Soft Computing. 27, 14073–14094. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-07926-2

[28] Lasti’ah, L., 2021. Modified peer written corrective feedback on dialogue drafting of twelfth graders: focusing on linguistic features. New Language Dimensions. 2(2), 60–69. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26740/nld.v2n2.p60-69

[29] Bayraktar, A., Yalçın, S., 2019. Examining preservice teachers’ questioning and feedback. Journal of Education and Future. 16, 17–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.30786/jef.512638

[30] Pekrun, R., 2024. Control-value theory: From achievement emotion to a general theory of human emotions. Educational Psychology Review. 36(3), 53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09909-7

[31] Banihashem, S.K., Noroozi, O., van Ginkel, S., et al., 2022. A systematic review of the role of learning analytics in enhancing feedback practices in higher education. Educational Research Review. 37, 100489. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100489

[32] Jonsson, A., Svingby, G., 2007. The use of scoring rubrics: reliability, validity and educational consequences. Educational Research Review. 2(2), 130–144. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002.

[33] Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 3(2), 77–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

[34] China National Academy of Educational Sciences, 2024. Report on China Smart Education 2023: Towards a Higher Level of Digital Education. Springer: Singapore. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-5090-0

[35] Zhang, P., 2025. Leading the digital transformation of higher education through the reform of digital intelligence education: exploration and practice at Wuhan University. Frontiers in Digital Education. 2(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44366-025-0041-3

[36] Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., Botella, J., 2017. Effects of self-assessment on self-regulated learning and self-efficacy: four meta-analyses. Educational Research Review. 22, 74–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.08.004

[37] Hu, Y., Donald, C., Giacaman, N., 2022. A revised application of cognitive presence automatic classifiers for MOOCs: a new set of indicators revealed? International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 19(1), 48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00353-7

[38] Bloom, B.S., Engelhart, M.D., Furst, E.J., et al., 1956. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals: Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. David McKay Company: New York, NY, USA.

[39] Svensäter, G., Rohlin, M., 2023. Assessment model blending formative and summative assessments using the SOLO taxonomy. European Journal of Dental Education. 27(1), 149–157. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12787

[40] Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Pekrun, R. (Eds.), 2014. International Handbook of Emotions in Education, 1st ed. Routledge: New York, NY, USA. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203148211

[41] Lyster, R., Ranta, L., 1997. Corrective feedback and learner uptake: negotiation of form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 19(1), 37–66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197001034

[42] Hyland, K., 2000. Praise and criticism: interactions in book reviews. In Disciplinary Discourses: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Longman: London. UK. pp. 41–62.

[43] Brandão, C., 2015. P Bazeley and K Jackson, Qualitative data analysis with NVivo (2nd ed): (2013). London: Sage. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 12(4), 492–494. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2014.992750

[44] Cohen, J., 2013. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Routledge: New York, NY, USA.

[45] Wen, Y., Pei, L., 2019. Promoting deep learning by peer learning, exploring blended teaching ideas. In Proceedings of the 2019 14th International Conference on Computer Science & Education (ICCSE), Toronto, Canada, 19–21 August 2019; pp. 243–247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/iccse.2019.8845459

[46] Istenič, A., 2024. Blended learning in higher education: the integrated and distributed model and a thematic analysis. Discover Education. 3(1), 77. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44217-024-00239-y

[47] Prilop, C.N., Weber, K.E., 2023. Digital video-based peer feedback training: the effect of expert feedback on pre-service teachers’ peer feedback beliefs and peer feedback quality. Teaching and Teacher Education. 127, 104099. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104099

[48] Rütti-Joy, O., 2024. Applying peer rubric feedback in foreign language teacher education. In: Tools, Techniques and Strategies for Reflective Second & Foreign Language Teacher Education. Springer: Berlin, Germany. pp. 31–52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-68741-3_3

[49] Liu, Y., Ma, S., Chen, Y., 2024. The impacts of learning motivation, emotional engagement and psychological capital on academic performance in a blended learning university course. Frontiers in Psychology. 15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1357936

[50] Shaltaeva, E., 2024. Students' perspectives on peer oral corrective feedback strategies in higher education [Master’s thesis]. University of Turku: Turku, Finland.

[51] Handa, K., Clapper, M., Boyle, J., et al., 2023. “Mistakes help us grow”: facilitating and evaluating growth mindset supportive language in classrooms. arXiv:2310.10637. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.10637

[52] Liu, Q., Chong, S.W., 2024. Feedback literacy for language teachers and learners. In Reference Module in Social Sciences, 3rd ed. Elsevier: Amsterdam, Netherlands.

[53] Fidan, M., Gencel, N., 2022. Supporting the instructional videos with chatbot and peer feedback mechanisms in online learning: the effects on learning performance and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 60(7), 1279–1305. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221077901

[54] Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., van Aken, J.E., 2008. Developing design propositions through research synthesis. Organization Studies. 29(3), 393–413. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607088020

[55] Er, E., Dimitriadis, Y., Gašević, D., 2021. A collaborative learning approach to dialogic peer feedback: a theoretical framework. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 46(7), 1132–1147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1786497

[56] Filius, R.M., de Kleijn, R.A., Uijl, S.G., et al., 2019. Audio peer feedback to promote deep learning in online education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 35(5), 607–619. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12363

[57] Joh, J., Plakans, L., 2025. Peer assessment in EFL teacher preparation: a longitudinal study of student perception. Language Teaching Research. 29(1), 338–362. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211060776

[58] Zhao, C.Q., Cao, J., Chen, E., et al., 2025. SlideItRight: using AI to find relevant slides and provide feedback for open-ended questions. arXiv:2505.04584. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2505.04584

[59] Jacobsen, L.J., Mertens, U., Jansen, T., et al., 2025. AI, expert or peer? examining the impact of perceived feedback source on pre-service teachers’ feedback perception and uptake. arXiv:2507.16013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.16013

[60] Guo, K., Pan, M., Li, Y., et al., 2024. Effects of an AI-supported approach to peer feedback on university EFL students’ feedback quality and writing ability. The Internet and Higher Education. 63, 100962. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2024.100962

[61] Deja, M., Wojcik, M., Świerczyńska-Głownia, W., 2024. Digital information culture in doctoral schools: a scoping review. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. 57(3), 642–660. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006241239084

Downloads

How to Cite

Song, R., Alias, A., & Jamaludin, K. A. B. (2025). Exploring Discourse Features of Peer Feedback and Their Role in Promoting Deep Learning in Blended Teaching. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 7(12), 921–935. https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i12.12150

Issue

Vol. 7 , Iss. 12 (December 2025): In progress

Article Type

Article

License

Copyright © 2025 Ruiwen Song, Amelia Alias, Khairul Azhar Bin Jamaludin

Creative Commons License

This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.