Feedback from peers or teachers: The preferences and perceptions of pre-service EFL teachers

Year 2026, Issue: 77, 53 - 70, 31.01.2026

Şeyma Yıldırım

https://doi.org/10.21764/maeuefd.1749277

Abstract

Teacher feedback has long been recognized as a very important component of teacher education due to its numerous benefits. Peer feedback, complementing teacher feedback, also plays an important role as a reflective practice by enabling pre-service teachers work collaboratively and understand their teaching practices deeply in a supportive environment. There is a limited understanding of how pre-service teachers compare both sources of feedback and which feedback type they prefer despite the growing body of research related the value of teacher and peer feedback. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the pre-service English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ preferences and perceptions regarding the feedback they receive from their teacher and peers. This qualitative case study was carried out with 31 3rd grade pre-service students enrolled in “Teaching English to Young Learners II” course. Following each micro-teaching session, participants received both peer and teacher feedback through a standard feedback form. Data were collected through the structured feedback evaluation forms filled by the pre-service teachers, semi-structured interviews and completed teacher and peer feedback forms. Reflexive thematic analysis was used for data analysis. The results reveal that while both teacher and peer feedback were perceived as valuable, teacher feedback was consistently regarded as more professional, specific, detailed, action-oriented and motivating. Peer feedback was appreciated for its supportive tone and reflective value. Most participants preferred receiving both types of feedback, but none favoured peer feedback alone.

Keywords

pre-service teachers , micro-teaching , teacher feedback , peer feedback

Akran veya öğretmen geri bildirimi: İngilizce öğretmen adaylarının tercihleri ve algıları

Abstract

Öğretmen geri bildirimi, sayısız faydası nedeniyle uzun zamandır öğretmen eğitiminin çok önemli bir bileşeni olarak kabul edilmektedir. Öğretmen geri bildirimini tamamlayan akran geri bildirimi de öğretmen adaylarının iş birliği içinde çalışmasını ve destekleyici bir ortamda öğretim uygulamalarını derinlemesine anlamasını sağlayan yansıtıcı bir uygulama olarak önemli bir rol oynar. Öğretmen ve akran geri bildiriminin değerine ilişkin artan araştırmalara rağmen, öğretmen adaylarının bu iki geri bildirim kaynağını nasıl karşılaştırdıkları ve hangi geri bildirim türünü tercih ettiklerine dair anlayış sınırlıdır. Bu nedenle, bu çalışma, öğretmen adaylarının öğretmenlerinden ve akranlarından aldıkları geri bildirimle ilgili tercihlerini ve algılarını araştırmayı amaçlamış. Bu nitel durum çalışması, “Çocuklara Yabancı Dil Öğretimi II” dersine kayıtlı 31 üçüncü sınıf öğretmen adayı ile yürütülmüştür. Her mikro öğretim oturumunun ardından, katılımcılar standart bir geri bildirim formu aracılığıyla hem akran hem de öğretmen geri bildirimi almışlardır. Veriler, öğretmen adayları tarafından doldurulan yapılandırılmış geri bildirim değerlendirme formları, yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler ve tamamlanmış öğretmen ve akran geri bildirim formları aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Veri analizi için yansıtıcı tematik analiz kullanılmıştır. Sonuçlar hem öğretmen hem de akran geri bildiriminin değerli olarak algılandığını, ancak öğretmen geri bildiriminin sürekli olarak daha profesyonel, spesifik, ayrıntılı, eylem odaklı ve motive edici olarak değerlendirildiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Akran geri bildirimi ise destekleyici tonu ve yansıtıcı değeri nedeniyle takdir edilmiştir. Katılımcıların çoğu her iki geri bildirim türünü de almayı tercih etmiş, ancak hiçbiri yalnızca akran geri bildirimini tercih etmemiştir.

Keywords

öğretmen adayları , mikro öğretim , öğretmen geri bildirimi , akran geri bildirimi

References

• Akcan, S., & Tatar, S. (2010). An investigation of the nature of feedback given to pre‐service English teachers during their practice teaching experience, Teacher Development, 14(2), 153-172. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2010.494495
• Asregid, D., Mihiretie, D. M., & Kassa, S. A. (2023). Teacher educators’ use of feedback to facilitate reflective practice among pre-service teachers during microteaching. Cogent Education, 10(2), Article 2257121. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2257121
• Bader, M., Hoem Iversen, S., & Borg, S. (2024). Student teachers’ reactions to formative teacher and peer feedback. European Journal of Teacher Education, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2024.2385717
• Borg, S. (2011). The impact of in-service teacher education on language teachers’ beliefs. System, 39(3), 370–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.07.009
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
• Cañabate, D., Nogué, L., Serra, T., & Colomer, J. (2019). Supportive Peer Feedback in Tertiary Education: Analysis of Pre-Service Teachers’ Perceptions. Education Sciences, 9(4), 280. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9040280
• Cavanagh, M., & Tran, D. (2025). Pre-service teachers’ feedback on their peers’ lesson plans. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 53(4), 464–478. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2025.2539240
• Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed method research (2nd ed.). Sage.
• Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
• Ekşi, G. (2012). Implementing an observation and feedback form for more effective feedback in microteaching. Eğitim ve Bilim, 37(164), 267–282. http://egitimvebilim.ted.org.tr/index.php/EB/article/view/784
• Ellis, R. (2009). Corrective feedback and teacher development. L2 Journal, 1(1), 3-18.
• Er, H.K. & Küçükali, E. (2024). The effects of face-to-face vs. digital feedback in an efl writing context: comparison of two Turkish State Universities. Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 23(4), 389-411 doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2024..-1340007
• Erdemir, N., & Yeşilçınar, S. (2021). Reflective practices in micro teaching from the perspective of preservice teachers: Teacher feedback, peer feedback and self-reflection. Reflective Practice, 22(6), 766-781. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2021.1968818
• Fki, N. (2023). Towards more effective feedback strategies to enhance microteaching for pre-service teachers at ISEAH Mahdia. Studies in Applied Linguistics & TESOL Journal, 23(2), 150–201.
• Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (1993). How to design and evaluate research in education (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Johnston, R., & Badley, G. (1996). The competent, reflective practitioner. Innovation and Learning in Education, 2(1), 4-10.
• Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112.
• Henderson, M., Bearman, M., Chung, J., Fawns, T., Buckingham Shum, S., Matthews, K. E., & de Mello Heredia, J. (2025). Comparing Generative AI and teacher feedback: student perceptions of usefulness and trustworthiness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2025.2502582
• Howard, C. D., Barrett, A. F., & Frick, T. W. (2010). Anonymity to promote peer-feedback: Pre-service teachers’ comments in asynchronous computer-mediated communication. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(1), 89–112. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.43.1.f
• İnce, B. (2016). The perceptions of pre-service ELT teachers on different modes of peer feedback and its relation to teacher efficacy [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Middle East Technical University.
• Karakaş, A., & Yükselir, C. (2025). Peer and instructor feedback on pre-service EFL teachers’ reflection types and levels in video-mediated microteaching. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 85, 101457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2025.101457
• Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to post method. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Küçükali, E., & Er, H. K. (2023). Comparison of Translanguaging Pedagogies Used by Native and Non-native Teachers in EFL Writing Classes, Journal of Contemporary Language Research. 2(4), 192-198. https://doi.org/10.58803/jclr.v2i4.90
• Matsumoto-Royo, K., Conget, P., & Ramírez-Montoya, M. S. (2023). Feedback as an opportunity to promote lifelong learning in pre-service teachers: A mixed methods study. Frontiers in Education, 8(9), Article 1210678. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1210678
• Okumu, M. O., Lammert, C., & Hargura, H. M. (2024). Teacher candidates’ perceptions of peer and instructor feedback through video annotations: Whose advice do they prefer? Education Sciences, 14(12), 1361. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14121361
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104099
• Richards, J. C., & Farrell, T. S. C. (2005). Professional development for language teachers: Strategies for teacher learning. Cambridge University Press.
• Roberts, J. (1998). Language teacher education. Arnold.
• Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
• Tiainen, O., & Lutovac, S. (2024). Examining peer group mentoring in teaching practicum and its impact on the process of pre service teachers’ joint reflection. European Journal of Teacher Education, 47(4), 676–694. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2022.2122807
• Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 20-27.
• Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
• Wallace, M. J. (1991). Training foreign language teachers: A reflective approach. Cambridge University Press.
• Wang, M., Long, T., & Li, N. (2024). The impact of different types of feedback on pre-service teachers’ microteaching practice and perceptions. Education and Information Technologies, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-13024-z
• Wilcoxen, C. L., & Lemke, J. (2021). Preservice teachers’ perceptions of feedback: The importance of timing, purpose, and delivery. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 18(8), Article 14. https://doi.org/10.53761/1.18.8.14
• Yiğitoğlu-Aptoula, N. (2021). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions about the efficacy of various types of feedback on micro-teaching activities. Kuramsal Eğitimbilim Dergisi, 14(2), 79-92.