e-ISSN 2231-8542
ISSN 1511-3701

Home / Regular Issue / JTAS Vol. 29 (3) Sep. 2021 / JSSH-7930-2021


Bibliometric Analysis of Research on Peer Feedback in Teaching and Learning

Catherine Nguoi Chui Lam and Hadina Habil

Pertanika Journal of Tropical Agricultural Science, Volume 29, Issue 3, September 2021


Keywords: Bibliometric analysis, citation counts, peer feedback, publication trend, teaching and learning

Published on: 27 September 2021

A growing body of literature has highlighted the pivotal role of peer feedback in teaching and learning. However, a paucity of studies explore the trend of literature in this research area, particularly using a bibliometric approach. Therefore, this study was conducted to reveal the major trends in the research area and construct an intellectual landscape of the relevant studies in the field. Bibliometric details of a total of 276 research articles, published from 1985 to 2020 (August), were retrieved from the Scopus database for further analysis. In particular, the publication trend, the most productive countries, the most productive authors, the top ten source titles, and keyword used in the research area, were explored using bibliometric indicators. The rapid growth of publications on peer feedback was observed since 2010, with a sharp peak noted in 2019. Furthermore, writing context was found as the central focus of peer feedback research. Among others, three key themes that surfaced out of term-occurrence analysis included: impacts/effects of using peer feedback approach, sub-themes concerning peer feedback implementation, and peer feedback in writing context. Additionally, from the review of 30 top-cited publications, 3 prominent themes: effects of using peer feedback approach, effective or ineffective peer feedback, and potential challenges or issues in peer feedback implementation emerged. Based on the findings, this paper concludes with some recommended avenues for future research.

  • Ahmi, A., & Nasir, M. H. M. (2019). Examining the trend of the research on eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL): A bibliometric. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 5(2), 1145-1167.

  • Agarwal, A., Durairajanayagam, D., Tatagari, S., Esteves, S. C., Harlev, A., Henkel, R., Roychoudhury, S., Homa, S., Puchalt, N. G., Ramasamy, R., & Majzoub, A. (2016). Bibliometrics: Tracking research impact by selecting the appropriate metrics. Asian Journal of Andrology, 18(2), 296-309.

  • Akiyama, Y. (2017). Learner beliefs and corrective feedback in telecollaboration: A longitudinal investigation. System, 64, 58-73.

  • Al-Qunayeer, H. S. (2019). Supporting postgraduates in research proposals through peer feedback in a Malaysian university. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 44(7), 956-970.

  • Arik, B. T., & Arik, E. (2017). Second language writing publications in Web of Science: A bibliometric analysis. Publications, 5(1), 4.

  • Brakel, V. L. (1990). The revising processes of sixth-grade writers with and without peer feedback. The Journal of Educational Research, 84(1), 22-29. 

  • Caputo, A., Marzi, G., Pellegrini, M. M., & Rialti, R. (2018). Conflict management in family businesses: A bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review. International Journal of Conflict Management, 29(4), 519-542.

  • Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315-1325.

  • Chang, Y. W., Huang, M. H., & Lin, C. W. (2015). Evolution of research subjects in library and information science based on keyword, bibliographical coupling, and co-citation analyses. Scientometrics, 105, 2071-2087.

  • Chen, T. (2014). Technology-supported peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing classes: A research synthesis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(2), 365-397. 

  • Chen, X., Chen, J., Wu, D., Xie, Y., & Li, J. (2016). Mapping the research trends by co-word analysis based on keywords from funded project. Procedia Computer Science, 91, 547-555.

  • Chen, X., Hao, J., Chen, J., Hua, S., & Hao, T. (2018). A bibliometric analysis of the research status of the technology enhanced language learning. In International Symposium on Emerging Technologies for Education (pp. 169-179). Springer.

  • Cheng, L., & Yao, J. (2019, June). Bibliometric analysis of wearable devices and their applications to English education. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Modern Educational Technology (pp. 35-38). Association for Computing Machinery.

  • Chien, S.-Y., Hwang G.-J., & Jong, M. S.-Y. (2019). Effects of peer assessment within the context of spherical video-based virtual reality on EFL students’ English-speaking performance and learning perceptions. Computers & Education, 146, 103751.

  • Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328-338.

  • Cushing, A., Abbott, S., Lothian, D., Hall, A., & Westwood, O. M. R. (2011). Peer feedback as an aid to learning – What do we want? Feedback. When do we want it? Now! Medical Teacher, 33(2), e105-e112.  

  • de Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and citation analysis: From the science citation index to cybermetrics. Scarecrow Press.

  • Dhawan, S. (2020). Online learning: A panacea in the time of COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 49(1), 5-22.

  • Ding, Y., & Cronin, B. (2011). Popular and/or prestigious? Measures of scholarly esteem. Information Processing and Management, 47(1), 80-96. 2010.01.002

  • Dominick, P. G., Reilly, R. R., & Mcgourty, J. W. (1997). The effects of peer feedback on team member behavior. Group & Organization Management, 22(4), 508-520.  

  • Dressler, R., Chu, M. W., Crossman, K., & Hilman, B. (2019). Quantity and quality of uptake: Examining surface and meaning-level feedback provided by peers and an instructor in a graduate research course. Assessing Writing, 39, 14-24.

  • Durieux, V., & Gevenois, P. A. (2010). Bibliometric indicators: Quality measurements of scientific publication. Radiology, 255(2), 342-351.

  • Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J. C., Belland, B., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulthard, G., Lei, K., & Mong, C. (2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), 412-433.

  • Ge, Z.-G. (2019). Exploring the effect of video feedback from unknown peers on e-learners’ English-Chinese translation performance. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1-21.

  • Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010a). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and instruction, 20(4), 304-315.

  • Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Smeets, S. (2010b). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback and of various peer feedback forms in a secondary school writing curriculum. British Educational Research Journal, 36(1), 143-162. 

  • Góngora-Orjuela, A. (2010). The importance of bibliometric studies. The Orinoquia case. ORINOQUIA, 14(2), 121-122.

  • Guardado, M., & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 24(4), 443-461. 

  • Gupta, I. (1988). Bibliometric research: Growth of biomedical literature. SBA Publications.

  • Hovardas, T., Tsivitanidou, O. E., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2014). Peer versus expert feedback: An investigation of the quality of peer feedback among secondary school students. Computers & Education, 71, 133-152. 

  • Hsia, L.-H., Huang, I., & Hwang, G.-J. (2016). Effects of different online peer-feedback approaches on students’ performance skills, motivation and self-efficacy in a dance course. Computers & Education, 96, 55-71. 

  • Hu, J., & Zhang, Y. (2015). Research patterns and trends of Recommendation System in China using co-word analysis. Information Processing & Management, 51(4), 329-339.

  • Huang, L., Zhou, M., Lv, J., & Chen, K. (2020). Trends in global research in forest carbon sequestration: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 252, 119908.

  • Khodabandelou, R., Mehran, G., & Nimehchisalem, V. (2018). A bibliometric analysis of 21st century research trends in early childhood education. Revista Publicando, 5, 137-163.

  • Kolle, S. R., Shettar, I., Kumar, V., & Parameshwar, G. S. (2018). Publication trends in literature on eBooks: A Scopus based bibliometric analysis. Collection and Curation, 37(3), 119-127.

  • Kraus, S., Breier, M., & Dasí-Rodríguez, S. (2020). The art of crafting a systematic literature review in entrepreneurship research. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 16(3), 1023-1042.

  • Li, M., & Li, J. (2017). Online peer review using Turnitin in first-year writing classes. Computers and Composition, 46, 21-38.

  • Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A. L. (2010). Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 525-536.

  • Lin, W. C., & Yang, S. C. (2011). Exploring students’ perceptions of integrating Wiki technology and peer feedback into English writing courses. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(2), 88-103.

  • Liu, M. H. (2016). Blending a class video blog to optimize student learning outcomes in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 30, 44-53.

  • Liu, N.-F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279-290.

  • Ma, Y., Dong, M., Zhou, K., Mita, C., Liu, J., & Wayne, P. M. (2016). Publication trends in acupuncture research: A 20-year bibliometric analysis based on PubMed. PloS one, 11(12), e0168123.

  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2010). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. International Journal of Surgery, 8(5), 336-341.

  • Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106, 213-228.

  • Montero-Fleta, B., Pérez-Sabater, C., & Pérez-Sabater, M. L. (2015). Microblogging and blended learning: Peer response in tertiary education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 1590-1595. 

  • Mulder, R. A., Pearce, J. M., & Baik, C. (2014). Peer review in higher education: Student perceptions before and after participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(2), 157-171.

  • Muritala, B. A., Sánchez-Rebull, M. V., & Hernández-Lara, A. B. (2020). A bibliometric analysis of online reviews research in tourism and hospitality. Sustainability, 12(23), 9977.

  • Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37(4), 375-401.

  • Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102-122.

  • Nilson, L. B. (2003). Improving student peer feedback. College Teaching, 51(1), 34-38.

  • Noroozi, O., & Hatami, J. (2019) The effects of online peer feedback and epistemic beliefs on students’ argumentation-based learning. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 56(5), 548-557.

  • Özdağoğlu, A., Özdağoğlu, G., Topoyan, M., & Damar, M. (2019). A predictive filtering approach for clarifying bibliometric datasets: An example on the research articles related to industry 4.0. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 32(2), 158-174. 

  • Patchan, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2015). Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: How students respond to peers’ texts of varying quality. Instructional Science, 43(5), 591-614. 

  • Patri, M. (2002). The influence of peer feedback on self- and peer-assessment of oral skills. Language Testing, 19(2), 109-131. 

  • Phielix, C., Prins, F. J., & Kirschner, P. A. (2010). Awareness of group performance in a CSCL-environment: Effects of peer feedback and reflection. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 151-161. 

  • Phielix, C., Prins, F. J., Kirschner, P. A., Erkens, G., & Jaspers, J. (2011). Group awareness of social and cognitive performance in a CSCL environment: Effects of a peer feedback and reflection tool. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1087-1102. 

  • Qing, M. (2019). Examining the role of inter-group peer online feedback on wiki writing in an EAP context. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(3), 197-216.

  • Rialti, R., Marzi, G., Ciappei, C., & Busso, D. (2019). Big data and dynamic capabilities: A bibliometric analysis and systematic literature review. Management Decision, 57(8), 2052-2068.

  • Rodríguez-Jiménez, C., Sanz-Prieto, M., & Alonso-García, S. (2019). Technology and higher education: A bibliometric analysis. Education Sciences, 9(3), 169.

  • Shang, H.-F. (2019). Exploring online peer feedback and automated corrective feedback on EFL writing performance. Interactive Learning Environments, 1-13.

  • Sheen, Y. (2008). Recasts, language anxiety, modified output, and L2 learning. Language Learning, 58(4), 835-874.

  • Sinkovics, R. R., & Sinkovics, N. (2016). Enhancing the foundations for theorising through bibliometric mapping. International Marketing Review, 33(3), 327-350.

  • Sivarajah, U., Kamal, M. M., Irani, Z., & Weerakkody, V. (2017). Critical analysis of Big Data challenges and analytical methods. Journal of Business Research, 70, 263-286.

  • Strake, E., & Kumar, V. (2010). Feedback and self-regulated learning: Insights from supervisors’ and PHD examiners reports. Reflective Practises, 11(1), 19-32.

  • Strijbos, J. W., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback content and sender’s competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 291-303.

  • Sweileh, W. M. (2018). Research trends on human trafficking: A bibliometric analysis using Scopus database. Global Health, 14, 106.

  • Sweileh, W. M. (2020). Bibliometric analysis of global scientific literature on vaccine hesitancy in peer-reviewed journals (1990-2019). BMC Public Health, 20(1), 1-15.

  • Tian, X., Geng, Y., Sarkis, J., Zhong, S., (2018). Trends and features of embodied flows associated with international trade based on bibliometric analysis. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 31, 148-157.

  • Tseng, S. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school computer course. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1161-1174.

  • Van den Berg, I., Admiraal, W., & Pilot, A. (2006). Designing student peer assessment in higher education: Analysis of written and oral peer feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(2), 135-147. 

  • Van den Boom, G., Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2007). Effects of elicited reflections combined with tutor or peer feedback on self-regulated learning and learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 532-548. 

  • Van der Pol, J., van den Berg, B. A. M., Admiraal, W. F., & Simons, P. R. J. (2008). The nature, reception, and use of online peer feedback in higher education. Computers & Education, 51(4), 1804-1817. 

  • Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538.

  • Van Popta, E., Kral, M., Camp, G., Martens, R. L., & Simons, P. R.-J. (2017). Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider. Educational Research Review, 20, 24-34.

  • Van Steendam, E., Rijlaarsdam, G., Sercu, L., & Van den Bergh, H. (2010). The effect of instruction type and dyadic or individual emulation on the quality of higher-order peer feedback in EFL. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 316-327. 

  • Vorobel, O., & Kim, D. (2017). Adolescent ELLs’ collaborative writing practices in face-to-face and online contexts: From perceptions to action. System, 65, 78-89.

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In L. S. Vygotsky & M. Cole (Eds.), Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 79-91.). Harvard University Press.

  • Ware, P., & O’Dowd, R. (2008). Peer feedback on language form in telecollaboration. Language Learning & Technology, 12(1), 43-63.

  • Wu, W.-C. V., Petit, E., & Chen, C.-H. (2015). EFL writing revision with blind expert and peer review using a CMC open forum. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(1), 58-80.

  • Wu, Z. (2019). Lower English proficiency means poorer feedback performance? A mixed-methods study. Assessing Writing, 41, 14-24.

  • Xie, K. (2012). What do the numbers say? The influence of motivation and peer feedback on students’ behaviour in online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 288-301. 

  • Xie, Y., Ke, F., & Sharma, P. (2008). The effect of peer feedback for blogging on college students’ reflective learning processes. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(1), 18-25.

  • Yang, Y.-F. (2015). Transforming and constructing academic knowledge through online peer feedback in summary writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(4), 683-702. 

  • Young, H., & Belanger, T. (1983). The ALA glossary of library and information science. American Library Association.

  • Yu, S. (2019). Learning from giving peer feedback on postgraduate theses: Voices from Master’s students in the Macau EFL context. Assessing Writing, 40, 42-52.

  • Yu, F. Y., & Wu, C. P. (2013). Predictive effects of online peer feedback types on performance quality. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 332-341.

  • Zhang, S. (1995). Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4(3), 209-222.

  • Zhang, X. (2020). A bibliometric analysis of second language acquisition between 1997 and 2018. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 42(1), 199-222.

  • Zheng, L., Cui, P., Li, X., & Huang, R. (2017). Synchronous discussion between assessors and assessees in web-based peer assessment: Impact on writing performance, feedback quality, meta-cognitive awareness and self-efficacy. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(3), 500-514.

  • Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472.

ISSN 1511-3701

e-ISSN 2231-8542

Article ID


Download Full Article PDF

Share this article

Recent Articles