The article gives an overview of the types of feedback that Estonian high school students receive for their written assignments. The data for the article comes from surveys which were conducted among high school students and their teachers.
The results show that the main form of feedback for finished assignmets is a grade or a general commentary for the whole class. For unfinished assignments, feedback is most commonly given for specific parts of the assignment (e.g. as comments in the text). Both for finished and unfinished assignments, feedback mostly comes from the teacher, which greatly increases their workload, while peer review is used less often.
It can also be seen that students ask for extra feedback voluntarily, e.g. from their family, which implies that they would like to have more feedback for their written assignments than is currently typically available. Because the teachers’ resources for giving feedback are limited, peer review should be implemented more, as this helps not only to learn more thoroughly about the subject of the assignment but also develops writing and other language skills. To make more use of peer review, teachers should put more emphasis on the communicative situations created through written assignments and set the criteria for the assignment evaluation accordingly.
Artiklis antakse ülevaade gümnaasiumiõpilaste ja -õpetajate küsitluste tulemustest: kas ja kuidas koolis kirjutamisülesandeid tagasisidestatakse. Õpilaste küsitluses osales 501 ning õpetajate omas 280 vastajat. Tulemustest selgub, et peamine tagasiside valmistekstidele on hinne või üldine tagasiside tervele klassile, valmimisjärgus oleva teksti puhul antakse kõige enam tagasisidet konkreetsetele tekstikohtadele (nt kommentaaridena teksti kõrval). Kõige rohkem annab tagasisidet õpetaja. Tulemused näitavad veel, et tagasiside ei ole korraldatud süsteemselt ega õppimist toetaval moel ja ligi pooled õpilased küsivad nt oma pereliikmetelt tekstidele tagasisidet.
Baker, Kimberly M. 2016. Peer review as a strategy for improving students’ writing process. – Active Learning in Higher Education 17 (3), 179–192.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787416654794
Bloxham, Sue, Amanda West 2004. Understanding the rules of the game: marking peer assessment as a medium for developing students’ conceptions of assessment. – Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 29 (6), 721–733.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293042000227254
Brown, Gavin T. L., Lois Ruth Harris, Jennifer Anne Harnett 2012. Teacher beliefs about feedback within an assessment for learning environment: Endorsement of improved learning over student wellbeing. – Teaching and Teacher Education 28, 968–978.
https://10.1016/j.tate.2012.05.003
Carless, David, Naomi Winstone 2020. Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy. – Teaching in Higher Education 28 (1), 150–163.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1782372
Chappuis, Jan 2005. Helping Students Understand Assessment. – Educational Leadership 3 (63), 39–43.
Cho, Kwangsu, Charles MacArthur 2011. Learning by reviewing. – Journal of Educational Psychology 103 (1), 73–84.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021950
Court, Krista 2014. Tutor feedback on draft essays: developing students’ academic writing and subject knowledge. – Journal of Further and Higher Education 38 (3), 327–345.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2012.706806
Flower, Linda, John Richard Hayes 1980. Identifying the organization of writing processes. Cognitive processes in writing. – Cognitive Processes in Writing: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Toim. L. W. Gregg, E. R. Steinberg. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 3–30.
GRÕK = Gümnaasiumi riiklik õppekava. Riigi Teataja I, 08.03.2023.
https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/129082014021?leiaKehtiv
GRÕKi lisa = Gümnaasiumi riikliku õppekava lisa 1 „Ainevaldkond „Keel ja kirjandus““. Riigi Teataja I, 08.03.2023.
https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/129082014021?leiaKehtiv
Hanikat, Minna-Triin, Birgit Ületoa, Nele Karolin Teiva, Ilona Tragel 2025. Keeleteaduslik elulugu 8. Küünarnukitunne. Kokkuvõte. – Oma Keel 50, 47–57.
Hattie, John, Helen Timperley 2007. The Power of Feedback. – Review of Educational Research 77 (1), 81–112.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4624888
Hayes, John Richard 2012. Modeling and remodeling writing. – Written Communication 29 (3), 369–388.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088312451260
Hint, Helen, Anni Jürine 2021. Protsessikeskse kirjutamise kasulikkusest gümnaasiumiõpilaste kirjaliku tekstiloome oskuse kui suhtluspädevuse ühe komponendi arendamisel. – Eesti Haridusteaduste Ajakiri 9 (1), 243–273.
https://doi.org/10.12697/eha.2021.9.1.10
Hirsjärvi, Sirkka, Jouko Huttunen 2005. Sissejuhatus kasvatusteadustesse. Tlk Meri-Liis Laherand. Tallinn: AS Medicina.
Hyland, Ken 2021. Teaching and Researching Writing. 4th ed. New York: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003198451
Irving, Earl S., Lois R. Harris, Elizabeth R. Peterson 2011. “One assessment doesn’t serve all the purposes” or does it? New Zealand teachers describe assessment and feedback. – Asia Pacific Education Review 12 (3), 413–426.
https://doi:10.1007/s12564-011-9145-1
Jürimäe, Maria, Anita Kärner, Leelo Tiisvelt 2014. Kujundav hindamine kui õppimist toetav hindamine. Õpetajatekoolituse õppematerjal. Tartu: Eesti Ülikoolide Kirjastus.
Komissarov, Liisa-Maria, Helena Lemendik, Eleriin Miilman, Nele Novek, Betti Marie Peterson, Reena Roos, Marri-Mariska Tammepõld, Nele Karolin Teiva, Ilona Tragel 2024. Akadeemilise teksti kirjutamise juhend: TNR, 12, 1.5 ja valmis? – Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu aastaraamat 20. Estonian Papers in Applied Linguistics 20. Toim. Margit Langemets, Maria-Maren Linkgreim, Helle Metslang, David Ogren. Tallinn: Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühing, 63–82.
https://doi.org/10.5128/ERYa20.04
Käpp, Kati 2024. Mida, miks ja kuidas kirjutab Eesti gümnaasiumiõpilane. – Emakeele Seltsi aastaraamat 69 (2023). Peatoim. Reili Argus. Tallinn: Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Kirjastus, 80–106.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3176/esa69.04
Käpp, Kati, Ilona Tragel 2024. Kirjutan, järelikult suhtlen. – Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühingu aastaraamat 20. Estonian Papers in Applied Linguistics 20. Toim. Margit Langemets, Maria-Maren Linkgreim, Helle Metslang, David Ogren. Tallinn: Eesti Rakenduslingvistika Ühing, 83–97.
https://doi:10.5128/ERYa20.05
Leijen, Djuddah Arthur Joost 2016. Advancing Writing Research: An Investigation of the Effects of Web-based Peer Review on Second Language Writing. (= Dissertationes linguisticae Universitatis Tartuensis 28.) Tartu: University of Tartu Press.
Lundstrom, Kristi, Wendy Baker 2009. To give is better than to receive: the benefits of peer review to the reviewerʼs own writing. – Journal of Second Language Writing 18, 30–43.
Meeter, Martijn, Jaap Murre 2004. Consolidation of Long-Term Memory: Evidence and Alternatives. – Psychological Bulletin 130 (6), 843–857.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.6.843
Min, Hui-Tzu 2006. The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. – Journal of Second Language Writing 15 (2), 118–141.
Molloy, Elizabeth, David Boud, Michael Henderson 2020. Developing a learning-centred framework for feedback literacy. – Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 45 (4), 527–540.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1667955
Motta-Roth, Désirée 2009. The role of context in academic text production and writing pedagogy. – Genre in a Changing World. Colorado: The WAC Clearinghouse, Parlor Press, 341–354.
https://doi.org/10.37514/PER-B.2009.2324
Murray, Donald 1972. Teach writing as a process not product. – The Leaflet 71 (3), 11–14.
Nicol, David J., Debra Macfarlane-Dick 2006. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. – Studies in Higher Education 31, 199–218.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
Nicol, David 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
Nicol, David, Avril Thomson, Caroline Breslin 2014. Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective. – Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 39 (1), 102–122.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.795518
Novek, Nele 2023. Isikukasutuse ja sisu mõju kaasüliõpilase tagasisidekommentaari rakendamisele. Bakalaureusetöö. Tartu Ülikool.
https://hdl.handle.net/10062/90663
Roscoe, Rod D., Michelene T. H. Chi 2007. Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors’ explanations and questions. – Review of Educational Research 77 (4), 534–574.
Piaget, Jean 1954. The construction of reality on the child. New York: Basic Books.
Sedita, Joan 2013. Learning to write and writing to learn. – Fundamentals of Literacy Instruction & Assessment, 6–12. Ed. by Martha C. Hougen. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes, 97–114.
Topping, Keith 1998. Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. – Review of Educational Research 68 (3), 249–276.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003249
Tragel, Ilona, Laura Kiik, Liisa-Maria Komissarov, Kati Käpp, Markus Laanoja, Nele Karolin Teiva 2025. Tekstide kategooriad eesti keele õpikutes – uju või upu? – Eesti ja soome-ugri keeleteaduse ajakiri / Journal of Estonian and Finno-Ugric Linguistics 16 (2), 215–242.
https://doi.org/10.12697/jeful.2025.16.1.09
Võgotski 1978 = L. S. Vygotsky, 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wanner, Thomas, Edward Palmer 2018. Formative self-and peer assessment for improved student learning: the crucial factors of design, teacher participation and feedback. – Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 43 (7), 1032–1047.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1427698
Wang, Hei Chia, Yi Jung Hsieh, Wei Fan Chen 2016. The effect of online peer assessment in engineering education: A quasi-experimental study. – International Journal of Engineering Education 32 (1), 199–208.
Wu, Yong, Christian Schunn 2020. The effects of providing and receiving peer feedback on writing performance and learning of secondary school students. – American Educational Research Journal 58 (3), 492–526.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831220945266
