**3.6 Correspondence analysis of essay scores and peer feedback**

The results of the correspondence analysis of essay score groups and positive comments on peer feedback are shown in **Figure 3**. It was found that some keywords such as "read," "notice," "feedback," and "reader" were related to all three groups, whereas some words and phrases had a specific association with particular groups.

*Approach to Writing from Readers' Perspectives: Incorporating Self-Evaluation, Peer Feedback… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100308*

#### **Figure 3.**

*Correspondence analysis of essay scores and positive comments on peer feedback.*

In the high-graded essay groups, "paragraph" is featured in the positive comments, implying that the peers' comments concerning paragraph structure were well received and valued. For instance, two participants who received suggestions on revising paragraphs made the following comments:

*I originally did not divide (the essay) into paragraphs because of the short length of the essay. However, when I divided the essay into paragraphs following the peer's opinion, the essay became easy to read. (18I-55)*

*After I added a concluding sentence to the third paragraph, the paragraph turned out to be united. (18I-46)*

Another point identified in the high-graded group is characterized is "evaluation" and "find." The participants realized that the experience of reading and evaluating peers' essays helped evaluate their writing.

*Advice from the third-person's point of view was useful. Additionally, reading others' essays enabled me to make a relative evaluation of my own writing, and it was helpful. (18E1-5)*

*It was good that I could revise mistakes and inappropriate things that I was not aware of in my essay. On top of that, by reading and evaluating others' essays, I had the chance to reconsider my writing, and I found it stimulating to read others' essays that contained ideas I did not come up with or which had a different structure. (18I-56)*

## *Higher Education - New Approaches to Accreditation, Digitalization, and Globalization in the Age...*

These responses indicate the important role of readers in peer feedback. The experience of a reader's viewpoint in peer feedback enhances students' awareness of their writing [7, 16].

In addition, positive comments given by the medium-graded group are associated with "content" of essays. The participants appreciate the feedback concerning "content" of the essay as follows:

*My peer taught me (how to revise) the content, which I was not aware of due to my subjective view. I had not recognized that the final sentence in a conclusion was not relevant to the essay content when I was writing, but my peer pointed it out and I was convinced (to revise it). (18E1-4)*

*When I was writing my essay, it was difficult to find deviation of my argument and appropriacy of content because of my accomplished feeling. But I found that analyzing objectively from a third-person's perspective could tell me many things to be improved. I also thought that it was good to have more than one person read the essay because they can clearly indicate things to change. (18E1-19)*

Thus, feedback comments regarding global issues are viewed as beneficial. In line with this point regarding the content of essays, "notice," "body," "occupation," and "precise" seem to stand out in this group. These keywords suggest that the participants received feedback on the explanation of the occupation they chose as an essay topic in the body of the essay. Specific comments concerning the main theme of the essay seem to be appreciated and viewed positively.

In contrast, the low-graded essay group paid attention to "citation" in their positive comments. They found advice on citations from peers useful. Moreover, reading peers' essays also helps to learn source use.

*It was good that, by reading others' essays, I realized that my way of citations is not appropriate. (18E1-28)*

Since the participants were supposed to cite self-selected sources in their essays, they seemed to learn appropriate citing rules and conventions by reading each other's essays. This suggests that reading peers' texts helps find solutions and suggestions to improve their texts [16].

The negative comments on peer feedback and its relationship with the essay score groups are shown in **Figure 4**. **Figure 4** shows that "write" and "revise" are related to all three essay groups. The low-graded group is associated with "content"-related feedback. To be more precise, two writers made the following points:

*My peer seldom gave me comments. I wished I could have had more comments on the content. (18E1-18)*

*I didn't exactly know how to revise the content because the comments I received were not concrete. (18E1-28)*

Unlike the medium-graded group, which had positive views on content-related feedback, the low-graded group did not seem to be satisfied with the feedback comments regarding the content. This implies that the latter group could not improve the content of the essay in the revision process and that it was difficult to revise the content of the draft without receiving clear advice.

The word "part" is also related to the low-graded group as follows:

*Approach to Writing from Readers' Perspectives: Incorporating Self-Evaluation, Peer Feedback… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.100308*

#### **Figure 4.**

*Correspondence analysis of essay scores and negative comments on peer feedback.*

*While I was happy to receive many positive comments on my essay, I hardly found parts that I wanted to revise (based on the peers' comments). (19E1-95)*

Receiving positive comments only was not necessarily viewed positively by the participant. A lack of constructive feedback or giving ambiguous comments does not help writers revise. Providing clear advice is critical by specifying which part of the essay writers need to consider revising.
