Corrigendum: Effects of Trained Peer vs. Teacher Feedback on EFL Students' Writing Performance, Self-Efficacy, and Internalization of Motivation (Front. Psychol., (2021), 12, 788474, 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.788474)

Abstract

In the original article, the reference for “Cui, Y., Schunn, C. D., and Gai, X. (2021)” was incorrectly written as “Cui, Y., Schunn, C. D., and Gai, X. (2021). Peer Feedback and Teacher Feedback: A Comparative Study of Revision Effectiveness in Writing Instruction for EFL learners. UK: Routledge. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2021.1969541” Instead, it should be written as “Cui, Y., Schunn, C. D., and Gai, X. (2021). Peer feedback and teacher feedback: a comparative study of revision effectiveness in writing instruction for EFL learners. Higher Education Research and Development. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2021.1969541.” Additionally, in the original article, there was an error in the text. A full stop was missing, which altered the meaning of the text. A correction has been made to Introduction, Internalization of Motivation, Paragraph 2. The corrected paragraph is shown below. According to Ryan andDeci (2000), in pursuing goals, a learner can do so in autonomously (selfdirected) or in controlled (other-directed) fashion, and the learner will be more satisfied if they do so autonomously. Peer feedback could improve student’s sense of autonomy in that they practice error detection and revising while providing feedback, which are critical skills that they could apply to their own writing without always depending upon teacher feedback (Yang et al., 2006; Shen et al., 2020). There was also an error in theMaterials andMethods section. The average score on the Test for English Majors-Band 4 (TEM-4) was stated incorrectly. A correction has been made to Materials and Methods, Participants, Paragraph 1. The corrected paragraph is shown below. The 122 participants were a convenience sample of all enrollees in a writing course (described below). They were English majors (111 women; 11 men) who were third year undergraduate students (mean age of 21) at a private university in northeastern China. All spoke Mandarin as their first language and had received formal English training for more than 8 years at the time of the study. However, their average score on the Test for English Majors-Band 4 (TEM-4) was only 50 out of 100, which is a relatively low score. They had not previously received training on peer feedback before the study. Twenty-eight participants were excluded because they failed to submit papers or questionnaires, leaving 94 in the study. The authors apologize for these errors and state that they do not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.