Peer Assessment in ESL/EFL Studies: A Bibliometric Analysis of Knowledge Structures and Emerging Trends

Résumé fourni par la source

Peer assessment has long been recognized as an important learning-oriented practice in ESL/EFL education, yet its intellectual structure and thematic development remain insufficiently mapped as a broader research field. This study, therefore, conducted a systematic bibliometric analysis of peer assessment research in ESL/EFL education by examining 473 Web of Science Core Collection-indexed journal articles published between 1994 and 2025, using performance, co-citation, and co-word analyses in Excel and VOSviewer. The results show that research on peer assessment in ESL/EFL education has expanded rapidly since 2018, with 7,476 total citations, an average of 15.81 citations per publication, and an H-index of 44. The performance analysis identifies the main publication outlets, countries, and institutions, with Computer Assisted Language Learning , China, and the University of Macau ranking first in their respective categories. The co-citation analysis reveals three intellectual foundations of the field: (1) sociocultural mediation and pedagogical conditions, (2) learner engagement and feedback literacy, and (3) assessment-for-learning design. The co-word analysis identifies four major thematic directions: (1) formative assessment and assessment literacy, (2) feedback literacy and learner engagement in L2 academic writing, (3) peer interaction and instructional design, and (4) affect, motivation, and writing performance in ESL/EFL peer assessment. Conceptual, theoretical, and methodological implications for peer assessment in ESL/EFL education are also discussed accordingly. In conclusion, this bibliometric review provides a structured overview of the field's development, knowledge base, and emerging directions, offering a useful reference for future research on peer assessment, feedback literacy, and technology-enhanced language learning.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.