Adapting Collaborative Feedback for Young Adult and Adult Online Language Learners

	“Through others we become ourselves.” — Lev S. Vygotsky

Introduction

Language teachers often carry an invisible burden: the belief that every learner contribution requires an immediate response from the teacher. In communicative classrooms, especially online ones, this expectation can become exhausting and, paradoxically, can limit learners' opportunities to learn from one another. Module 3, Unit 3, Using the Learner as a Resource, from the British Council's TeachingEnglish: How to Adapt Resources course invites teachers to reconsider this assumption by placing peer response, peer feedback, and peer assessment at the center of the learning process.

Although many of the examples in teacher education materials are designed for primary or secondary contexts, their underlying principles are equally valuable for young adults and working professionals. The challenge is not simply to transfer activities from one educational context to another. Rather, it is to adapt their pedagogical logic to the realities of adult online language learning. As Acuña Solano (2026) reflects, collaboration in his classes is already a recurrent part of oral communication practice: learners work together several times during an online session, not merely to manipulate new vocabulary and grammatical structures, but to help one another clarify meaning and resolve doubts, sometimes strategically using their first language.

This essay, my 583^rd post in my blog, argues that peer response, structured feedback, and transparent assessment criteria can transform adult online language classrooms into more participatory learning communities. When adapted thoughtfully, these practices do not diminish the teacher's role. Instead, they redistribute responsibility for learning and help students become more attentive listeners, more reflective speakers, and more capable evaluators of both their own performance and that of others.

Moving Beyond Teacher-Centered Response

One of the central insights presented by the British Council (n.d.) is that teachers need not respond personally to every learner contribution. In large classes, and even in smaller online groups where speaking time is limited, such an expectation may be unrealistic. More importantly, when the teacher becomes the sole audience and evaluator, learners may begin to speak primarily to the teacher rather than communicate with one another.

Peer response offers an alternative. The British Council distinguishes peer response from simple error correction: learners respond to each other's ideas to demonstrate interest, comprehension, and engagement. This distinction is particularly important in communicative language teaching. If students listen to their classmates only to identify mistakes, interaction can easily become evaluative rather than communicative. If, instead, they listen because they are genuinely expected to understand, ask questions, and react, listening becomes an active social process.

This perspective is consistent with Vygotsky's (1978) view that learning is fundamentally social. Knowledge develops through interaction, dialogue, and collaboration with others. The classroom, therefore, should not be understood merely as a place where information flows from teacher to learner. It can also function as a community in which learners mediate one another's understanding. For adult learners, this social dimension deserves particular attention. Young adults and working professionals bring experiences, professional knowledge, opinions, and cultural perspectives that can become valuable learning resources. A university student discussing the impact of artificial intelligence, for example, may offer a different perspective from that of a professional working in business, healthcare, education, or technology. The language classroom can capitalize on these differences by creating genuine reasons for learners to listen to one another.

As Acuña Solano (2026) explains, peer interaction in his online classes occurs repeatedly during a single class meeting. Students work together to explore the language content of a unit and help one another clarify doubts. This interaction may occasionally include the learners' mother tongue. Rather than automatically interpreting this as a failure to remain in the target language, strategic use of the first language can function as scaffolding when it helps learners understand a complex concept and subsequently return to English communication. In multilingual learning environments, the goal should not always be the artificial elimination of other linguistic resources but their purposeful management in service of learning.

Creating a Safe Environment for Peer Response

Peer response cannot flourish simply because a teacher announces, “Now give your partner feedback.” Learners need a classroom culture in which sharing feels intellectually and emotionally safe. The British Council (n.d.) emphasizes several practical conditions: clear tasks, meaningful reasons to read or listen to peers, positive and polite responses, motivating topics, attention to learning from classmates, support for shy learners, and reflection on the process. These principles can be adapted effectively to synchronous online instruction. Clear instructions become even more important in virtual classrooms because students may be moving into breakout rooms without the teacher's immediate presence. Before sending learners into groups, teachers need to establish what participants will do, how long they have, what evidence they should collect, and what they will report afterward.

The principle of giving learners a reason to engage with one another is equally significant. Adults rarely need encouragement merely to complete an activity; they need to understand why the activity matters. A learner listening to a classmate's presentation should have a purpose beyond waiting for an opportunity to speak. The listener might be asked to identify the speaker's strongest argument, formulate two follow-up questions, or note an effective expression that could be used in future communication.

Psychological safety is also essential. Edmondson (1999) describes psychological safety as a shared belief that a group is safe for interpersonal risk-taking. Although her work emerged from organizational research, the concept has profound implications for adult education. Speaking in a foreign language involves risk. Learners may worry about pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary, accent, or the judgment of peers. A classroom culture that treats mistakes as evidence of inadequacy can silence learners; a culture that treats communication as an evolving practice can encourage participation. The teacher, therefore, remains responsible for establishing the conditions of respectful interaction. Adult learners should not be treated like children, but neither should teachers assume that adulthood automatically produces confidence in public communication. Respectful norms, constructive language, and clear expectations remain necessary regardless of learners' age.

Peer Feedback as a Learnable Skill

One of the most important ideas in the British Council unit is that peer feedback is not an ability that should simply be assumed. Learners must be taught how to give feedback. Without guidance, comments may become excessively vague: “Good job!” or unnecessarily harsh “That was wrong.” Neither response necessarily promotes learning. The British Council (n.d.) identifies several benefits of peer feedback: it encourages collaboration, helps learners notice strengths and weaknesses, provides immediate feedback, and may reduce the amount of time teachers spend marking or responding individually. However, these benefits emerge only when learners understand what useful feedback looks like.

This idea of peer feedback connects with Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick's (2006) argument that formative assessment should support learners in developing the capacity to monitor and regulate their own learning. Feedback should not create permanent dependence on the teacher. Ideally, learners gradually develop the ability to recognize quality, identify gaps, and consider strategies for improvement. For language teachers working with adults, this means that feedback literacy deserves explicit attention. Students may be competent professionals in their fields while still feeling uncertain about how to evaluate another person's oral performance in English. The teacher can therefore model the language of feedback, demonstrate appropriate responses, and provide sentence starters until learners become increasingly independent.

This process also aligns with Boud and Molloy's (2013) conception of feedback as a process in which learners actively use information rather than passively receive judgments. Feedback becomes meaningful when students can understand it, evaluate it, and act upon it. Peer feedback, consequently, should not be seen as a shortcut through which students perform the teacher's work for free. Its deeper value lies in the learning that occurs when students must listen carefully enough to make an informed response.

The Ladder of Feedback and Its Adaptation to Oral Communication

A particularly useful contribution from the course is Harvard Project Zero's Ladder of Feedback. The model organizes feedback into four progressive stages: clarify, value, express concerns, and suggest (Harvard Project Zero, n.d.). This sequence is pedagogically powerful because it prevents evaluators from beginning with criticism. The first step, clarify, encourages learners to seek understanding. Questions such as “What do you mean by...?” or “Can you explain that?” communicate that feedback begins with listening. The second step, value, asks learners to identify something effective or meaningful in the work. The third, concerns, allows them to raise doubts respectfully. Finally, suggest moves feedback toward constructive action by encouraging specific alternatives or improvements.

Although the examples may often be associated with written work, Acuña Solano (2026) recognizes its considerable potential for college and adult language classes:

“The Harvard Project Zero's ladder of feedback will be a great, new addition to my feedback techniques for my college and adult learning classes. Since we don't exactly work on writing because it is not the focus of my course, it can be adapted to help each other construct more solid oral presentations: talks, speeches, panel discussions, etc.”

This adaptation illustrates a crucial principle of resource adaptation: a pedagogical framework should not be rejected simply because its original examples belong to a different educational context. The relevant question is, What principle can travel from one context to another?

In oral communication classes, the ladder might be adapted as follows. After a short presentation, a peer could first ask a clarifying question about an idea that was unclear. Next, the peer could identify a particularly effective feature, such as organization, vocabulary, audience engagement, or an interesting example. Then, the peer could identify one aspect that created difficulty. Finally, the peer could offer a specific suggestion for improvement. Such a sequence teaches learners that effective feedback is not synonymous with finding errors. Hattie and Timperley (2007) argue that effective feedback should help learners answer three central questions: Where am I going? How am I going? Where to next? The ladder of feedback can support this progression by combining recognition of current strengths with reflection on future improvement.

Adapting the Ladder for Online Adult Classes

For synchronous online classes, the Ladder of Feedback can become particularly useful after communication tasks in breakout rooms. However, adaptation is necessary. Adult learners often have limited class time, and overly complex procedures can consume the very time needed for communication. A practical adaptation might ask each participant to provide only one response at each stage. For example:

Clarify: What point would you like the speaker to explain more clearly?

Value: What did the speaker do particularly well?

Concern: What was one moment that made understanding more difficult?

Suggest: What is one specific strategy the speaker could try next time?

This structure can be used after mini-presentations, role-plays, interviews, debates, professional pitches, or panel discussions. It can also be adapted to asynchronous learning. Students might record short video or audio responses to classmates, following the four stages.

The teacher should initially provide useful language. For adult learners, linguistic support should not feel infantilizing; instead, it can be framed as professional discourse. Expressions such as “I found your example particularly effective because...,” “Could you clarify what you meant by...?” and “One possible way to make this point even clearer might be...” are useful not only for the English classroom but also for workplace communication. And as the British Council (n.d.) recommends, the process should also be explained, demonstrated, and reflected upon. Teachers can model feedback with a confident student or use an anonymized sample performance. Afterward, learners should discuss whether the feedback process helped them and how they experienced receiving comments from peers.

Peer Assessment Requires Clear and Shared Criteria

Peer feedback and peer assessment are closely related, but they are not identical. Feedback can be relatively open and dialogic, whereas assessment often requires learners to make judgments based on specific criteria. For peer assessment to be meaningful, students must understand what quality looks like. Acuña Solano (2026) emphasizes this relationship between purpose, roles, and criteria:

“When students have a clear purpose for a speaking activity and have a clear role, they can provide feedback to their group peers. Having a speaker, a listener, and a note-taker frames what needs to be done during the activity. But clear criteria need to be given to group participants.”

This observation is especially valuable in online communication classes. Group work sometimes fails not because learners are unwilling to collaborate but because their responsibilities are poorly defined. When all participants are told simply to “discuss,” some may dominate while others remain silent. Assigning complementary roles can create greater accountability. For instance, the speaker develops a topic. The listener asks follow-up questions and demonstrates active comprehension. The note-taker monitors a specific language feature, such as the use of target vocabulary, a grammatical structure, discourse markers, or pronunciation features. After the activity, these roles can rotate.

The effectiveness of this arrangement of participation roles depends on clear criteria. The speaker needs to know what constitutes a successful contribution. The listener needs to understand what makes a follow-up question meaningful. The note-taker needs a focused and manageable observation task. The British Council (n.d.) appropriately recommends concentrating on only a few key criteria at a time and using language that learners can easily understand. This approach endorsed by the British Council is consistent with Sadler's (1989) influential argument that students need to understand the standards against which their work is judged if they are to improve. Assessment criteria should not remain mysterious information possessed only by the teacher. When learners participate in understanding and, where appropriate, developing criteria, they become more capable of recognizing quality.

From the “Feedback Sandwich” to Balanced Development

Acuña Solano (2026) also recalls the advice of Argentine pedagogist Laura Lewin, who frequently encourages teachers to offer learners a “feedback sandwich”: something positive, something to improve, and something positive. As Acuña Solano notes, “Focusing on only bad things is detrimental for any learner.” The appeal of this approach lies in its insistence on balance. Learners need to know what is working, not only what is wrong. In language learning, constant correction can create the impression that communication is a collection of deficiencies. Recognition of strengths, by contrast, can help learners understand what strategies they should continue using.

At the same time, balanced feedback should not become empty praise. The positive comments must be specific and connected to criteria. “You were excellent” may feel encouraging, but “Your examples made your argument easier to understand” provides information the learner can use. Similarly, an improvement point should be specific enough to guide action.

Carless and Boud (2018) describe feedback literacy as involving learners' ability to appreciate feedback, make judgments, manage affect, and take action. This framework is particularly relevant to adult learners. Receiving criticism in a second language can involve emotional as well as cognitive challenges. Teachers therefore need to create conditions in which feedback is understood as information for growth rather than as a threat to personal competence. The “feedback sandwich,” the Ladder of Feedback, and criteria-based peer assessment share a common principle: feedback should preserve dignity while still promoting improvement. Respect and rigor are not opposites. In fact, constructive learning environments require both.

The Learner as a Resource in the Online Classroom

The phrase using the learner as a resource challenges teachers to reconsider where learning resources actually reside. A textbook, a slide deck, a video, or a learning management system can provide valuable input, but learners themselves also bring knowledge, questions, experiences, strategies, and perspectives into the classroom. This principle resonates with social constructivist approaches to learning. Bruner (1996) emphasizes the importance of meaning-making as a participatory process, while Lave and Wenger (1991) conceptualize learning as participation in communities of practice.

In an adult online language class, this participation can be particularly authentic because learners often have experiences beyond the classroom that can enrich communicative tasks. For example, a working professional may explain how meetings are conducted in his/her field, while another learner may describe a similar situation from a different profession. These differences create opportunities for genuine information exchange. The teacher does not need to manufacture all meaningful content; sometimes the most valuable resource is the experience learners already possess.

This does not mean that the teacher becomes unnecessary. On the contrary, the teacher's expertise becomes visible in a different way: designing tasks, organizing interaction, scaffolding language, establishing criteria, monitoring participation, and helping learners reflect on what occurred. The teacher shifts from being the exclusive source of response to being the architect of conditions under which meaningful response can occur. For online education, this shift is especially important. Physical distance can encourage passive consumption if students simply watch, listen, and wait for teacher evaluation. Carefully structured peer interaction can counter this tendency by making participation necessary.

Strategic Use of the First Language as Collaborative Scaffolding

One of Acuña Solano's (2026) reflections is particularly relevant to adult language learning:

“It’s not just to have them toy with new lexis and grammatical structures, but to have them help each other, even using their mother tongue, to clarify doubts they may have.”

This statement challenges rigid assumptions about target-language-only instruction. In some contexts, brief and purposeful use of the first language can support understanding and collaboration. The issue is not whether students ever use their mother tongue but whether its use serves a clear pedagogical purpose.

Cummins (2007) argues against educational approaches that artificially separate learners' languages from their learning. Similarly, García and Wei (2014) demonstrate how multilingual speakers draw upon their complete linguistic repertoires to make meaning. For adult learners, especially those discussing complex concepts or clarifying procedural instructions, strategic translanguaging may function as a bridge toward more confident target-language use.

In an online communicative class, students might briefly use Spanish to clarify a difficult grammar distinction, negotiate the meaning of a task, or ensure that a peer understands a concept before returning to English. The teacher's role is to ensure that this does not replace meaningful target-language practice. The goal remains communication in English, but learning can occasionally require multilingual scaffolding. This approach is particularly compatible with peer learning. Sometimes an explanation from a classmate is immediately comprehensible because it responds directly to a shared difficulty. The learner, in this sense, becomes both a language user and a pedagogical resource.

Reflection as the Final Stage of Collaboration

An often-overlooked component of peer response is reflection. The British Council (n.d.) recommends asking learners what they found helpful or challenging and encouraging them to consider the value of the process. Reflection is essential because collaborative activities do not automatically produce learning. Learners need opportunities to consider what happened and what they will do differently in the future. Schön (1983) distinguishes between reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action, concepts that can be applied productively to language learning. During a speaking task, learners may adjust their communication in response to their peers; after the task, they can analyze what helped or hindered their performance.

For teachers, reflection is equally important. Acuña Solano's engagement with the course itself demonstrates a reflective approach to professional development. Rather than simply adopting a technique because it appears in a respected course, he considers how it aligns with his specific context: young adults, working professionals, online instruction, and a strong emphasis on oral production. This contextual reflection is the essence of adaptation. Good teaching resources are not copied mechanically. They are interpreted, questioned, and reshaped.

Implications for My Teaching Practice

The ideas explored in this unit suggest several practical directions for my own classes. First, I can become more intentional about distinguishing between interaction and structured peer response. My students already work collaboratively several times during online class sessions, but I can provide clearer purposes for listening to and responding to one another.

Second, the Ladder of Feedback offers a practical framework that can be incorporated into oral communication tasks. Rather than adapting it primarily for writing, I can use it to support presentations, speeches, interviews, panel discussions, and other spoken genres. The four stage, clarify, value, concerns, and suggest, can teach students that useful feedback begins with understanding and includes recognition as well as improvement.

Third, I can make peer assessment more focused by assigning explicit roles and limiting the number of criteria. A speaker, listener, and note-taker structure can help ensure that every learner has a meaningful responsibility. Rotating these roles can also expose students to different dimensions of communicative competence.

Finally, I can incorporate short moments of reflection after collaborative tasks. Students can consider not only what they learned about English but also what they learned from their classmates and from the feedback process itself. In this way, peer learning becomes part of the lesson's intellectual content rather than an activity that disappears once the breakout rooms close.

Conclusion

Using the learner as a resource requires a fundamental change in how teachers understand responsibility in the classroom. The teacher does not need to be the only listener, the only responder, or the only person capable of recognizing quality. When learners are taught how to listen, respond, evaluate, and suggest improvements, they become more active participants in one another's learning. For young adults and working professionals in online language courses, these principles are especially relevant. Their experiences can enrich classroom interaction, their professional lives can provide authentic communication contexts, and their maturity can support increasingly sophisticated forms of peer feedback. Yet maturity alone does not guarantee effective collaboration. Learners still need clear instructions, psychological safety, useful language, explicit criteria, and opportunities for reflection.

The contribution of the British Council course is therefore not a collection of activities to be reproduced exactly as presented. Its greater value lies in a set of adaptable principles: a) learners can learn from one another; b) feedback is a skill that can be taught; c) assessment criteria should be clear and, when possible, shared; and d) constructive evaluation should recognize strengths while identifying paths for improvement.

Ultimately, the teacher's role is not reduced when learners become resources for one another. It becomes more deliberate. We design the conditions in which learners can speak with purpose, listen with attention, and respond with care. In my own context, this means moving beyond the idea that peer work is simply an opportunity for students to practice English. It can become a structured community of learning in which communication itself is the resource.

As Jonathan Acuña Solano (2026), that’s me the one reflecting through my teaching practice, I must conclude that collaboration is most meaningful when learners do more than “toy with new lexis and grammatical structures.” Our students can help one another understand, question, clarify, and improve. Perhaps that is one of the most human dimensions of language education: we do not learn only from teachers. We also learn with one another. 

São Paulo, Brasil

Monday, August 31, 2026

📚 References

Acuña Solano, J. (2026). Personal reflections on Module 3, Unit 3: Using the learner as a resource [Unpublished course reflections].

Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (Eds.). (2013). Feedback in higher and professional education: Understanding it and doing it well. Routledge.

British Council. (n.d.). TeachingEnglish: How to adapt resources—Module 3, Unit 3: Using the learner as a resource [Online course]. TeachingEnglish.

Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Harvard University Press.

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

Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 221–240.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. Palgrave Macmillan.

Harvard Project Zero. (n.d.). Ladder of feedback. Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press.

Lewin, L. (n.d.). Feedback and formative assessment strategies [Professional development principles].

Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.

Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18, 119–144.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.