Effects of feedback on collaborative writing in an online learning environment

The need for supporting student writing has received much attention in writing research. One specific type of support is feedback—including peer feedback—on the writing process. Despite the wealth of literature on both feedback and academic writing, there is little empirical evidence on what type of feedback best promotes writing in online environments. This article reports on research that tries to determine what type of feedback best improves the quality of collaborative writing and what the effects of feedback are on student learning in an environment based on asynchronous written communication. The results reveal that concerning the type of feedback, epistemic feedback or epistemic and suggestive feedback best improve the quality of collaborative writing performance. The nature of the feedback-giver (whether teacher feedback or teacher and peer) makes a difference to the final text only when the feedback is epistemic, or epistemic and suggestive.     

Tutor feedback on draft essays: developing students’ academic writing and subject knowledge

Providing feedback on draft essays is an accepted means of enacting a social-constructivist approach to assessment, aligning with current views on the value of formative feedback and assessment for learning (AFL). However, the use of this process as a means of improving not only content but also students' academic writing skills has not been widely studied, despite a widespread perception that there is scope for intervention at university level. This article explores the developmental potential of a drafting/tutor feedback/redrafting process on a first-year undergraduate course for trainee English language teachers at a UK university. The aims of this small-scale, largely qualitative study were to ascertain students' perceptions of the process and to determine the extent to which the process could contribute to the development of students' academic writing. Data are derived from first and second draft essay marks and questionnaires administered to 32 students. Findings suggest that feedback on drafts is acted on and can contribute to improved work when it is timely and detailed and when it raises students' metacognitive awareness, as was the case in this project. Also noteworthy, however, are the students' perceptions that redrafting is cognitively challenging and time-consuming. Comments from a less academically confident student with regard to the quantity of feedback and its detrimental impact are of particular concern. Questions are raised regarding the use of tutor reformulation, the sustainability of AFL and the provision of feedback to – and its interpretation by – weaker students. Finally, some key indicators for improved future practice are presented.     

The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: a Meta-Analysis

Peer feedback is frequently implemented with academic writing tasks in higher education. However, a quantitative synthesis is still lacking for the impact that peer feedback has on students’ writing performance. The current study conveyed two types of observations. First, regarding the impact of peer feedback on writing performance, this study synthesized the results of 24 quantitative studies reporting on higher education students’ academic writing performance after peer feedback. Engagement in peer feedback resulted in larger writing improvements compared to (no-feedback) controls (g?=?0.91 [0.41, 1.42]) and compared to self-assessment (g?=?0.33 [0.01, 0.64]). Peer feedback and teacher feedback resulted in similar writing improvements (g?=?0.46 [-0.44, 1.36]). The nature of the peer feedback significantly moderated the impact that peer feedback had on students’ writing improvement, whereas only a theoretically plausible, though non-significant moderating pattern was found for the number of peers that students engaged with. Second, this study shows that the number of well-controlled studies into the effects of peer feedback on writing is still low, indicating the need for more quantitative, methodologically sound research in this field. Findings and implications are discussed both for higher education teaching practice and future research approaches and directions.     

Increasing the uptake of peer feedback in primary school writing: findings from an action research enquiry

This article reports on how an action research strategy was used to increase children's uptake of feedback during peer assessment in primary school writing. Several different strategies were used in the study that had been successful in increasing students’ uptake of peer feedback in contexts such as higher education. In order to evaluate how successful these actions were, several different data collection methods were drawn upon to triangulate findings including children's work, observations, informal interviews and mind mapping. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data generated. Findings are consistent with those from research in other settings which suggest that pupils make better use of feedback if: it is task-involving and useful; there is sufficient time given for them to act on it and discuss it with their peers; and they are asked to reflect on how it has been used to improve the quality of the assessed work.     

Dialogue within peer feedback processes: clarification and negotiation of meaning

Peer feedback carries a number of potential benefits to students, yet how they learn in the process remains under-researched. Building on ideas of feedback as dialogue, this study aims to unpack the respective perceptions of the provider and the receiver of peer feedback in relation to the benefits and challenges of dialogue about academic writing. Data were collected through classroom observations, interviews and journals at a university in southern China. Two key inter-related benefits emerge from the qualitative analysis of students’ perceptions of verbal interaction about written peer feedback. The provider of written comments obtains feedback on their feedback and the receiver has the opportunity to clarify or negotiate meaning with the feedback provider. Contextual challenges include students wanting more guidance about peer feedback and desiring more teacher input to the process. The study adds to the knowledge about the significance of peer dialogue in mutual clarification and negotiation between the provider and the recipient while emphasising ongoing teacher guidance in the process.     

Students' perceptions of Wiki-based collaborative writing for learners of English as a foreign language

This study proposes a Wiki-based collaborative writing approach to the writing process for EFL (English as a foreign language) learners. A five-stage computer-mediated collaborative writing project including collaborative planning, partitioned drafting, peer-revising, peer-editing, and individual publishing was blended with on-campus English composition course. Fifty-one L2 learners at a university in central Taiwan participated in this project. Procedural scaffolding and collective scaffolding were provided to promote students' self-regulation and thus to foster the development of students' writing skills. A cross-referencing questionnaire survey was adopted to investigate students' perceptions of Wiki-based collaborative writing and students' perceptions of their work in each stage of collaborative writing. As the results indicated, a high percentage of students' satisfaction showed positive perceptions of this Wiki-based collaborative writing environment, and the instructional design of implementing a Wiki-based collaborative writing project with a five-stage writing process does assist EFL learners to accomplish a collaborative writing task on the internet with less limitation of time. This article also points to new possibilities for future research.     

Peer feedback on academic writing: undergraduate students’ peer feedback role,peer feedback perceptions and essay performance

Within the higher education context, peer feedback is frequently applied as an instructional method. Research on the learning mechanisms involved in the peer feedback process has covered aspects of both providing and receiving feedback. However, a direct comparison of the impact that providing and receiving peer feedback has on students’ writing performance is still lacking. The current study compared the writing performance of undergraduate students (N = 83) who either provided or received anonymous written peer feedback in the context of an authentic academic writing task. In addition, we investigated whether students’ peer feedback perceptions were related to the nature of the peer feedback they received and to writing performance. Results showed that both providing and receiving feedback led to similar improvements of writing performance. The presence of explanatory comments positively related both to how adequate students perceived the peer feedback to be, as well as to students’ willingness to improve based upon it. However, no direct relation was found between these peer feedback perceptions and students’ writing performance increase.     

Dancing with the devil: formative peer assessment and academic performance

Peer assessment can be important in developing active and independent learners, as well as providing more and faster feedback in large classes, compared to marking done by tutors. In addition, the evaluative, critical stance required by students in order to assess their peers' work encourages the development of higher-order cognitive skills. Changing roles from being assessed to being an assessor can also improve students' ability to judge and improve on their own work. However, peer assessment does have potential problems and there is some debate as to the appropriate academic level at which to implement it, the kinds of feedback that are given and the ways in which students respond. In addition, there is little evidence that peer assessment has an impact on academic performance. This research reports the results of an online peer assessment exercise for a macroeconomics essay conducted in a large Economics 1 class at Rhodes University. Of the 800 students, about half participated in the peer assessment exercise. Data were collected from students via a formal course evaluation. In addition, a sample of 50 essays was evaluated in terms of the relationship between peer marks and final (tutor) marks received and the impact that peer assessment had on the quality of the final essay submitted. An Ordinary Least Squares regression was used to investigate the impact of peer assessment participation on marks. Results showed that peer marks tended to ‘bunch’ in the 60–68% range, indicating the reluctance of peers to give very high or low marks. In general, peers gave more useful feedback on technical aspects, such as presentation and referencing (which were also the categories in which students most often made improvements), than on content. Regression analysis showed that peer assessment participation was not a significant determinant of final essay mark, but that economics ability and English language proficiency were.     

Understanding autonomous peer feedback practices among postgraduate students: a case study in a Chinese university

Academic writing is a social practice in which the writer interacts with both texts and people and uses the interaction as a learning resource. While academic interaction in the classroom setting has been extensively investigated, student interaction that takes place without teacher supervision remains largely unexplored. Since autonomy is a key component of academic interaction, autonomous peer feedback practices among postgraduate students may be of some interest. This paper reports on an exploratory case study of peer feedback among a small group of postgraduate students in a master’s programme in translation studies in a prestigious Chinese university. The findings offer insights into the role of peer feedback in advancing academic literacy and forming scholarly communities in an emerging discipline. The case study provides an opening into the research area of autonomous peer feedback and suggests avenues for further, more substantial research.     

Quality lies in the eyes of the beholder: A mismatch between student evaluation and peer observation of teaching

Abstract

The study described in this article was prompted by the poor performance of students in an ‘at risk subject’ in a science faculty at a university in South Africa. Teacher performance could contribute to poor performance among students, therefore the performance of one of the science teachers whose students were performing poorly was evaluated by his students and through peer observation of his teaching. The article draws on a merger between Bernstein's ideas on framing as well as deep and surface approaches to learning to form a theoretical framework that underpinned the study. Peer observation showed that the teacher employed predominantly teacher-centred, passive approaches to teaching, and the facilitation of active learning was minimal, that is, framing was strong. Students, however, evaluated their teacher positively, indicating that he was an ‘effective’ teacher. Therefore, the perception of what constitutes ‘quality teaching’ is viewed differently by peers and students. This is most likely due to the incompatibility between peers' conception of teaching and students' conception of learning. Therefore, students' feedback on teaching is not necessarily accurate or useful.     

Academic dishonesty and its relations to peer cheating and culture: A meta-analysis of the perceived peer cheating effect

Academic cheating is a worldwide problem, which is exacerbated by perceived peer cheating. The present review of the literature quantitatively examined this perceived peer cheating effect. This meta-analysis included studies reporting correlations between students' own cheating and their perception of cheating in peers. The sample consisted of 43 effect sizes (38 studies) based on a total sample size of 24,181 demographically diverse participants from multiple countries (65% female) from papers published from 1941 to 2021. Results showed a perceived peer cheating effect of intermediate effect size (r = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.39), and that perceived peer cheating is among one of the strongest factors known to be associated with students' academic cheating. Moderator analyses using country level measures revealed this effect to be stronger in cultures that are high in power distance, collectivism, long-term orientation, restraint, and low in uncertainty avoidance and religiosity. The present findings indicate that the behavior of peers plays an important role in students’ academic cheating, suggesting that effective strategies to promote academic integrity will need to consider peer influences as well as the culture in which students are socialized.     

同伴指导对大学生学习结果的影响研究——基于30项实验或准实验研究的元分析

学界对于同伴互动对大学生学习结果的影响效用尚未达成统一结论。本研究采用元分析方法对30项实验或准实验研究展开系统量化分析。研究结果表明：同伴指导对大学生学习结果呈中等偏上的积极促进效应,合并效应值为0.782;同伴指导对大学生学业成绩和专业技能的促进作用突出,但对情感态度发展的促进作用较小;其效应受指导时长、指导形式、指导年级和课程类型等调节变量的影响。高校应优化制度环境,建立协同、可持续的同伴指导机制,选择短周期、跨年级和小组指导的同伴指导模式,从而更为有效地提升大学生学习结果。     

Peer review in the classroom: student perceptions,peer feedback quality and the role of assessment

Abstract

Peer review in the classroom can enhance numerous employability skills such as critical appraisal, writing skills, reflection practices and collaborative experiences. This study takes place over two years and discusses the implementation of a repeating blind peer review cycle across a single semester for final year chemistry students enrolled on a compulsory employability module. The feedback cycle promotes personal reflection through the use of mini-reflective questionnaires. The process was assessed by academic tutors at the resubmission stage and/or the peer feedback stage where the quality of peer feedback was directly assessed. The research investigates the quality of peer feedback, the importance of assessment and student perceptions of what is most useful. Methods include directed content analysis of feedback produced, student opinions and a focus group. Students were capable of offering useable feedback across a range of assessment criteria but tend to focus on the important criteria best aligned to the particular assignment. A range of motivational factors and tactics were noticed but students tended to find reviewing the most beneficial.     

Grade one peer and teacher feedback on student writing

This article examines a grade one teacher's support for her students’ writing development through formal peer and teacher feedback. The teacher modelled and provided examples of effective feedback and good writing in whole-class and small-group lessons and in her own one-on-one verbal feedback on student writing. She allocated time for the students to participate in formal peer-feedback sessions, in turn giving feedback to the students on the suggestions to one another during these sessions. Students gave more content-oriented than conventions-oriented feedback to each other. They revised the content and writing conventions of their writing in response to 90% of the feedback they received from their peers and teacher.     

The alignment of written peer feedback with draft problems and its impact on revision in peer assessment

Despite the wide use of peer assessment, questions about the helpfulness of peer feedback are frequently raised. In particular, it is unknown whether, how and to what extent peer feedback can help solve problems in initial texts in complex writing tasks. We investigated this research gap by focusing on the case of writing literature reviews in an academic writing course. The dataset includes two drafts from 21 students, sampled to represent a wide range of document qualities, and 84 anonymous peer reviews, involving 1,289 idea units. Our study revealed that: (1) at both substance and high prose levels, drafts of all quality levels demonstrated more common problems on advanced writing issues (e.g. counter-argument); (2) peer feedback was driven by difficulty of the problem rather than overall draft quality, peer comments were not well aligned with the relative frequency of problems, more comments were given to less difficult problems; (3) peer feedback had a moderate impact on revision, and importantly, receiving multiple comments on the same issue led to more repairs and improvement of draft quality, but consistent with the comments received, authors tended to fix basic problems more often. Implications for practice and research are drawn from these findings.     

Understanding student engagement with peer feedback on master’s theses: a Macau study

While research on peer feedback in second language (L2) writing at university/college level has proliferated, scholars have conducted less research on peer feedback in L2 academic and scholarly writing. Drawing upon multiple sources of data including semi-structured interviews, stimulated recalls, online interviews via WeChat, first and revised drafts of master’s theses, peer written feedback, audio-recordings of oral peer feedback conferences and the finalised master’s theses, this case study examines how three master’s students affectively, behaviourally and cognitively engaged with peer feedback on drafts of their thesis in a Master of Education programme at a Macau university. The findings show that the relationship between sub-constructs within each dimension and the relationships between the three dimensions of student engagement were interconnected in a dynamic and complex way. While there were individual differences among the three students’ engagement, their affective engagement could promote or negatively influence their behavioural and cognitive engagement. This study builds our understanding of the multifaceted nature of master’s students’ engagement with peer feedback. It provides pedagogical implications about how peer feedback can enhance the quality of master’s students’ academic writing and sheds light on how to guide students to establish scholarly learning communities in higher education.     

The anonymous reviewer: the relationship between perceived expertise and the perceptions of peer feedback in higher education

Peer feedback often has positive effects on student learning processes and outcomes. However, students may not always be honest when giving and receiving peer feedback as they are likely to be biased due to peer relations, peer characteristics and personal preferences. To alleviate these biases, anonymous peer feedback was investigated in the current research. Research suggests that the expertise of the reviewer influences the perceived usefulness of the feedback. Therefore, this research investigated the relationship between expertise and the perceptions of peer feedback in a writing assignment of 41 students in higher education with a multilevel analysis. The results show that students perceive peer feedback as more adequate when knowing the reviewer perceives him/herself to have a high level of expertise. Furthermore, the results suggest that students who received feedback from a peer who perceives their expertise as closer to the reviewee’s own perceived expertise was more willing to improve his or her own assignment.     

Learning through science writing via online peer assessment in a college biology course

This study used an online peer assessment activity to help 47 college students to learn biology through writing. Each student submitted a biology writing report to an online system and then experienced three rounds of peer assessment. During the online peer assessment process, self, peer and expert evaluation scores for the writing were gathered across three rounds. It was found that self-assessment scores were not quite consistent with the expert's scores, but the peer assessment scores demonstrated adequate validity with the expert's evaluation. In particular, when the students had more rounds of peer assessment for reviewing the writing, the validity of the peer scores was enhanced. An examination of the students' writing scores, allocated by peers and expert, indicated that the students significantly improved the writing as the peer assessment activity proceeded. Content analyses of the students' writing also revealed that their writing gradually developed with significantly better coverage, richness and organization resulting from the online peer assessment activity.     

Black males' self‐perceptions of academic ability and gifted potential in advanced science classes

The purpose of this research effort was to examine Black male students' self‐perceptions of academic ability and gifted potential in science. The purposeful sample consisted of nine Black males between the ages of 14 and 18 years. Four categories of self‐perceptions of academic ability and gifted potential emerged from the data. These included: (a) gifted high achievers; (b) gifted “could do better” high achievers; (c) gifted “could do better” situational nonachievers; and (d) gifted “could do better” underachievers. Science teachers' influences that referenced participants' academic achievement pointed to validation. Participants' perceptions regarding how science teachers' influenced their academic performance focused on science teachers' content knowledge. Power dynamics germane to Black male participants' value or worth that directed their efforts in science learning environments are discussed. Implications are posited for science teaching, science education programs, and future research. This research endeavor was based on two premises. The first premise is that Black males' self‐perceptions of academic ability affect their science academic achievement. The second premise is that, given parental, peer, and community influences, science teachers have considerable influence on students' self‐perceptions of academic ability. However, the focus of this research was not on parental influences, peer influences, or any potential influences that participants' communities may have on their academic achievement. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 42: 888–911, 2005     

Using Dialogic Writing Assessment to Support the Development of Historical Literacy

Though discipline-specific approaches to literacy instruction can support adolescents' academic literacy and identity development, scant attention has been paid to ways of targeting such instruction to address individual student needs. Dialogic writing assessment is an approach to conducting writing conferences that foregrounds students' composing process so that teachers can assess and support that process with instructional feedback. Because such feedback is immediate, teachers can observe how students take it up. While dialogic assessment has shown promise as an approach to revealing and supporting students' writing processes in English Language Arts classrooms, it remains to be explored how this approach can support developing writers in other subject areas. This paper offers an analytic narrative account of how a high school social studies teacher used this method to support the writing process of one student, exploring what the method revealed about the challenges the student faced in writing about history, the gaps and misconceptions in their understanding of history and the intersection between the two. We discuss how certain ‘mediational moves’ the teacher employed enabled the student to compose collaboratively with the teacher, and in this collaborative composing, to capture ideas that she later used in her independent writing.