Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: how students respond to peers’ texts of varying quality

Instructional Science

Volumn 43, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 591-614

  Patchan, Melissa M ^a   Schunn, Christian D ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

Individual differences; Peer assessment; Providing feedback; Revision skills

Indexed keywords

EID: 84938949177     PISSN: 00204277     EISSN: 15731952     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-015-9353-x     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review,111(4), 1036–1060.
2. Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C. (Eds.). (1998). The atomic components of thought. Psychology Press.
3. Charney, D. H., & Carlson, R. A. (1995). Learning to write in a genre—what student writers take from model texts. Research in the Teaching of English,29(1), 88–125.
4. Chi, M. T. H. (1996). Constructing self-explanations and scaffolded explanations in tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology,10(7), 33–49.
5. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explantions: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science,13, 145–182.
6. Cho, Y., & Cho, K. (2011). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science,39(5), 629–643.
7. Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2011). Learning by reviewing. Journal of Educational Psychology,103(1), 73–84.
8. Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education,48(3), 409–426.
9. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
10. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
11. Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research,70(3), 287–322.
12. Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly,31(2), 315–339.
13. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication,32(4), 365–387.
14. Flower, L., Hayes, J. R., Carey, L., Schriver, K., & Stratman, J. (1986). Detection, diagnosis, and the strategies of revision. College Composition and Communication,37(1), 16–55.
15. Hayes, J. R., Flower, L., Schriver, K. A., Stratman, J. F., & Carey, L. (1987). Cognitive processes in revision. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics (Vol. 2, pp. 176–240)., Reading, writing, and language learning New York: Cambridge University Press.
16. Inuzuka, M. (2005, July). Learning how to write through encouraging metacognitive monitoring: The effect of evaluating essays written by others. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Stresa, Italy.
17. Kaufman, J., & Schunn, C. (2011). Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: their origin and impact on revision work. Instructional Science,39(3), 387–406.
18. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin,119(2), 254–284.
19. Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A. L. (2010). Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology,41(3), 525–536.
20. Li, L., Liu, X., & Zhou, Y. (2012). Give and take: A re-analysis of assessor and assessee’s roles in technology-facilitated peer assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology,43(3), 376–384.
21. Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review,95(4), 492–527.
22. Lu, J., & Law, N. (2012). Online peer assessment: effects of cognitive and affective feedback. Instructional Science,40(2), 257–275.
23. Lu, J., & Zhang, Z. (2012). Understanding the effectiveness of online peer assessment: A path model. Journal of Educational Computing Research,46(3), 313–333.
24. Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing,18(1), 30–43.
25. National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation’s report card: Writing 2011. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012470.pdf.
26. Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: how different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science,37(4), 375–401.
27. Newell, A. (1994). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
28. Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive skills and their acquisition (pp. 1–55). Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
29. Patchan, M. M., Charney, D., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). A validation study of students’ end comments: Comparing comments by students, a writing instructor, and a content instructor. Journal of Writing Research,1(2), 124–152.
30. Patchan, M. M., Hawk, B., Stevens, C. A., & Schunn, C. D. (2013). The effects of skill diversity on commenting and revisions. Instructional Science,41(2), 381–405.
31. Patchan, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (under review). Understanding the benefits of receiving peer feedback: A case of matching ability in peer-review.
32. Patchan, M. M., Schunn, C. D., & Correnti, R. J. (under review). The nature of feedback—revisited: How feedback features affect students’ willingness and ability to revise.
33. Roediger, H. L. (2007). Twelve tips for reviewers. APS Observer,20(4), 41–43.
34. Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1989). The transfer of cognitive skill. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
35. Strijbos, J.-W., & Sluijsmans, D. (2010). Unravelling peer assessment: Methodological, functional, and conceptual developments. Learning and Instruction,20(4), 265–269.
36. The College Board. (2012). SAT Percentile Ranks. Retrieved from: http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/SAT-Percentile-Ranks-2012.pdf.
37. Thorndike, E. L., & Woodworth, R. S. (1901). The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. Psychological Review,8(3), 247–261.
38. Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in PEER LEARNING. Educational Psychology,25(6), 631–645.
39. Topping, K. J., Dehkinet, R., Blanch, S., Corcelles, M., & Duran, D. (2013). Paradoxical effects of feedback in international online reciprocal peer tutoring. Computers & Education,61, 225–231.
40. Wallace, D. L., & Hayes, J. R. (1991). Redefining Revision for Freshmen. Research in the Teaching of English,25(1), 54–66.
41. Wooley, R. S., Was, C., Schunn, C. D., & Dalton, D. (2008). The effects of feedback elaboration on the giver of feedback. Paper presented at the Cognitive Science, Washington DC