Peer Feedback Improves Students’ Academic Self-Concept in Higher Education

Research in Higher Education

Volumn 61, Issue 6, 2020, Pages 706-724

  Simonsmeier, Bianca A ^a   Peiffer, Henrike ^a   Flaig, Maja ^a   Schneider, Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TRIER   (Germany)

Author keywords

Academic self concept; Academic writing; Higher education; Peer feedback

Indexed keywords

EID: 85083366422     PISSN: 03610365     EISSN: 1573188X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11162-020-09591-y     Document Type: Article

References (89)

1. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57(12), 1060–1073. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.57.12.1060
2. Arens, A. K., Bodkin-Andrews, G., Craven, R. G., & Yeung, A. S. (2014). Self-concept of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian students: Competence and affect components and relations to achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 32, 93–103. DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2014.03.019
3. Baadte, C., & Schnotz, W. (2014). Feedback effects on performance, motivation and mood: Are they moderated by the learner's self-concept? Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 58(5), 570–591. 10.1080/00313831.2013.781059. DOI: 10.1080/00313831.2013.781059
4. Baker, K. M. (2016). Peer review as a strategy for improving students’ writing process. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(3), 1–14. 10.1177/1469787416654794. DOI: 10.1177/1469787416654794
5. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
6. Bargh, J. A., & Schul, Y. (1980). On the cognitive benefits of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(5), 593–604. 10.1037/0022-0663.72.5.593. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.72.5.593
7. Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5, 7–74. 10.1080/0969595980050102. DOI: 10.1080/0969595980050102
8. Bloom, A. J., & Hautaluoma, J. E. (1987). Effects of message valence, communicator credibility, and source anonymity on reactions to peer feedback. The Journal of Social Psychology, 127(4), 329–338. DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1987.9713712
9. Bong, M., & Skaalvik, E. M. (2003). Academic self-concept and self-efficacy: How different are they really? Educational Psychological Review, 15(1), 1–40. 10.1023/A:1021302408382. DOI: 10.1023/A:1021302408382
10. Bouchey, H. A., & Harter, S. (2005). Reflected appraisals, academic self-perceptions, and math/science performance during early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), 673–686. 10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.673. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.97.4.673
11. Brown, S. (2010). Afterword. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 347–349. 10.1080/02602931003690835. DOI: 10.1080/02602931003690835
12. Brunner, M., Keller, U., Dierendonck, C., Reichert, M., Ugen, S., Fischbach, A., et al. (2010). The structure of academic self-concepts revisited: The nested Marsh/Shavelson model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 964–981. 10.1037/a0019644. DOI: 10.1037/a0019644
13. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: a theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281. 10.2307/1170684. DOI: 10.2307/1170684
14. Byrne, B. M. (1984). The general/academic self-concept nomological network: A review of construct validation research. Review of Educational Research, 54(3), 427–456. 10.3102/00346543054003427. DOI: 10.3102/00346543054003427
15. Byrne, B. M., & Gavin, D. A. (1996). The Shavelson model revisited: Testing for the structure of academic self-concept across pre-, early, and late adolescents. Educational Psychology, 88(2), 215–228. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.88.2.215
16. Cartney, P. (2010). Exploring the use of peer assessment as a vehicle for closing the gap between feedback given and feedback used. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 551–564. 10.1080/02602931003632381. DOI: 10.1080/02602931003632381
17. Chen, S. K., Yeh, Y. C., Hwang, F. M., & Lin, S. S. (2013). The relationship between academic self-concept and achievement: A multicohort–multioccasion study. Learning and Individual Differences, 23, 172–178. 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.07.021. DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2012.07.021
18. Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2011). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 629–643. 10.1007/s11251-010-9146-1. DOI: 10.1007/s11251-010-9146-1
19. Chodkiewicz, A. R., & Boyle, C. (2014). Exploring the contribution of attribution retraining to student perceptions and the learning process. Educational Psychology in Practice, 30(1), 78. 10.1080/02667363.2014.880048. DOI: 10.1080/02667363.2014.880048
20. Costello, J., & Crane, D. (2013). Technologies for learner-centered feedback. Open Praxis, 5(3), 217–225. DOI: 10.5944/openpraxis.5.3.63
21. Craven, R. G., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (1991). Effects of internally focused feedback and attributional feedback on enhancement of academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 17–27. 10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.17. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.83.1.17
22. Dempsey, M. S., PytlikZillig, L. M., & Bruning, R. H. (2009). Helping preservice teachers learn to assess writing: Practice and feedback in a Web-based environment. Assessing Writing, 14(1), 38–61. 10.1016/j.asw.2008.12.003. DOI: 10.1016/j.asw.2008.12.003
23. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 109–132. 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
24. Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83(1), 70–120. 10.3102/0034654312474350. DOI: 10.3102/0034654312474350
25. Falchikov, N. (2001). Learning together: Peer tutoring in higher education. London: Psychology Press.
26. Falchikov, N., & Goldfinsh, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287–322. 10.3102/00346543070003287. DOI: 10.3102/00346543070003287
27. Fedor, D. B., Davis, W. D., Maslyn, J. M., & Mathieson, K. (2001). Performance improvement efforts in response to negativefeedback: The roles of source power and recipientself-esteem. Journal of Management, 27, 79–97. DOI: 10.1177/014920630102700105
28. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(117), 140. 10.1177/001872675400700202. DOI: 10.1177/001872675400700202
29. Gielen, S., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., Struyven, K., & Smeets, S. (2011). Goals of peer assessment and their associated quality concepts. Studies in Higher Education. 10.1080/03075071003759037. DOI: 10.1080/03075071003759037
30. Gogol, K., Brunner, M., Martin, R., Preckel, F., & Goetz, T. (2017). Affect and motivation within and between school subjects: Development and validation of an integrative structural model of academic self-concept, interest, and anxiety. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 46–65. DOI: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.11.003
31. Guay, F., Larose, S., & Boivin, M. (2004). Academic self-concept and educational attainment level: A ten-year longitudinal study. Self and Identity, 3(1), 53–68. 10.1080/13576500342000040. DOI: 10.1080/13576500342000040
32. Hattie, J. A. (2015). The applicability of visible learning to higher education. Scholarship of teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(1), 79–91. 10.1037/stl0000021. DOI: 10.1037/stl0000021
33. Hattie, J. A., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. 10.3102/003465430298487. DOI: 10.3102/003465430298487
34. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
35. HEFCE. (2010). Effective practice in a digital age: A guide to technology-enhanced assessment and feedback. Retrieved from https://www.webarchive.org.uk/wayback/archive/20140614115719/http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearning/digiassass_eada.pdf
36. Jansen, M., Schroeders, U., Lüdtke, O., & Marsh, H. W. (2015). Contrast and assimilation effects of dimensional comparisons in five subjects: An extension of the I/E model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(4), 1086–1101. 10.1037/edu0000021. DOI: 10.1037/edu0000021
37. Kim, M. (2009). The impact of an elaborated assessee’s role in peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34, 105–114. 10.1080/02602930801955960. DOI: 10.1080/02602930801955960
38. 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), 154–284. 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
39. Köller, O., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2006). Zum Zusammenspiel von schulischer Leistung, Selbstkonzept und Interesse in der gymnasialen Oberstufe. Zeitschrift für pädagogische Psychologie, 20(1/2), 27–39. 10.1024/1010-0652.20.12.27. DOI: 10.1024/1010-0652.20.12.27
40. Lechermeier, J., & Fassnacht, M. (2018). How do performance feedback characteristics influence recipients’ reactions? A state-of-the-art review on feedback source, timing, and valence effects. Management Review Quarterly, 68(2), 145–193. 10.1007/s11301-018-0136-8. DOI: 10.1007/s11301-018-0136-8
41. Liu, N.-F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290. 10.1080/13562510600680582. DOI: 10.1080/13562510600680582
42. Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2008). Feedback on assessment: Students’ perceptions of quality and effectiveness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33, 263–275. 10.1080/02602930701292548. DOI: 10.1080/02602930701292548
43. 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 Landuage Writing, 18(1), 30–43. DOI: 10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002
44. Marcoulides, G. A., & Simkin, M. G. (1995). The consistency of peer review in student writing projects. Journal of Business Education, 15(2), 118–141. 10.1080/08832323.1995.10117753. DOI: 10.1080/08832323.1995.10117753
45. Maringe, F. (2010). Leading learning: Enhancing the learning experience of university students through anxiety auditing. Education, Knowledge, and Economy, 4, 15–31. 10.1080/17496891003696470. DOI: 10.1080/17496891003696470
46. Marsh, H. W. (1986). Verbal and math self-concepts: An internal/external frame of reference model. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 129–149. 10.2307/1163048. DOI: 10.2307/1163048
47. Marsh, H. W. (1990). The causal ordering of academic self-concept and academic achievement: A multiwave, longitudinal panel analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 646–656. 10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.646. DOI: 10.1037/0022-0663.82.4.646
48. Marsh, H. W., Abduljabbar, A. S., Parker, P. D., Morin, A. J., Abdelfattah, F., Nagengast, B., et al. (2015). The internal/external frame of reference model of self-concept and achievement relations: Age-cohort and cross-cultural differences. American Educational Research Journal, 52(1), 168–202. 10.3102/0002831214549453. DOI: 10.3102/0002831214549453
49. Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K.-T. (2003). Big-Fish-Little-Pond effect on academic self-concept: A cross-cultural (26-country) test of the negative effects of academically selective schools. American Psychologist, 58(5), 364–376. 10.1037/0003-066X.58.5.364. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.58.5.364
50. Marsh, H. W., Martin, A. J., Yeung, A. S., & Craven, R. G. (2017). Competence self-perceptions. In A. J. Elliot, C. Dweck, & D. S. Yaeger (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation. Theory and application (pp. 85–115). New York: The Guildford Pressq.
51. Marsh, H. W., & O'Neill, R. (1984). Self description questionnaire III: The construct validity of multidimensional self-concept ratings by late adolescents. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21(3), 153–174. 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1984.tb00227.x. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-3984.1984.tb00227.x
52. Marsh, H. W., & Shavelson, R. J. (2010). Self-concept: Its multifaceted, hierarchical structure. Educational Psychologist, 20(3), 107–123. 10.1207/s15326985ep2003_1. DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep2003_1
53. Marsh, H. W., Trautwein, U., Lüdtke, O., Köller, O., & Baumert, J. (2005). Academic self-concept, interest, grades, and standardized test scores: Reciprocal effects models of causal ordering. Child Development, 76(2), 397–416. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00853.x. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00853.x
54. Möller, J., & Marsh, H. W. (2013). Dimensional comparison theory. Psychological Review, 120(3), 544–560. 10.1037/a0032459. DOI: 10.1037/a0032459
55. Möller, J., Pohlmann, B., Köller, O., & Marsh, H. W. (2009). A meta-analytic path analysis of the internal/external frame of reference model of academic achievement and academic self-concept. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1129–1167. 10.3102/003465-4309337522. DOI: 10.3102/003465-4309337522
56. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017) Supporting students' college success: The role of assessment of intrapersonal and interpersonal competencies. Retrieved from Washington DC
57. Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37, 375–401. 10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x. DOI: 10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x
58. Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 501–517. 10.1080/02602931003786559. DOI: 10.1080/02602931003786559
59. Nicol, D., & MacFarlane-Dick, D. (2005). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. 10.1080/03075070600572090. DOI: 10.1080/03075070600572090
60. Nilson, L. B. (2003). Improving student peer feedback. College Teaching, 51(1), 34–38. 10.1080/87567550309596408. DOI: 10.1080/87567550309596408
61. Núnez, J. C., González-Pienda, J. A., González-Pumariega, S., Roces, C., Alvarez, L., González, P.,…, Rodríguez, S. (2005). Subgroups of attributional profiles in students with learning difficulties and their relation to self-concept and academic goals. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(2), 86–97. 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00124.x. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00124.x
62. O'Mara, A. J., Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., & Debus, R. L. (2006). Do self-concept interventions make a difference? A synergistic blend of construct validation and meta-analysis. Educational Psychologist, 41(3), 181–206. 10.1207/s15326985ep4103_4. DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep4103_4
63. Piech, C., Huang, J., Chen, Z., Do, C., Ng, A., & Koller, D. (2013). Tuned models of peer assessment in MOOCs. Retrieved from https://web.stanford.edu/~cpiech/bio/papers/tuningPeerGrading.pdf
64. Pinquart, M., Juang, L. P., & Silbereisen, R. K. (2003). Self-efficacy and successful school-to-work transition: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(3), 329–346. 10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00031-3. DOI: 10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00031-3
65. Pinxten, M., Marsh, H. W., De Fraine, B., Van Den Noortgate, W., & Van Damme, J. (2014). Enjoying mathematics or feeling competent in mathematics? Reciprocal effects on mathematics achievement and perceived math effort expenditure. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(1), 152–174. 10.1111/bjep.12028. DOI: 10.1111/bjep.12028
66. Pond, K., Ul-Haq, R., & Wade, W. (1995). Peer review: A precursor to peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 32(4), 314–323. DOI: 10.1080/1355800950320403
67. Richardson, M., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2012). Psychological correlates of university students' academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 138(2), 353–387. 10.1037/a0026838. DOI: 10.1037/a0026838
68. Robbins, S. B., Lauver, K., Le, H., Davis, D., Langley, R., & Carlstrom, A. (2004). Do psychosocial and study skill factors predict college outcomes? A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 130(2), 261–288. 10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.130.2.261
69. Roe, B. E., & Just, D. R. (2009). Internal and external validity in economics research: Tradeoffs between experiments, field experiments, natural experiments, and field data. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(5), 1266–1271. 10.1111/j.1467-8276.2009.01295.x. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8276.2009.01295.x
70. Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.
71. Rust, C. (2002). The impact of assessment on student learning: How can the research literature practically help to inform the development of departmental assessment strategies and learner-centred assessment practices? Active Learning in Higher Education, 3, 145–158. 10.1177/1469787402003002004. DOI: 10.1177/1469787402003002004
72. Schiefele, U., Streblow, L., & Brinkmann, J. (2007). Aussteigen oder durchhalten. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 39(3), 127–140. 10.1026/0049-8637.39.3.127. DOI: 10.1026/0049-8637.39.3.127
73. Schneider, M., & Preckel, F. (2017). Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, Advance Online Publication. 10.1037/bul0000098. DOI: 10.1037/bul0000098
74. Skaalvik, E. M. (1997). Issues in research on self-concept (Vol. 10). New York: JAI Press.
75. Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2002). Peer assessment training in teacher education: Effects on performance and perceptions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 443–454. 10.1080/0260293022000009311. DOI: 10.1080/0260293022000009311
76. Suen, H. K. (2014). Peer assessment for massive open online courses (MOOCs). The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 10.19173/irrodl.v15i3.1680. DOI: 10.19173/irrodl.v15i3.1680
77. Taras, M. (2002). Using assessment for learning and learning from assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(6), 501–510. 10.1080/0260293022000020273. DOI: 10.1080/0260293022000020273
78. Tesser, A. (1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 181–227). New York: Academic Press.
79. Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276. 10.3102/00346543068003249. DOI: 10.3102/00346543068003249
80. Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631–645. 10.1080/01443410500345172. DOI: 10.1080/01443410500345172
81. Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 149–169. 10.1080/713611428. DOI: 10.1080/713611428
82. Trautwein, U., & Möller, J. (2016). Self-concept: Determinants and consequences of academic self-concept in school contexts. In A. A. Lipnevich, F. Preckel, & R. D. Roberts (Eds.), Psychosocial skills and school systems in the 21st century: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 187–214). Berlin: Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-28606-8_8
83. Tseng, S.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2007). On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school computer course. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1161–1174. 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.007. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.007
84. Valentine, J. C., DuBois, D. L., & Cooper, H. (2004). The relation between self-beliefs and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 111–133. 10.1207/s15326985ep3902_3. DOI: 10.1207/s15326985ep3902_3
85. Van Dijk, D., & Kluger, A. N. (2011). Task type as a moderator of positive/negativefeedback effects on motivation and performance: A regulatory focus perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 1084–1105. DOI: 10.1002/job.725
86. van Dinther, M., Dochy, F., & Segers, M. (2011). Factors affecting students’ self-efficacy in higher education. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 95–108. 10.1016/j.edurev.2010.10.003. DOI: 10.1016/j.edurev.2010.10.003
87. Vancouver, J. B., & Tischner, E. C. (2004). The effect of feedback sign on task performance depends on self-concept discrepancies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1092–1098. DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1092
88. Venables, A., & Summit, R. (2003). Enhancing scientific essay writing using peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(3), 281–290. 10.1080/1470329032000103816. DOI: 10.1080/1470329032000103816
89. Yuan, L., & Powell, S. (2013). MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education. Retrieved from https://publications.cetis.ac.uk/2013/667