Prior research has suggested that the receipt of peer comments and their subsequent implementation may help to improve student’s writing performance. However, comments may vary in terms of content and subsequent effects of their implementation on writing quality. Currently, there is a lack of research investigating how comments providing praise, summary, and information about problems and solutions are related to the subsequent text revision and writing improvement. Therefore, this study examines the online peer feedback session of 187 students taking academic writing classes at a Korean university. It aims to investigate the relationship between the receipt of comments providing praise, summary, and information about problems and solutions, as well as their implementation and student writing performance. The results showed that there is no relationship between the number of received comments and student writing performance. However, the more comments students implemented, the lower their writing performance was. With regards to the type of comments, summary comments, and comments detecting problems and/or solutions were more likely to be implemented when compared with praise comments. The receipt of comments about problems and/or solutions had a significantly negative relationship with student writing performance, whereas their implementation was positively related to this variable.
CarlessD. (2022). From teacher transmission of information to student feedback literacy: Activating the learner role in feedback processes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 23(2), 143–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787420945845
2.
CarlessD.WinstoneN. (2023). Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(1), 150–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1782372
3.
ChengK. H.LiangJ. C.TsaiC. C. (2015). Examining the role of feedback messages in undergraduate students’ writing performance during an online peer assessment activity. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 78–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.02.001
CizekG. J.AndradeH. L.BennettR. E. (2019). Formative assessment: History, definition, and progress. In AndradeH. L.BennettR. E.CizekG. J. (Eds.), In Handbook of formative assessment in the disciplines (pp. 3–19). Routledge.
7.
ClaboughE. B.ClaboughS. W. (2016). Using rubrics as a scientific writing instructional method in early stage undergraduate neuroscience study. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education, 15(1), A85.
8.
FongC. J.WarnerJ. R.WilliamsK. M.SchallertD. L.ChenL.-H.WilliamsonZ. H.LinS. (2016). Deconstructing constructive criticism: The nature of academic emotions associated with constructive, positive, and negative feedback. Learning and Individual Differences, 49, 393–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.05.019
9.
GaoY.AnQ.SchunnC. D. (2023). The bilateral benefits of providing and receiving peer feedback in academic writing across varying L2 proficiency. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 77, Article 101252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2023.101252
10.
GaoY.SchunnC. D. D.YuQ. (2019). The alignment of written peer feedback with draft problems and its impact on revision in peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(2), 294–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1499075
11.
GielenS.PeetersE.DochyF.OnghenaP.StruyvenK. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 304–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007
12.
GloverC.BrownE. (2006). Written feedback for students: Too much, too detailed or too incomprehensible to be effective?Bioscience Education, 7(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.2006.07000004
HeW.GaoY. (2023). Explicating peer feedback quality and its impact on feedback implementation in EFL writing. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1177094. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1177094
15.
HenriF. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In KayeA.R. (Ed.). Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers (pp. 117–136). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-77684-7_8
16.
HuismanB.SaabN.Van DrielJ.Van Den BroekP. (2018). Peer feedback on academic writing: Undergraduate students’ peer feedback role, peer feedback perceptions and essay performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(6), 955–968. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1424318
17.
JinX.JiangQ.XiongW.FengY.ZhaoW. (2024). Effects of student engagement in peer feedback on writing performance in higher education. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(1), 128–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2081209
18.
KendallM. G. (1948). Rank correlation methods. Griffin.
19.
KermanN. T.BanihashemS. K.KaramiM.ErE.Van GinkelS.NorooziO. (2024). Online peer feedback in higher education: A synthesis of the literature. Education and Information Technologies, 29(1), 763–813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-12273-8
20.
KermanN. T.BanihashemS. K.NorooziO. (2023). The relationship among students’ attitude towards peer feedback, peer feedback performance, and uptake. In NorooziO.De WeverB. (Eds.), The power of peer learning: Fostering students’ learning processes and outcomes (pp. 347–371). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29411-2_16
21.
KermanN. T.NorooziO.BanihashemS. K.KaramiM.BiemansH. J. (2024). Online peer feedback patterns of success and failure in argumentative essay writing. Interactive Learning Environments, 32(2), 614–626. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2093914
22.
KwonK.SongD.SariA. R.KhikmatillaevaU. (2019). Different types of collaborative problem-solving processes in an online environment: Solution oriented versus problem oriented. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(8), 1277–1295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633117740395
LatifiS.NorooziO.TalaeeE. (2021). Peer feedback or peer feedforward? Enhancing students’ argumentative peer learning processes and outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(2), 768–784. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13054
25.
LeijenD. A. (2017). A novel approach to examine the impact of web-based peer review on the revisions of L2 writers. Computers and Composition, 43, 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2016.11.005
26.
LiuC. C.LiuS. J.HwangG. J.TuY. F.WangY.WangN. (2023). Engaging EFL students’ critical thinking tendency and in-depth reflection in technology-based writing contexts: A peer assessment-incorporated automatic evaluation approach. Education and Information Technologies, 28(10), 13027–13052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11697-6
27.
LuJ.LawN. (2012). Online peer assessment: Effects of cognitive and affective feedback. Instructional Science, 40, 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9177-2
28.
LuQ.ZhuX.CheongC. M. (2021). Understanding the difference between self-feedback and peer feedback: A comparative study of their effects on undergraduate students’ writing improvement. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 739962. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.739962
29.
LyuQ.ChenW.SuJ.HengK. H. J.G. (2023). Steps to implementation: The role of peer feedback inner structure on feedback implementation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(4), 572–585. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2023.2291340
30.
MorrisR.PerryT.WardleL. (2021). Formative assessment and feedback for learning in higher education: A systematic review. Review of Education, 9(3), e3292. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3292
31.
NelsonM. M.SchunnC. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37, 375–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x
32.
NicolD.ThomsonA.BreslinC. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.795518
NorooziO.BanihashemS. K.BiemansH. J.SmitsM.VervoortM. T.VerbaanC. L. (2023). Design, implementation, and evaluation of an online supported peer feedback module to enhance students’ argumentative essay quality. Education and Information Technologies, 28(10), 12757–12784. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-023-11683-y
35.
PatchanM. M.SchunnC. D. (2015). Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: How students respond to peers’ texts of varying quality. Instructional Science, 43, 591–614. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-015-9353-x
36.
PatchanM. M.SchunnC. D.CorrentiR. J. (2016). The nature of feedback: How peer feedback features affect students’ implementation rate and quality of revisions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(8), 1098. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000103
RosseelY. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
39.
ShintaniN.EllisR.SuzukiW. (2014). Effects of written feedback and revision on learners’ accuracy in using two English grammatical structures. Language Learning, 64(1), 103–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12029
40.
ShulginaG.FanguyM.ZhangH.CourtneyM.BaldwinM.CostleyJ. (2024). The moderating effects of total comments on the relationship between comment implementation and online peer-supported writing performance. Computers & Education, 219, 105104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105104
StevensD. D. (2023). Introduction to rubrics: An assessment tool to save grading time, convey effective feedback, and promote student learning. Routledge.
43.
StrijbosJ. W.NarcissS.DünnebierK. (2010). Peer feedback content and sender’s competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency?Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.008
44.
ToppingK. J. (2023). Digital peer assessment in school teacher education and development: A systematic review. Research Papers in Education, 38(3), 472–498. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2021.1961301
45.
TsengS. C.TsaiC. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.007
46.
Van PoptaE.KralM.CampG.MartensR. L.SimonsP. R.-J. (2017). Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider. Educational Research Review, 20, 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.10.003
47.
VoermanL.KorthagenF. A.MeijerP. C.SimonsR. J. (2014). Feedback revisited: Adding perspectives based on positive psychology. Implications for theory and classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 43, 91–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.06.005
48.
WuY.SchunnC. D. (2020a). From feedback to revisions: Effects of feedback features and perceptions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, Article 101826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101826
49.
WuY.SchunnC. D. (2020b). When peers agree, do students listen? The central role of feedback quality and feedback frequency in determining uptake of feedback. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 62, Article 101897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101897
50.
WuY.SchunnC. D. (2021). The effects of providing and receiving peer feedback on writing performance and learning of secondary school students. American Educational Research Journal, 58(3), 492–526. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831220945266
51.
WuY.SchunnC. D. (2023). Passive, active, and constructive engagement with peer feedback: A revised model of learning from peer feedback. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 73, Article 102160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2023.102160
52.
ZhangF.SchunnC. D.BaikadiA. (2017). Charting the routes to revision: An interplay of writing goals, peer comments, and self-reflections from peer reviews. Instructional Science, 45, 679–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9420-6
53.
ZhangH.ShulginaG.FanguyM.CostleyJ. (2022). Online peer editing: Effects of comments and edits on academic writing skills. Heliyon, 8(7). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09822
54.
ZhangZ. V.HylandK. (2022). Fostering student engagement with feedback: An integrated approach. Assessing Writing, 51, Article 100586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2021.100586
55.
ZhuQ.CarlessD. (2018). Dialogue within peer feedback processes: Clarification and negotiation of meaning. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(4), 883–897. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2018.1446417
56.
ZongZ.SchunnC. D.WangY. (2021). What aspects of online peer feedback robustly predict growth in students’ task performance?Computers in Human Behavior, 124, Article 106924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106924
57.
ZouD.XieH.WangF. L. (2023). Effects of technology enhanced peer, teacher and self-feedback on students’ collaborative writing, critical thinking tendency and engagement in learning. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 35(1), 166–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-022-09337-y
