Research has shown that engaging students in peer feedback can help students revise documents and improve their writing skills. But the mechanistic pathways by which skills develop have remained untested: Does receiving and providing feedback lead to learning because it produces more extensive revision behavior or is such immediate implementation of feedback unnecessary? These pathways were tested through analyses of the relationships between feedback provided and received, feedback implemented and overall revisions, and improved writing quality in a new article. Overall, the number of revisions predicted growth in writing ability, and both amount of received and provided feedback were associated with being more likely to make revisions. However, providing feedback was also directly related to growth in writing ability.
AnthonyJ. V.JoanneM. G. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic. Family Medicine, 37(5), 360–363.
5.
ApplebeeA. N.LangerJ. A. (2011). A snapshot of writing instruction in middle schools and high schools. English Journal, 100(6), 14–27.
6.
AstinA. W. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. Jossey-Bass.
7.
BeasonL. (1993). Feedback and revision in writing across the curriculum classes. Research in Teaching of English, 27(4), 395–422. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40171241
8.
BelurJ.TompsonL.ThorntonA.SimonM. (2021). Interrater reliability in systematic review methodology: Exploring variation in coder decision-making. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(2), 837–865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799372
9.
BerggrenJ. (2015). Learning from giving feedback: A study of secondary-level students. ELT Journal, 69(1), 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccu036
10.
BlevinsD. P.TsangE. W. K.SpainS. M. (2015). Count-based research in management: Suggestions for improvement. Organizational Research Methods, 18(1), 47–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114549601
11.
BoudD. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/713695728
12.
ChenC. W. (2010). Graduate students’ self-reported perspectives regarding peer feedback and feedback from writing consultants. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(2), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-010-9081-5
ChoK.MacArthurC. (2011). Learning by reviewing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021950
15.
ChoK.SchunnC. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education, 48(3), 409–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.004
CouzijnM. (1999). Learning to write by observation of writing and reading processes: Effects on leaning and transfer. Learning and Instruction, 9(2), 109–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-4752(98)00040-1
19.
CoxeS.WestS. G.AikenL. S. (2009). The analysis of count data: A gentle introduction to Poisson regression and its alternatives. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(2), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802634175
20.
EricssonK. A. (2006). The influence of experience and deliberate practice on the development of superior expert performance. In EricssonK. A.CharnessN.FeltovichP. J.HoffmanR. R. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 683–703). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816796.038
21.
EricssonK. A.KrampeR. T.Tesch-RömerC. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363
GielenM.De WeverB. (2015). Structuring the peer assessment process: A multilevel approach for the impact on product improvement and peer feedback quality. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(5), 435–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12096
GrahamS.PerinD. (2007a). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.445
GreenbergK. P. (2015). Rubric use in formative assessment: A detailed behavioral rubric helps students improve their scientific writing skills. Teaching of Psychology, 42(3), 211–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628315587618
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
34.
IrvinM. J.MeeceJ. L.ByunS.FarmerT. W.HutchinsB. C. (2011). Relationship of school context to rural youth’s educational achievement and aspirations. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40(9), 1225–1242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-011-9628-8
35.
JonassenD.DavidsonM.CollinsM.CampbellJ.HaagB. B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923649509526885
36.
KelloggR. T.WhitefordA. P. (2009). Training advanced writing skills: The case for deliberate practice. Educational Psychologist, 44(4), 250–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903213600
37.
KiuharaS. A.GrahamS.HawkenL. S. (2009). Teaching writing to high school students: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 136–160. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013097
38.
KlugerA. N.DeNisiA. (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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
39.
LinS. S. J.LiuE. Z. F.YuanS. M. (2001). Web-based peer assessment: Feedback for students with various thinking-styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(1), 420–432. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0266-4909.2001.00198.x
LittleR. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198–1202. https://doi.org/10.2307/2290157
42.
LuJ. Y.LawN. (2012). Online peer assessment: Effects of cognitive and affective feedback. Instructional Science, 40(2), 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-011-9177-2
43.
LundstromK.BakerW. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002
44.
McNeishD.StapletonL. M. (2016). The effect of small sample size on two level model estimates: A review and illustration. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9287-x
NelsonM. M.SchunnC. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37(4), 375–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x
47.
NicolD.Macfarlane-DickD. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070600572090
48.
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
49.
PatchanM. M.SchunnC. D.ClarkR. (2018). Accountability in peer assessment: Examining the effects of reviewing grades on peer ratings and peer feedback. Studies in Higher Education, 43(12), 2263–2278. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1320374
50.
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), 1098–1120. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000103
PhilippakosZ. A.MacArthurC. A. (2016). The effects of giving feedback on the persuasive writing of fourth- and fifth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(4), 419–433. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.149
54.
RymerK. R. (2017). Assessing self-efficacy to improve impoverished students’ education [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Carson-Newman University.
SchunkD. H.ZimmermanB. J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self-regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(1), 7–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573560600837578
58.
SchunnC. D.GodleyA. J.DiMartinoS. (2016). The reliability and validity of peer review of writing in high school AP English classes. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.525
59.
ShroutP. E.BolgerN. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(2), 422–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422
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
Van BeuningenC. G.De JongN. H.KuikenF. (2012). Evidence on the effectiveness of comprehensive error correction in second language writing. Language Learning, 62(1), 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9922.2011.00674.x
67.
Van SteendamE.RijlaarsdamG.SercuL.Van den BerghH. (2010). The effect of instruction type and dyadic or individual emulation on the quality of higher-order peer feedback in EFL. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 316–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.009
68.
WichmannA.FunkA.RummelN. (2018). Leveraging the potential of peer feedback in an academic writing activity through sense-making support. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33(1), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-017-0348-7
69.
YangM.BadgerR.YuZ. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 179–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004
70.
YangS.HarlowL. I.PuggioniG.ReddingC. A. (2017). A comparison of different methods of zero-inflated data analysis and an application in health surveys. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 16(1), 518–543. https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1493598600
71.
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(5), 679–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017-9420-6
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
