Two new journal articles about the impact of peer review and assessment were recently published by Dr. Chris Schunn and Dr. Yong Wu.
The Effects of Providing and Receiving Peer Feedback on Writing Performance and Learning of Secondary School Students – American Educational Research Journal
“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.”
When peers agree, do students listen? The central role of feedback quality and feedback frequency in determining uptake of feedback – Contemporary Educational Psychology
“Prior research on the complex process of revision based upon peer feedback has focused on characteristics of each piece of feedback in isolation. Multipeer feedback allows for feedback to be repeated (or not), which could be a signal of feedback quality or be especially persuasive to peers. Separately, little research has examined how well peers select more impactful and accurate peer feedback in their revisions, whether repeated or not. We analyzed almost 2,000 peer comments received by 107 students in a secondary writing course in the US to determine whether feedback quality and feedback frequency predicted feedback implementation. Controlling for other feedback features and context factors, students were much more likely to implement feedback as both feedback quality and feedback frequency increased, surprisingly with no interaction (i.e., even low-quality comments were more likely to be implemented when repeated). However, low-quality comments often partially overlapped with high-quality comments, providing a potential explanation for the lack of an interaction. Finally, consideration of feedback frequency and feedback quality provides new insights into which feedback features are actually related to implementation. The results generally allay concerns about the blind-leading-the-blind in peer feedback as well as pushing for peer feedback arrangements that produce more overlapping comments.”