Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Leveraging the potential of peer feedback in an academic writing activity through sense-making support

  • Published:
European Journal of Psychology of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The act of revising is an important aspect of academic writing. Although revision is crucial for eliminating writing errors and producing high-quality texts, research on writing expertise shows that novices rarely engage in revision activities. Providing information on writing errors by means of peer feedback has become a popular method in writing instruction. However, despite its popularity, students have difficulties in leveraging the potential of peer feedback: feedback uptake is low and students engage in little revision. Instructional support might help learners to make sense of peer feedback and to reflect on the provided information more deeply. The present study investigated the effect of sense-making support on feedback uptake as well as on revision skills, in particular problem detection and problem correction. In an experimental study, 73 university students were randomly assigned to conditions with or without sense-making support. The results indicate that feedback uptake improved concerning two out of three variables: students in the condition with sense-making support made fewer new errors and rejected more incorrect feedback comments. Students’ revision skills only improved with regard to problem detection. Overall, we were able to show that peer feedback alone might not be sufficient to make successful changes in the text and improve revision skills. Sense-making support proved to be effective to some extent and partially helped to maximize the benefits of peer feedback.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alamargot, D., & Chanquoy, L. (2001). Through the models of writing. Dordrecht-Boston- London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Allal, L., & Chanquoy, L. (2004). Revision revisited introduction. In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision and cognitive instructional processes: Studies in writing (Vol. Vol. 13, pp. 1–7). Norwell: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Berthold, K., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2007). Do learning protocols support learning strategies and outcomes? The role of cognitive and metacognitive prompts. Learning and Instruction, 17, 564–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boero, R., & Novarese, M. (2012). Feedback and learning. Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, 1282–1285.

  • Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erikson, E. H. (1959). Vertrauen gegen Urmisstrauen. Rezeption und Weiterentwicklung der Psychoanalyse . In F. Baumgart (Ed.), Entwicklungs- und Lerntheorien: Erläuterungen - Texte - Arbeitsaufgaben 2007, (pp. 87-93). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.

  • Esselborn-Krumbiegel, H. (2010). Kapitel 3-5. In H. Esselborn-Krumbiegel (Ed.), Richtig wissenschaftlich schreiben. Wissenschaftssprache in Regeln und Übungen (pp. 23–74). Paderborn: Schöningh.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falchikov, N. (1986). Product comparisons and process benefits of collaborative peer group and self-assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 11(2), 146–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 57(4), 481–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funk, A. L. (2016). Unterstützung der Reflexion beim Empfangen von Online Peer-Feedback (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://www.ub.rub.de/katalog/titel/2980650

  • Goldin, I. M., Ashley, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2012). Redesigning educational peer review interactions using computer tools: An introduction. Journal of Writing Research, 4(2), 111–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2007). Best practices in teaching planning. In S. Graham, C. A. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (pp. 119–140). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammer, R., Ronen, M., & Kohen-Vacs, D. (2010). Stressed yet motivated: Web-based peer assessed competition as an instructional approach in higher education. In K. Gomez, L. Lyons, & J. Radinsky (Eds.), Learning in the disciplines: Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the learning sciences, Vol. 1 (pp. 65–72). Chicago: IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R. (2004). What triggers revision? In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 9–20). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American Psychologist, 41, 1106–1113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, J. R., Flower, L., Schriver, K. A., Stratman, J., & Carey, L. (1987). Cognitive processes in revision. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics. Reading, writing, and language processing (Vol. Vol. II). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, 254–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koedinger, R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 239–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2010). Peer assessment as collaborative learning: A cognitive perspective. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 344–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornmeier, M. (2008). Wissenschaftlich schreiben leicht gemacht für Bachelor, Master, Dissertation. Bern, Stuttgart, Wien: Haupt Verlag.

  • Krämer, W. (1999). Wie schreibe ich eine Seminar- oder Examensarbeit? Frankfurth/Main, New York: Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruse, O. (2010). Lesen und Schreiben. Wien: Verlag Huter und Roth KG.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur, C. A., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (2006). Handbook of writing research. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moodle Pty. Ltd. (2013). Moodle (Version 2.3.3) [Learning environment software]. Retrieved from https://moodle.org/.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1972). Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs.: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proske, A., Narciss, S., & McNamara, D. (2010). Computer-based scaffolding to facilitate students development of expertise in academic writing. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors’ explanations and questions. Review of Educational Research, 77, 534–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Science, 26, 113–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (2005). Implications of cognitive load theory for multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (19-30). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

  • Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J. (2003). Self and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity and utility. In M. S. R. Segers, F. J. R. C. Dochy, & E. C. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimizing new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 55–87). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Pol, J., van den Berg, B. A. M., Admiraal, W. F., & Simons, P. R. J. (2008). The nature, reception, and use of online peer feedback in higher education. Computers and Education, 51, 1804–1817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gennip, N., Segers, M., & Tillema, H. (2010). Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity: The role of interpersonal variables and conceptions. Learning & Instruction, 20(4), 280–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & van Merriënboer, J. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning & Instruction, 20, 270–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zariski, A. (1996). Student peer assessment in tertiary education: Promise, perils and practice. Proceedings of the 5th annual teaching learning forum, (Perth: Murdoch). In J. Abbott & L. Willcoxson (Eds.), Teaching and learning within and across disciplines (pp. 189–200). Murdoch: Perth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, B. J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the German-Israeli Foundation for Scientific Research and Development (1090-25.4/2010). Special thanks to our project partners Miky Ronen, Moshe Leiba, Dan Kohen-Vacs, and Ronen Hammer from the Holon Institute of Technology, Israel.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Educational Psychology, Ruhr-Universitat Bochum, Universitätsstraße 150, 44780, Bochum, NRW, Germany

    Astrid Wichmann, Alexandra Funk & Nikol Rummel

Authors
  1. Astrid Wichmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alexandra Funk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nikol Rummel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Astrid Wichmann.

Additional information

Dr. Astrid Wichmann. Institute of Educational Research, Ruhr University Bochum, Universitätsstraße 150, GA 1/53, 44801 Bochum, Email: astrid.wichmann@rub.de

Current themes of research:

Peer Assessment (PA). Collaborative Learning. Inquiry Learning.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Wichmann, A., & Timpe, S. (2015). Can dynamic visualizations with variable control enhance the acquisition of intuitive knowledge? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1-12.

Wichmann, A., & Rummel, N. (2013). Improving revision in wiki-based writing: Coordination pays off. Computers & Education, 62(0), 262-270.

Wichmann, A., & Leutner, D. (2009). Inquiry Learning: multilevel support with respect to inquiry, explanations and regulation during an inquiry cycle. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 23(2), 117-127.

Dr. Alexandra Funk. Institute of Educational Research, Ruhr University Bochum, Universitätsstraße 150, GA 1/53, 44801 Bochum, Email: alexandra.funk@rub.de

Current themes of research:

Peer Assessment. Academic Writing. Collaborative Learning.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Funk, A. L. (2012, Sept). scaffolding sense-making activities and providing knowledge awareness to enhance students’ feedback uptake in online peer assessment. Paper presented at the Seventh European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning, Saarbrücken, Germany.

Funk, A. L., Wichmann, A., Rummel, N. (2013). Unterstützung der Aufnahme von Feedback im Online-Peer Assessment [Abstract]. Abstractband: Gemeinsam verschieden - 14. Fachgruppentagung Pädagogische Psychologie, 18-19.

Funk, A. L., Wichmann, A., Rummel, N. (2014). Unterstützung der Umsetzung von Feedback und Textüberarbeitungskompetenz im Online-Peer Assessment [Abstract]. Abstractband: 49. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie, 120.

Prof. Dr. Nikol Rummel. Institute of Educational Research, Ruhr University Bochum, Universitätsstraße 150, GA 1/162, 44801 Bochum, Email: nikol.rummel@rub.de

Current themes of research:

Productive Failure. Collaboration scripts. Collaborative Learning.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Rummel, N., Walker, E. & Aleven, V. (2016). Different futures of adaptive collaborative learning support. Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(2), 784-795.

Loibl, K., & Rummel, N. (2015). Productive failure as strategy against the double curse of incompetence. Learning: research and practice, 1(2), 113–121.

Rau, M., Aleven, V., & Rummel, N. (2015). Successful learning with multiple graphical representations and self-explanation prompts. The journal of educational psychology, 107(1), 30–46.

Loibl, K., & Rummel, N. (2014). Knowing what you do not know makes failure productive. Learning and instruction, 34, 74–85.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wichmann, A., Funk, A. & Rummel, N. Leveraging the potential of peer feedback in an academic writing activity through sense-making support. Eur J Psychol Educ 33, 165–184 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-017-0348-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-017-0348-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation