Instructional Science

, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 375–401 | Cite as

The nature of feedback: how different types of peer feedback affect writing performance



Although providing feedback is commonly practiced in education, there is no general agreement regarding what type of feedback is most helpful and why it is helpful. This study examined the relationship between various types of feedback, potential internal mediators, and the likelihood of implementing feedback. Five main predictions were developed from the feedback literature in writing, specifically regarding feedback features (summarization, identifying problems, providing solutions, localization, explanations, scope, praise, and mitigating language) as they relate to potential causal mediators of problem or solution understanding and problem or solution agreement, leading to the final outcome of feedback implementation. To empirically test the proposed feedback model, 1,073 feedback segments from writing assessed by peers was analyzed. Feedback was collected using SWoRD, an online peer review system. Each segment was coded for each of the feedback features, implementation, agreement, and understanding. The correlations between the feedback features, levels of mediating variables, and implementation rates revealed several significant relationships. Understanding was the only significant mediator of implementation. Several feedback features were associated with understanding: including solutions, a summary of the performance, and the location of the problem were associated with increased understanding; and explanations of problems were associated with decreased understanding. Implications of these results are discussed.


Feedback Writing Peer-review Summary Solution Localization Explanation Understanding Feedback implementation 


  1. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. T. (1991). The instruction effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 218–238.Google Scholar
  2. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.) (2003). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 11, 717–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory foccus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 35–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, F. J. (1932). Knowledge of results as an incentive in school room practice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 23(7), 532–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-Explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded Writing and Rewriting in the Discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education, 48(3), 409–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Charney, D. (2006). Commenting on writing: Typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. Written Communication, 23(3), 260–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dweck, C. S., & Leggert, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ferris, D. R. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 315–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1980). Analogical problem solving. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grimm, N. (1986). Improving students’ responses to their peers’ essays. College Composition and Communication, 37(1), 91–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haswell, R. H. (2005). NCTE/CCCC’s recent war on scholarship. Written Communication, 22(2), 198–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hayes, J. R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In L. W. Gregg, & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  19. 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, Volume II: Reading, writing, and language processing (pp. 176–240). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Hull, C. L. (1935). Thorndike’s fundamentals of learning. Psychological Bulletin, 32, 807–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hyland, F., & Hyland, K. (2001). Sugaring the pill Praise and criticism in written feedback, Jouranl of Second Language Writing, 10, 185–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64(4), 349–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kellogg, R. T. (1996). A model of working memory in writing. In L. W. Gregg, & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), The science of writing (pp. 57–71). Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  24. Kieras, D. E., & Bovair, S. (1984). The role of a mental model in learning to operate a devise. Cognitive Science, 8, 255–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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), 254–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kulhavy, R. W., & Stock, W. A. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1(4), 279–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kulhavy, R. W., & Wager, W. (1993). Feedback in programmed instruction: Historical context and implications for practice. In J. V. Dempsey, & G. C. Sales (Eds.), Interactive instruction and feedback (pp. 3–20). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  28. Landis, J. R., Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lin, S. S. J., Liu, E. Z. F., & Yuan, S. M. (2001). Web-based peer assessment: Feedback for students with various thinking-styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(4), 420–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Matsumura, L. C., Patthey-Chavez, G. G., Valdes, R., & Garnier, H. (2002). Teacher feedback, writing assignment quality, and third-grade students’ revision in lower- and higher-achieving urban schools. The Elementary School Journal, 103(1), 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McCutchen, D. (1996). A capacity theory of writing: Working memory in composition. Educational Psychological Review, 8(3), 299–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miller, P. J. (2003). The effect of scoring criteria specificity on peer and self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(4), 383–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mory, E. H. (1996). Feedback research. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology (pp. 919–956). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.Google Scholar
  34. Mory, E. H. (2004). Feedback research revisited. In D.H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology Second Edition (pp. 745–783). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  35. Neuwirth, C. M., Chandhok, R., Charney, D., Wojahn, P., & Kim, L. (1994). Distributed Collaborative writing: A comparison of spoken and written modalities for reviewing and revising documents. Proceedings of the Computer-Human Interaction ‘94 Conference, April 24–28, 1994, Boston Massachusetts (pp. 51–57). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
  36. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewoods Clis, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  37. Nilson, L. B. (2003). Improving student peer feedback. College Teaching, 51(1), 34–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Novick, L. R., & Holyoak, K. J. (1991). Mathematical problem solving by analogy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(3), 398–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Olson, M. W., & Raffeld, P. (1987). The effects of written comments on the quality of student compositions and the learning of content. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 8, 273–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pressey, S. L. (1926). A simple device which gives tests and scores—and teaches. School and Society, 23, 373–376.Google Scholar
  41. Pressey, S. L. (1927). A machine for automatic teaching of drill material. School and Society, 25, 549–552.Google Scholar
  42. Roediger, H. L. (2007). Twelve Tips for Reviewers. APS Observer, 20(4), 41–43.Google Scholar
  43. Saddler, B., & Andrade, H. (2004). The writing rubric. Educational Leadership, 62(2), 48–52.Google Scholar
  44. Shah, J., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Expectancy X value effects: Regulatory focus as determinant of magnitude and direction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 447–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sternberg, R. J. (2002). On civility in reviewing. APS Observer, 15(1).Google Scholar
  46. Sugita, Y. (2006). The impact of teachers’ comment types on students’ revision. ELT Journal, 60(1), 34–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Symonds, P. M., & Chase, D. H. (1929). Practice vs. motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 20(1), 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Thorndike, E. L. (1927). The law of effect. American Journal of Psychology, 39(1/4), 212–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Toegel, G., & Conger, J. A. (2003). 360-degree assessment: Time for Reinvention. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2(3), 297–311.Google Scholar
  50. Tseng, S.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2006). On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school computer course. Computers & Education.Google Scholar
  51. Wallace, D. L., & Hayes, J. R. (1991). Redefining revision for freshman. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, 54–66.Google Scholar
  52. Wallach, H., & Henle, M. (1941). An experimental analysis of the Law of Effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 28, 340–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading and the amount of breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 420–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Learning Research and Development CenterUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Learning Research and Development CenterUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations