Instructional Science

, Volume 39, Issue 5, pp 629–643 | Cite as

Peer reviewers learn from giving comments

  • Young Hoan Cho
  • Kwangsu ChoEmail author


Research on peer reviewing has revealed that comments received from peer reviewers are helpful when it comes to making revisions in an individual’s writing, but the role of providing comments to peer writers has been little explored despite the potential value of such research. In this study, we explored how student reviewers learn by reviewing peer drafts in the context of reciprocal peer reviewing. Undergraduate students in an introductory physics course participated in this study as part of their course activities. Participants wrote technical research drafts, reviewed three or four peer drafts, and revised their own drafts in the SWoRD system. A total of 3,889 comment segments were analyzed in two dimensions: (a) evaluation (strength vs. weakness) and (b) scope (surface, micro-meaning, and macro-meaning). We found that providing weakness comments for micro-meaning and strength comments for macro-meaning improved the reviewers’ writing qualities. In addition, reviewers’ initial writing skills and the quality of reviewed peer drafts influenced the types of comments given. The results are discussed, along with their implications for improved writing through reviewing.


Peer comments Peer review Writing Learning 



This study was supported by a grant from the World-Class University program (R31-2008-000-10062-0) of the Korean Ministry of Education, Science and Technology via the National Research Foundation of Korea.


  1. Althauser, R., & Darnall, K. (2001). Enhancing critical reading and writing through peer reviews: An exploration of assisted performance. Teaching Sociology, 29, 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, T., Howe, C., Soden, R., Halliday, J., & Low, J. (2001). Peer interaction and the learning of critical thinking skills in further education students. Instructional Science, 29, 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beach, R., & Friedrich, T. (2006). Response to writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 222–234). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  4. Beason, L. (1993). Feedback and revision in writing across the curriculum classes. Research in Teaching of English, 27(4), 395–422.Google Scholar
  5. Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braaksma, M. A. H., Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2002). Observational learning and the effects of model-observer similarity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 405–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braaksma, M. A. H., Rijlaarsdam, G., van den Bergh, H., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2004). Observational learning and its effects on the orchestration of writing processes. Cognition & Instruction, 22, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Butterfield, E. C., Hacker, D. J., & Albertson, L. R. (1996). Environmental, cognitive, and metacognitive influences on text revision: Assessing the evidence. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 239–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Butterfield, E. C., Hacker, D. J., & Plumb, C. (1994). Topic knowledge, linguistic knowledge, and revision processes as determinants of text revision. In E. C. Butterfield (Ed.), Children’s writing: Toward a process theory of the development of skilled writing (pp. 83–143). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  10. Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chi, M. T. H., & Bassok, M. (1989). Learning from examples via self-explanations. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 251–282). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. 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
  13. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.Google Scholar
  14. Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010a). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20, 328–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010b). Learning writing by reviewing. Journal of Educational Psychology (under review).Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Coleman, L., Jussim, L., & Isaac, J. (1991). Black students’ reactions to feedback conveyed by Black and White teachers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 460–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Conati, C., & Vanlehn, K. (2000). Toward computer-based support of meta-cognitive skills: A computational framework to coach self-explanation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 389–415.Google Scholar
  20. Couzijn, M. (1999). Learning to write by observation of writing and reading processes: Effects on learning and transfer. Learning and Instruction, 9, 109–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Crampton, C. D. (2001). The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organization Science, 12(3), 346–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. DiPardo, A., & Freedman, S. W. (1988). Peer response groups in the writing classroom: Theoretic foundations and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 58(2), 119–149.Google Scholar
  23. Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 400–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ferris, D. (1997). The influence of teacher commentary on student revision. TESOL Quarterly, 31, 315–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gick, M. L., & McGarry, S. J. (1992). Learning from mistakes: Inducing analogous solution failures to a source problem produces later successes in analogical transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18(3), 623–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 304–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Graesser, A. C., & Person, N. K. (1994). Question asking during tutoring. American Educational Research Journal, 31(1), 104–137.Google Scholar
  30. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 445–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Holliway, D. R. (2004). Through the eyes of my reader: A strategy for improving audience perspective in children’s descriptive writing. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 18, 334–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Holliway, D. R., & McCutchen, D. (2004). Audience perspective in young writers’ composing and revising: Reading as the reader. In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision of written language: Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 87–101). Amsterdam: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  34. Hull, G. (1987). The editing process in writing: A performance study of more skilled and less skilled college writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 21(1), 8–29.Google Scholar
  35. King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain. American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338–368.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research, 58, 79–97.Google Scholar
  38. 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, 525–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37(4), 375–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ohlsson, S. (1996). Learning from performance errors. Psychological Review, 103(2), 241–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Peterson, S. S., & Kennedy, K. (2006). Sixth-grade teachers’ written comments on student writing: Genre and gender influences. Written Communication, 23, 36–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing. Theory into Practice, 41, 219–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Renkl, A., Stark, R., Gruber, H., & Mandl, H. (1998). Learning from worked-out examples: The effects of example variability and elicited self-explanations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 90–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2008). Tutor learning: The role of explaining and responding to questions. Instructional Science, 36, 321–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sadler, P. M., & Good, E. (2006). The impact of self- and peer-grading on student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Siegler, R. S. (2002). Microgenetic studies of self-explanation. In N. Granott & J. Parziale (Eds.), Microdevelopment: Transition processes in development and learning (pp. 31–58). New York: Cambridge University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sommers, N. I. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced writers. College Composition and Communication, 31, 378–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Strijbos, J.-W., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2(1), 59–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249–276.Google Scholar
  53. Traxler, M. J., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (1992). Improving written communication through minimal feedback. Language and Cognitive Processes, 7, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Traxler, M. J., & Gernsbacher, M. A. (1993). Improving written communication through perspective-taking. Language and Cognitive Processes, 8, 311–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tsai, C.-C., & Liang, J.-C. (2009). The development of science activities via on-line peer assessment: The role of scientific epistemological views. Instructional Science, 37, 293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Van Steendam, E., Rijlaarsdam, G., Sercu, L., & Van den Bergh, H. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 366–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Webb, N. M., & Mastergeorge, A. M. (2003). The development of students’ helping behavior and learning in peer-directed small groups. Cognition and Instruction, 21(4), 361–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wyngaard, S., & Gehrke, R. (1996). Responding to audience: Using rubrics to teach and assess writing. The English Journal, 85(6), 67–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yang, Y.-F., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Conceptions of and approaches to learning through online peer assessment. Learning and Instruction, 20, 72–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zellermayer, M. (1989). The study of teachers’ written feedback to students’ writing: Changes in theoretical considerations and the expansion of research contexts. Instructional Science, 18, 145–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zinder (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  63. Zimmerman, B. J., & Kitsantas, A. (2002). Acquiring writing revision and self-regulatory skill through observation and emulation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 660–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (1989). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research and practice. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Information Science and Learning TechnologiesUniversity of MissouriColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Interaction ScienceSungkyunkwan UniversitySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations