Abstract
Implementing peer feedback in revisions is a complex process involving first planning to fix problems and then actual implementing feedback through revisions. Both phases are influenced by features of the peer feedback itself, but potentially in different ways, and yet prior research has not examined their separate role in planning or the mediating role of planning in the relationship of feedback features and implementation. We build on a process model to investigate whether feedback features had differing relationships to plans to ignore or act on feedback versus actual implementation of feedback in the revision, and whether planning mediated the relationship of feedback features and actual implementation. Source data consisted of peer feedback comments received, revision plans made, and revisions implemented by 125 US high school students given a shared writing assignment. Comments were coded for feedback features and implementation in the revision. Multiple regression analyses revealed that having a comment containing a specific solution or a general suggestion predicted revision plans whereas having a comment containing an explanation predicted actual implementation. Planning mediated the relationship to actual implementation for the two feedback features predicting plans, suggestion and solution. Implications for practice are discussed.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bangert-Drowns, R., Kulik, C. L., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543061002213
Benjamin, D. J., Berger, J., Johannesson, M., Nosek, B. A., Wagenmakers, E., Berk, R., Bollen, K. A., Brembs, B., Brown, L., Camerer, C., Cesarini, D., & Johnson, V. (2017). Redefine statistical significance. Nature human behaviour, 2(1), 6–10. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/mky9j
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
Cheng, K. H., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2015). Examining the role of feedback messages in undergraduate students’ writing performance during an online peer assessment activity. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 78–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.02.001
Cheng, K. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2012). Students’ interpersonal perspectives on, conceptions of and approaches to learning in online peer assessment. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 28(4), 599–618.
Chenoweth, N. A., & Hayes, J. R. (2001). Fluency in writing: generating text in L1 and L2. Written Communication, 18(1), 80–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018001004
Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2011). Learning by reviewing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 73–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021950
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.004
College Board. (2018). Program summary report. Retrieved from https://securemedia.collegeboard.org/digitalServices/pdf/research/2018/Program-Summary-Report-2018.pdf.
Cotos, E. (2014). Genre-based automated writing evaluation for L2 research writing: From design to evaluation and enhancement. Palgrave Macmillan.
Elizondo-Garcia, J., Schunn, C., & Gallardo, K. (2019). Quality of peer feedback in relation to instructional design: A comparative study in energy and sustainability MOOCs. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 1025–1040.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 365–387. https://doi.org/10.2307/356600
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. https://doi.org/10.2307/357381
Forrester, S. N., Zmora, R., Schreiner, P. J., et al. (2021). Accelerated aging: A marker for social factors resulting in cardiovascular events? SSM-Population Health. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100733
Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015). Structuring peer assessment: Comparing the impact of the degree of structure on peer feedback content. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.019
Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (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
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007
Green, L., & Myerson, J. (2004). A discounting framework for choice with delayed and probabilistic rewards. Psychological Bulletin, 130(5), 769–792. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.5.769
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Hayes, J. R., Flower, L. S., Shriver, K., Stratman, J., & Carey, L. (1987). Cognitive processes in revision. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in psycholinguistics: Reading, writing and language (pp. 176–240). Cambridge University Press.
Hughes, G. D. (2012). Teacher retention: Teacher characteristics, school characteristics, organizational characteristics, and teacher efficacy. The Journal of Educational Research, 105(4), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2011.584922
Huisman, B., Saab, N., Van Driel, J., & Van den Broek, P. (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
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
Leijen, D. A. J. (2017). A novel approach to examine the impact of web-based peer review on the revisions of L2 writers. Computers and Composition, 43, 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2016.11.005
Li, H., Xiong, Y., Zang, X., et al. (2020). Peer assessment in the digital age: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher ratings. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(2), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.999746
Lu, J., & Law, N. (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
Murphy, K. R., Myors, B., & Wolach, A. (2014). Statistical power analysis: A simple and general model for traditional and modern hypothesis tests (4th ed.). . Routledge.
Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. Van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 125–143). Erlbaum.
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x
Nguyen, H., Xiong, W., & Litman, D. (2016). Instant feedback for increasing the presence of solutions in peer reviews. Proceedings Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Demonstrations (NAACL-HLT). San Diego, CA.
Panadero, E. (2016). Is it safe? Social, interpersonal, and human effects of peer assessment: A review and future directions. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of social and human conditions in assessment (pp. 247–266). Routledge.
Panadero, E., & Alqassab, M. (2019). An empirical review of anonymity effects in peer assessment, peer feedback, peer review, peer evaluation and peer grading. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(8), 1253–1278. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1600186
Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Alqassab, M. (2018). Peer feedback used for formative purposes: Review of findings. In A. Lipnevich & J. K. Smith (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of instructional feedback.UK: Cambridge University Press.
Patchan, M. M., Schunn, C. D., & Clark, R. J. (2017). Accountability in peer assessment: examining the effects of reviewing grades on peer ratings and peer feedback. Studies in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1320374
Patchan, M. M., Schunn, C. D., & Correnti, R. 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
Sargeant, J. M., Mann, K. V., Van der Vleuten, C. P., & Metsemakers, J. F. (2009). Reflection: A link between receiving and using assessment feedback. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 14, 399–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-008-9124-4
Schunn, C. D., Godley, A. J., & DiMartino, S. (2016). The reliability and validity of peer review of writing in high school AP English class. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.525.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307313795
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.008
Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003249
Tseng, S. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2007). On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school computer course. Computers & Education, 49(4), 1161–1174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.007
van Gennip, N., Segers, M., & Tillema, H. H. (2010). Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity: The role of interpersonal variables and conceptions. Learning and Instruction, 20, 280–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.010
Voet, M., Gielen, M., Boelens, R., & De Wever, B. (2018). Using feedback requests to actively involve assesses in peer assessment: Effects on the assessor’s feedback content and assessee’s agreement with feedback. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33(1), 145–164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-017-0345-x
Wichmann, A., Funk, A., & Rummel, N. (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
Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Rowntree, J., & Parker, M. (2017). “It’d be useful, but I wouldn’t use it”: Barriers to university students’ feedback seeking and recipience. Studies in Higher Education, 42(11), 2026–2041. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1130032
Wu, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2020a). From feedback to revisions: Effects of feedback features and perceptions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101826.
Wu, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2020b). The effects of providing and receiving peer feedback on writing performance and learning of secondary school students. American Educational Research Journal, 58, 492–526. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831220945266.
Zheng, L., Zhang, X., & Cui, P. (2020). The role of technology facilitated peer assessment and supporting strategies: A meta-analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(3), 372–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1644603
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The second author is a co-inventor of the peer review system used in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix A
Peer review rubrics
Thesis Did the author include a clear, specific thesis in his or her introduction?
7—The author’s introduction includes a clear, specific thesis statement that connects Louv’s rhetorical strategies with the argument he is making about the separation between people and nature.
6—6
5—The author’s introduction includes a thesis, but the thesis does not make a specific or clear connection between Louv’s rhetorical strategies and his argument about the separation between people and nature.
4—4
3—The author’s introduction includes a thesis, but the thesis is overly general or simply a restatement of the essay prompt.
2—2
1—The author did not include a thesis in his or her introduction.
Argument Did the author accurately describe Louv’s argument about the separation between people and nature?
7—The author accurately describes all of Louv’s argument.
6—6
5—The author accurately describes most of Louv’s argument.
4—4
3—In the majority of the essay, the author misunderstands Louv’s argument.
2—2
1—The author does not address Louv’s argument and instead writes about his or her own argument about the separation between people and nature.
Rhetorical strategies What rhetorical strategies did the author analyze in his or her essay?
7—The author analyses multiple, subtle rhetorical strategies that Louv uses accurately (such as appeal to a common cause, evoking nostalgia, or other sophisticated strategies).
6—6
5—The author analyses three or more obvious rhetorical strategies that Louv uses (such as using rhetorical questions, anecdotes, or other obvious strategies).
4—4
3—The author analyses only 1-2 obvious rhetorical strategies that Louv uses (such as rhetorical questions) or misunderstands Louv’s strategies.
2—2
1—The author didn’t write about Louv’s rhetorical strategies (instead discussed a different topic, connected to personal experience, or just summarized Louv’s piece).
Evidence for claims How strong is the textual evidence for each claim about Louv’s rhetorical strategies?
7—Every claim has accurate evidence for all important aspects of the claim. Most evidence is conveyed through direct quotes.
6—6
5—5-Every claim has evidence, but some of the evidence is not accurate or not complete. Some evidence is conveyed through direct quotes.
4—4
3—Several claims are missing evidence, or most of the evidence is not accurate. Little or no evidence is conveyed through direct quotes.
2—2
1—No evidence is provided for any of the claims.
Explaining evidence Are the explanations of the textual evidence logical and thorough?
7—Explanations of all the evidence provided are thorough, logical and connected to the essay’s thesis.
6—6
5—Explanations are sufficient, but not always thorough, logical, and clearly connected to the essay’s thesis.
4—4
3—Explanations are simplistic, sometimes absent, or not clearly connected to the essay’s thesis.
2—2
1—Explanations are missing or unrelated to the prompt (such as based in personal experience).
Organization Did the author organize his or her essay logically and clearly?
7—The essay has a clear organization with a logical progression of ideas and body paragraphs that are each focused on a single argument that connects back to the thesis.
6—6
5—The essay has a clear organization and progression of ideas, but the body paragraphs may sometimes be unfocused or not clearly connected to the thesis. The organization may be simplistic with formulaic transitions and a list-like progression of ideas.
4—4
3—The organization of the essay is difficult to follow in many places due to jumps in logic, lack of transitions, repetition, and lack of focused body paragraphs that connect to the thesis.
2—2
1—The essay is very disorganized with most ideas presented in random, repetitive, or illogical ways that make the author’s argument and its connection to a thesis very difficult to understand.
Control of language How appropriate are the writing style and vocabulary for an academic essay?
7—Mature, sophisticated prose style, using specific academic terminology (such as pathos and ethos) and control of language.
6—6
5—Clear prose style with few lapses in academic word choice.
4—4
3—The prose generally conveys the writer’s ideas but is inconsistent in controlling the elements of effective writing, such as academic word choice.
2—2
1—Simplistic style and vocabulary.
Conventions How well does the paper follow the conventions (grammar, punctuation, and spelling) of Standard Written English?
7—The paper follows the conventions of Standard Written English very well with very few or no errors.
6—6
5—The paper mostly follows the conventions of Standard Written English, but has about 1-2 error per paragraph. The errors don’t interfere with your understanding the writer’s ideas.
4—4
3—The paper does not consistently follow the conventions of Standard Written English and may include up to 3-5 errors per paragraph. In places, the errors make it hard to understand the writer’s ideas.
2—2
1—In many sentences, the paper does not follow the conventions of Standard Written English. The errors make it very difficult to understand the write’s ideas in many places.
Appendix B
A typology of peer assessment in the present study
Variable | Range of variation | |
---|---|---|
1 | Curriculum area/subject | Advanced Placement Language and Composition |
2 | Objectives | Of staff and students Time saving and cognitive/affective gains |
3 | Focus | Quantitative/ qualitative/formative |
4 | Product/output | Argumentative writing |
5 | Relation to staff assessment | Supplementary |
6 | Official weight | Contribute to assessee final grade |
7 | Directionality | Reciprocal |
8 | Privacy | Anonymous |
9 | Contact | Distance |
10 | Year | Same year |
11 | Ability | Similar ability |
12 | Constellation assessors | Groups |
13 | Constellation assessed | Groups |
14 | Place | Out of class |
15 | Time | Free time |
16 | Requirement | Compulsory for assessors/assessees |
17 | Reward | Course credit |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wu, Y., Schunn, C.D. From plans to actions: A process model for why feedback features influence feedback implementation. Instr Sci 49, 365–394 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09546-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09546-5