Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The mechanism and effect of class-wide peer feedback on conceptual knowledge improvement: Does different feedback type matter?

  • Published:
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Peer feedback is known to have positive effects on knowledge improvement in a collaborative learning environment. Attributed to technology affordances, class-wide peer feedback could be garnered at a wider range in the networked learning environment. However, more empirical studies are needed to explore further the effects of type and depth of feedback on knowledge improvement. In this mixed method research, 38 students underwent a computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) lesson in an authentic classroom environment. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses were conducted on the collected data. Pre- and post-test comparison results showed that students’ conceptual knowledge on adaptations improved significantly after the CSCL lesson. Qualitative analysis was conducted to examine how the knowledge improved before and after the peer feedback process. The results showed that the class-wide intergroup peer feedback supported learners, with improvement to the quality of their conceptual knowledge when cognitive capacity had reached its maximum at the group level. The peer comments that seek further clarity and suggestions prompted deeper conceptual understanding, leading to knowledge improvement. However, such types of feedback were cognitively more demanding to process. The implications of the effects of type of peer feedback on knowledge improvement and the practical implications of the findings for authentic classroom environments are discussed.

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
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data are not publicly available to preserve individuals’ privacy under the Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) Singapore.

References

  • Alqassab, M., Strijbos, J. W., & Ufer, S. (2019). Preservice mathematics teachers’ beliefs about peer feedback, perceptions of their peer feedback message, and emotions as predictors of peer feedback accuracy and comprehension of the learning task. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 139–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amara, S., Macedo, J., Bendella, F., & Santos, A. (2016). Group formation in mobile computer supported collaborative learning contexts: A systematic literature review. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 258–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borge, M., & Mercier, E. (2019). Towards a micro-ecological approach to CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 14(2), 219–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carless, D. (2019). Feedback loops and the longer-term: Towards feedback spirals. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(5), 705–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carless, D. (2022). From teacher transmission of information to student feedback literacy: Activating the learner role in feedback processes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 23(2), 143–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carless, D., Salter, D., Yang, M., & Lam, J. (2011). Developing sustainable feedback practices. Studies in Higher Education, 36(4), 395–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, C.-C., Tseng, K.-H., & Lou, S.-J. (2012a). A comparative analysis of the consistency and difference among teacher-assessment, student self-assessment and peer-assessment in a web-based portfolio assessment environment for high school students. Computers & Education, 58(1), 303–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, N., Watson, A. B., Bakerson, M. A., Williams, E. E., McGoron, F. X., & Spitzer, B. (2012). Electronic feedback or handwritten feedback: What do undergraduate students prefer and why?. Journal of Teaching and Learning with Technology, 1(1), 1–23.

  • Chen, W., Tan, J. S., & Pi, Z. (2021). The spiral model of collaborative knowledge improvement: An exploratory study of a networked collaborative classroom. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 16(1), 7–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, W., Pi, Z., Tan, J. S., & Lyu, Q. (2022). Preparing pre-service teachers for instructional innovation with ICT via co-design practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 38(5), 133–145.

  • Chen, W., Tan, J. S., Zhang, S., Pi, Z., & Lyu, Q. (2023). AppleTree system for effective computer-supported collaborative argumentation: an exploratory study. Educational technology research and development, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10258-5

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Csanadi, A., Eagan, B., Kollar, I., Shaffer, D. W., & Fischer, F. (2018). When coding-and-counting is not enough: Using epistemic network analysis (ENA) to analyze verbal data in CSCL research. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 13(4), 419–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Sixte, R., Mañá, A., Ávila, V., & Sánchez, E. (2020). Warm elaborated feedback. Exploring its benefits on post-feedback behaviour. Educational Psychology, 40(9), 1094–1112.

  • De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers & education, 46(1), 6–28.

  • Dillenbourg, P., Jermann, P., Khine, M. S., Saleh, I. M. (2010) New Science of Learning Technology for Classroom Orchestration. Springer, New York, NY, pp 525–552

  • Ekahitanond, V. (2013). Promoting university students’ critical thinking skills through peer feedback activity in an online discussion forum. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 59(2), 247–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan, Y., & Xu, J. (2020). Exploring student engagement with peer feedback on L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 50, 100775.

  • Farrokhnia, M., Pijeira-Díaz, H. J., Noroozi, O., & Hatami, J. (2019). Computer-supported collaborative concept mapping: The effects of different instructional designs on conceptual understanding and knowledge co-construction. Computers & Education, 142, 103640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finn, B., Thomas, R., & Rawson, K. A. (2018). Learning more from feedback: Elaborating feedback with examples enhances concept learning. Learning and Instruction, 54, 104–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fong, C. J., Schallert, D. L., Williams, K. M., Williamson, Z. H., Lin, S., Kim, Y. W., & Chen, L. H. (2021). Making feedback constructive: The interplay of undergraduates’ motivation with perceptions of feedback specificity and friendliness. Educational Psychology, 41(10), 1241–1259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrison, D. R., & Akyol, Z. (2015). Toward the development of a metacognition construct for communities of inquiry. The Internet and Higher Education, 24, 66–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, J. S., Wood, R. E., & Hendrickx, M. (2004). Feedback specificity, exploration, and learning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen, R., & Arvaja, M. (2009). Scripted collaboration and group-based variations in a higher education CSCL context. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 53(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovardas, T., Tsivitanidou, O. E., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2014). Peer versus expert feedback: An investigation of the quality of peer feedback among secondary school students. Computers & Education, 71, 133–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, J., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Jordan, R., Gray, S., Frensley, T., Newman, G., & Stern, M. J. (2018). Scientific discourse of citizen scientists: Models as a boundary object for collaborative problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 87, 480–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jeong, H., Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Jo, K. (2019). Ten years of computer-supported collaborative learning: A meta-analysis of CSCL in STEM education during 2005–2014. Educational Research Review, 28, 100284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khosa, D. K., & Volet, S. E. (2014). Productive group engagement in cognitive activity and metacognitive regulation during collaborative learning: Can it explain differences in students’ conceptual understanding? Metacognition and Learning, 9(3), 287–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., & Erkens, G. (2013). Toward a framework for CSCL research. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 1–8.

    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 

  • Lam, C., & Habil, H. (2020). Peer feedback in technology-supported learning environment: A comprehensive review. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 10(9), 762–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lara, S., Álvaro, G., Muraciole, N. & Sobrino, Á. (2016). Strategies for applying formative assessment with an iPad in an elementary school. In Proceedings of Ed Media 2016-World Conference on Educational Media and Technology (pp. 1215-1221). Vancouver, BC, Canada: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved June 22, 2023 from https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/173101/

  • Latifi, S., Noroozi, O., & Talaee, E. (2021). Peer feedback or peer feedforward? Enhancing students’ argumentative peer learning processes and outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(2), 768–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, X., Ouyang, F., & Chen, W. (2022). Examining the effect of a genetic algorithm-enabled grouping method on collaborative performances, processes, and perceptions. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 34(3), 790–819.

  • Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2008). Feedback on assessment: Students’ perceptions of quality and effectiveness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 263–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Looi, C. K., Chen, W., & Patton, C. M. (2010). Principles and enactment of rapid collaborative knowledge building in classrooms. Educational technology: The magazine for managers of change in education, 50(5), 26–31.

  • Lu, J., & Law, N. (2012). Online peer assessment: Effects of cognitive and affective feedback. Instructional Science, 40(2), 257–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, Q. (2020). Examining the role of inter-group peer online feedback on wiki writing in an EAP context. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(3), 197–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McConlogue, T. (2020). Assessment and Feedback in Higher Education: A guide for teachers. UCL Press.

  • Meyer, B. J., Wijekumar, K., Middlemiss, W., Higley, K., Lei, P. W., Meier, C., & Spielvogel, J. (2010). Web-based tutoring of the structure strategy with or without elaborated feedback or choice for fifth-and seventh-grade readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(1), 62–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Misiejuk, K., Wasson, B., & Egelandsdal, K. (2021). Using learning analytics to understand student perceptions of peer feedback. Computers in Human Behavior, 117, 106658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, C., & Teather, S. (2013). Engaging students in peer review: Feedback as learning. Issues in Educational Research, 23(2), 196-211.

  • Papadopoulos, P. M., Demetriadis, S. N., Weinberger, A. (2013). Make it explicit: Improving collaboration through increase of script coercion. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(4), 383–398. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12014

  • Park, J.-A., Johnson, D. A., Moon, K., & Lee, J. (2019). The interaction effects of frequency and specificity of feedback on work performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 39(3–4), 164–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. (2003). King Arthur's round table: How collaborative conversations create smart organizations. John Wiley & Sons.

  • Prins, F. J., Sluijsmans, D. M., Kirschner, P. A., & Strijbos, J. W. (2005). Formative peer assessment in a CSCL environment: A case study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 417–444.

  • Renkl, A., Mandl, H., & Gruber, H. (1996). Inert knowledge: Analyses and remedies. Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 115–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B., Siegler, R. S., & Alibali, M. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J. (2013). Special issue on CSCL: Discussion. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 67–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salmon, A. K. (2010). Making thinking visible through action research. Early Childhood Education, 39(1), 15–21.

  • Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(3), 265–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, D. W., & Ruis, A. R. (2017). Epistemic network analysis: a worked example of theory-based learning analytics. https://doi.org/10.18608/hla17.015

  • Shaffer, D. W., Collier, W., & Ruis, A. R. (2016). A tutorial on epistemic network analysis: Analyzing the structure of connections in cognitive, social, and interaction data. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(3), 9–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D., Dwyer, N., Medina, R., & Vatrapu, R. (2010). A framework for conceptualizing, representing, and analyzing distributed interaction. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(1), 5–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suthers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective meaning making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(3), 315–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tai, J.H.-M., Canny, B. J., Haines, T. P., & Molloy, E. K. (2016). The role of peer-assisted learning in building evaluative judgement: Opportunities in clinical medical education. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 21(3), 659–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, J. S., & Chen, W. (2022). Peer feedback to support collaborative knowledge improvement: What kind of feedback feed-forward? Computers & Education, 187, 104467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tao, P.-K., & Gunstone, R. F. (1999). Conceptual change in science through collaborative learning at the computer. International Journal of Science Education, 21(1), 39–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolmie, A. K., Topping, K. J., Christie, D., Donaldson, C., Howe, C., Jessiman, E., ... & Thurston, A. (2010). Social effects of collaborative learning in primary schools. Learning and Instruction, 20(3), 177–191.

  • Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 20–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. (2018). Using peer assessment to inspire reflection and learning. Routledge.

  • Van der Kleij, F. M., Feskens, R. C., & Eggen, T. J. (2015). Effects of feedback in a computer-based learning environment on students’ learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 475–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Leeuwen, A., & Janssen, J. (2019). A systematic review of teacher guidance during collaborative learning in primary and secondary education. Educational Research Review, 27(1), 71–89.

  • van Popta, E., Kral, M., Camp, G., Martens, R. L., & Simons, P. R. J. (2017). Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider. Educational Research Review, 20(1), 24–34.

  • Wen, Y., Looi, C.-K., & Chen, W. (2011). Towards a model for rapid collaborative knowledge improvement in classroom language learning. In H. Spada, G. Stahl, N. Miyake & N. Law (Eds.), Proceedings of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2011 (Part 2, pp. 836–840). Hong Kong, China: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

  • Wu, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2020a). From feedback to revisions: Effects of feedback features and perceptions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 101826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2020b). When peers agree, do students listen? The central role of feedback quality and feedback frequency in determining uptake of feedback. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 62, 101897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2021). From plans to actions: A process model for why feedback features influence feedback implementation. Instructional Science, 49(3), 365–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zong, Z., Schunn, C. D., & Wang, Y. (2021). What aspects of online peer feedback robustly predict growth in students’ task performance? Computers in Human Behavior, 124, 106924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Please refer to the acknowledgements attachment.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ministry of Education, Singapore, Singapore

    Jesmine S. H. Tan

  2. National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

    Wenli Chen, Junzhu Su & Guo Su

Authors
  1. Jesmine S. H. Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wenli Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Junzhu Su
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Guo Su
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jesmine S. H. Tan.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tan, J.S.H., Chen, W., Su, J. et al. The mechanism and effect of class-wide peer feedback on conceptual knowledge improvement: Does different feedback type matter?. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn 18, 393–424 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-023-09390-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-023-09390-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation