Peer feedback is frequently implemented with academic writing tasks in higher education. However, a quantitative synthesis is still lacking for the impact that peer feedback has on students’... Show morePeer feedback is frequently implemented with academic writing tasks in higher education. However, a quantitative synthesis is still lacking for the impact that peer feedback has on students’ writing performance. The current study conveyed two types of observations. First, regarding the impact of peer feedback on writing performance, this study synthesized the results of 24 quantitative studies reporting on higher education students’ academic writing performance after peer feedback. Engagement in peer feedback resulted in larger writing improvements compared to (no-feedback) controls (g = 0.91 [0.41, 1.42]) and compared to self-assessment (g = 0.33 [0.01, 0.64]). Peer feedback and teacher feedback resulted in similar writing improvements (g = 0.46 [-0.44, 1.36]). The nature of the peer feedback significantly moderated the impact that peer feedback had on students’ writing improvement, whereas only a theoretically plausible, though non-significant moderating pattern was found for the number of peers that students engaged with. Second, this study shows that the number of well-controlled studies into the effects of peer feedback on writing is still low, indicating the need for more quantitative, methodologically sound research in this field. Findings and implications are discussed both for higher education teaching practice and future research approaches and directions. Show less
This thesis investigates the relation between peer feedback and higher education students’ writing performance through a quantitative lens. In doing so, it aims to advance our knowledge on the... Show moreThis thesis investigates the relation between peer feedback and higher education students’ writing performance through a quantitative lens. In doing so, it aims to advance our knowledge on the extent to which peer feedback impacts students’ academic writing, and on how specific aspects of task design relate to student performance. First, a meta-analysis was conducted to synthesize the available evidence regarding the impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ writing performance. To date, the number of well-controlled, quantitative studies still appears scarce. Further, peer feedback appeared to be more effective than self-assessment and comparable with teacher feedback. Second, three empirical studies were conducted to investigate the impact of specific elements of peer feedback task-design. In an on-campus course, same-ability matching and different-ability matching yielded similar results. Online (in a MOOC), peer reviewers’ ability related positively to participants’ writing performance. The third empirical study showed that providing peer feedback can be as beneficial to students’ writing performance as receiving peer feedback. The final chapter describes a questionnaire to assess students’ peer feedback beliefs, which can support teaching staff and researchers in monitoring the acceptance of and – hence – the potential effectiveness of peer feedback as an instructional method. Show less
Huisman, B.A.; Saab, N.; Driel, J.H. van; Broek, P.W. van den 2018
Within the higher education context, peer feedback is frequently applied as an instructional method. Research on the learning mechanisms involved in the peer feedback process has covered aspects of... Show moreWithin the higher education context, peer feedback is frequently applied as an instructional method. Research on the learning mechanisms involved in the peer feedback process has covered aspects of both providing and receiving feedback. However, a direct comparison of the impact that providing and receiving peer feedback has on students’ writing performance is still lacking. The current study compared the writing performance of undergraduate students (N = 83) who either provided or received anonymous written peer feedback in the context of an authentic academic writing task. In addition, we investigated whether students’ peer feedback perceptions were related to the nature of the peer feedback they received and to writing performance. Results showed that both providing and receiving feedback led to similar improvements of writing performance. The presence of explanatory comments positively related both to how adequate students perceived the peer feedback to be, as well as to students’ willingness to improve based upon it. However, no direct relation was found between these peer feedback perceptions and students’ writing performance increase. Show less
Huisman, B.A.; Saab, N.; Driel, J. van; Broek, P. van den 2018
Within the higher education context, peer feedback is frequently applied as an instructional method. Research on the learning mechanisms involved in the peer feedback process has covered aspects of... Show moreWithin the higher education context, peer feedback is frequently applied as an instructional method. Research on the learning mechanisms involved in the peer feedback process has covered aspects of both providing and receiving feedback. However, a direct comparison of the impact that providing and receiving peer feedback has on students’ writing performance is still lacking. The current study compared the writing performance of undergraduate students (N = 83) who either provided or received anonymous written peer feedback in the context of an authentic academic writing task. In addition, we investigated whether students’ peer feedback perceptions were related to the nature of the peer feedback they received and to writing performance. Results showed that both providing and receiving feedback led to similar improvements of writing performance. The presence of explanatory comments positively related both to how adequate students perceived the peer feedback to be, as well as to students’ willingness to improve based upon it. However, no direct relation was found between these peer feedback perceptions and students’ writing performance increase. Show less
Huisman, B.A.; Saab, N.; Driel, J.H. van; Broek, P.W. van den 2017
There does not appear to be consensus on how to optimally match students during the peer feedback process: with same-ability peers (homogeneously) or different-ability peers (heterogeneously). In... Show moreThere does not appear to be consensus on how to optimally match students during the peer feedback process: with same-ability peers (homogeneously) or different-ability peers (heterogeneously). In fact, there appears to be no empirical evidence that either homogeneous or heterogeneous student matching has any direct effect on writing performance. The current study addressed this issue in the context of an academic writing task. Adopting a quasi-experimental design, 94 undergraduate students were matched in 47 homogeneous or heterogeneous reciprocal dyads, and provided anonymous, formative peer feedback on each other’s draft essays. The relations between students’ individual ability or dyad composition, feedback quality and writing performance were investigated. Neither individual ability nor dyad composition directly related to writing performance. Also, feedback quality did not depend on students’ individual ability or dyad composition, although trends in the data suggest that high-ability reviewers provided more content-related feedback. Finally, peer feedback quality was not related to writing performance, and authors of varying ability levels benefited to a similar extent from peer feedback on different aspects of the text. The results are discussed in relation to their implications for the instructional design of academic writing assignments that incorporate peer feedback. Show less
Huisman, B.A.; Saab, N.; Driel, J.H. van; Broek, P.W. van den 2017
There does not appear to be consensus on how to optimally match students during the peer feedback phase: with same-ability or different-ability peers. The current study explored this issue in the... Show moreThere does not appear to be consensus on how to optimally match students during the peer feedback phase: with same-ability or different-ability peers. The current study explored this issue in the context of an academic writing task. Adopting a quasi-experimental design, 94 undergraduate students provided anonymous peer feedback on each other’s draft essays. The relations between students’ ability match, feedback quality, and writing performance were investigated. Surprisingly, neither individual ability nor students’ ability match directly related to writing performance, and feedback quality did not depend on students’ ability match. Also, peer feedback quality was not related to writing performance, and authors of varying ability levels benefited to a similar extent from peer feedback on different aspects of the text. Show less
In a relatively short period of time, massive open online courses (MOOCs) have become aconsiderable topic of research and debate, and the number of available MOOCs is rapidlygrowing. Along with... Show moreIn a relatively short period of time, massive open online courses (MOOCs) have become aconsiderable topic of research and debate, and the number of available MOOCs is rapidlygrowing. Along with issues of formal recognition and accreditation, this growth in thenumber of MOOCs being developed increases the relevance of assessment quality. Withinthe context of a typical xMOOC, the current study focuses on peer assessment of essayassignments. In the literature, two contradicting theoretical arguments can be found: thatlearners should be matched with same-ability peers (homogeneously) versus that studentsshould be matched with different-ability peers (heterogeneously). Considering thesearguments, the relationship between peer reviewers’ ability and authors’ essayperformance is explored. Results indicate that peer reviewers’ ability is positively related toauthors’ essay performance. Moreover, this relationship is only established for intermediateand high ability authors; essay performance of lower ability authors appeared not to berelated to the ability of their reviewing peers. Results are discussed in relation to thematching of learners and instructional design of peer assessment in MOOCs. Show less
Open online distance learning in higher education has quickly gained popularity, expanded, and evolved, with Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) as the most recent development. New web technologies... Show moreOpen online distance learning in higher education has quickly gained popularity, expanded, and evolved, with Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) as the most recent development. New web technologies allow for scalable ways to deliver video lecture content, implement social forums and track student progress in MOOCs. However, we remain limited in our ability to assess complex and open-ended student assignments. In this paper, we present a study on various forms of assessment and their relationship with the final exam score. In general, the reliability of both the self-assessments and the peer assessments was high. Based on low correlations with final exam grades as well as with other assessment forms, we conclude that self-assessments might not be a valid way to assess students’ performance in MOOCs. Yet the weekly quizzes and peer assessment significantly explained differences in students’ final exam scores, with one of the weekly quizzes as the strongest explanatory variable. We suggest that both self-assessment and peer assessment would better be used as assessment for learning instead of assessment of learning. Future research on MOOCs implies a reconceptualization of education variables, including the role of assessment of students’ achievements. Show less
