Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning

By Sarah Gielen, Elien Peeters, Filip Dochy, Patrick Onghena, Katrien Struyven. 2009

643 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7fcbab7f684a4b7906a289c1cf95ef3224af9eb0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Education

Citations in the corpus

Feedback Both Helps and Hinders Learning: The Causal Role of Prior Knowledge (2016, background): “Previous studies have relied on preexisting indicators of prior knowledge (e.g., researcher-created pretests; Fyfe et al., 2012; Gielen et al., 2010; Krause et al., 2009).”
Is peer review an appropriate form of assessment in a MOOC? Student participation and performance in formative peer review (2017, background): “Marking criteria for peer reviews gielen et al. (2010) summarise criteria used to define ‘good’ qualitative feedback such as the presence of thought-provoking questions or comments, and constructive suggestions.”
Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions (2010, background): “Several other contributions in this special issue provide good examples (Cho & MacArthur, 2010; Gielen et al., 2010; Strijbos, Narciss, & Dünnebier, 2010; Van Gennip et al., 2010; Van Steendam, Rijlaarsdam, Sercu, & Van den Bergh, 2010).”
Anonymity as an instructional scaffold in peer assessment: its effects on peer feedback quality and evolution in students’ perceptions about peer assessment skills (2018, background): “Peer feedback quality can be approached in two ways: (a) in terms of accuracy, consistency across assessors, and/or concordance with teacher feedback (Van Steendam et al. 2010) or (b) in terms of content and/or style characteristics (Gielen et al. 2010).”
From feedback to revisions: Effects of feedback features and perceptions (2020, background): “Explanatory comments have been found to be positively related to students’ understanding of peer feedback and students’ willingness to respond to it (Gielen et al., 2010; Huisman et al., 2018).”
Online peer assessment: effects of cognitive and affective feedback (2011, background): “…indicates that praise is ineffective for task performance, either for students at high school level (Crooks 1988), or at college level (Ferris 1997), especially where the required performance is a cognitively demanding task (Ferris 1997; Hattie and Timperley 2007; Kluger and DeNisi 1996).”
Peer reviewers learn from giving comments (2011, background): “In this study, we found that the effects of received peer comments were limited, although previous research has indicated their positive effects (Cho and MacArthur 2010a; Gielen et al. 2010; Graham and Perin 2007; Nelson and Schunn 2009; Topping 1998).”
The Nature of Feedback: How Peer Feedback Features Affect Students' Implementation Rate and Quality of Revisions. (2016, background): “…many different ages of learners about how to provide helpful feedback often suggests including praise (Grimm, 1986; Nilson, 2003; Saddler & Andrade, 2004), and one common criterion of peer feedback quality is whether praise was offered (Gielen et al., 2010; Prins, Sluijsmans, & Kirschner, 2006).”
Peer feedback on academic writing: undergraduate students’ peer feedback role, peer feedback perceptions and essay performance (2018, background): “On the one hand, Gielen et al. (2010) found that the presence of explanations (‘justifications’) in peer feedback could raise subsequent performance of assessees in secondary education.”