The nature of feedback: how different types of peer feedback affect writing performance

By Melissa M. Nelson, Christian D. Schunn. 2009

599 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8c313139cd3de2d198dc7c700d7afe72bc21f9f9

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

Impact of AI assistance on student agency (2023, background): “Research has shown that being specific and detailed in feedback increases implementation and is more valuable than generic praises or criticisms (Henderson et al., 2019; Nelson & Schunn, 2009).”
Feedback on feedback practice: perceptions of students and academics (2017, background): “Nonetheless, Nelson and Schunn (2009) highlight a general agreement regarding what type of feedback is most helpful and why it is lacking.”
Online peer assessment: effects of cognitive and affective feedback (2011, background): “Further, research on peer assessment has amassed substantial evidence on the cognitive (Nelson and Schunn 2009; Tseng and Tsai 2007), pedagogical (Falchikov and Blythman 2001), meta-cognitive (Butler and Winne 1995; Topping 1998), and affective benefits (Strijbos et al.”
A Framework for Analyzing Feedback in a Formative Assessment System for Mathematical Modeling Problems (2012, background): “Nelson and Schunn (2009) identified feedback features in peer feedback on written work emphasizing argumentation and interpretation in a university U.S. history class.”
Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: their origin and impact on revision work (2011, background): “At the same time, research on SWoRD has not been able to link praise and mitigating language to actual improvements in students’ writing (Nelson and Schunn 2008).”
Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: how students respond to peers’ texts of varying quality (2015, methodology): “Nelson and Schunn (2009) identified several features of feedback that frequently vary across peer reviews, and these features frequently are influenced by writer ability (Patchan et al. 2009) and document quality (Patchan et al. 2013).”
Peer Feedback in Learning English Writing: Advantages and Disadvantages (2013, background): “Nelson and schunn (2009) identified two types of feedback, namely; cognitive and affective.”
To resist it or to embrace it? Examining ChatGPT’s potential to support teacher feedback in EFL writing (2023, unknown): “Different types of feedback will have different impacts on students’ writing performance (Nelson & Schunn, 2009).”
Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction (2011, background): “Although research examining these variables in association with motor skill learning is progressing, at the present time it is not yet possible to draw conclusions about the association between these variables and motor skill development.”
From feedback to revisions: Effects of feedback features and perceptions (2020, methodology): “Feedback features were found to influence receivers’ perceptions of the feedback, but the feedback perceptions were uncorrelated to their revision performance, in direct opposition to the findings of Nelson and Schunn (2009), and of Van der Pol et al. (2008).”
Supporting Learners' Agentic Engagement With Feedback: A Systematic Review and a Taxonomy of Recipience Processes (2017, background): “A study by Nelson and Schunn (2009) provided some evidence for these effects.”
Peer reviewers learn from giving comments (2011, methodology): “Several typologies of writing comments have been used (Beason 1993; Nelson and Schunn 2009; Peterson and Kennedy 2006), most of which relate to evaluation (strength vs. Peer comments 631”