Peer feedback content and sender's competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency?

By Jan-Willem Strijbos, Susanne Narciss, Katrin Dünnebier. 2010

374 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Developmental and Educational Psychology, Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e4ba04da213649429c20759f0254eb08b7b92bd9

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

The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: a Meta-Analysis (2018, background): “Therefore, the authors cautioned that the share of (quasi)experimental studies was small and stressed the need for more controlled studies with specific variable descriptions (see also Topping 1998, 2010; Strijbos and Sluijsmans 2010).”
Peer assessment as collaborative learning: A cognitive perspective (2010, background): “, 2010) and outcomes of peer assessment (e.g., peer assessment skills or learning performance; Strijbos et al., 2010; Van Zundert et al., 2010).”
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. 2010) of peer assessment on s”
From feedback to revisions: Effects of feedback features and perceptions (2020, methodology): “However, contrary to the present study, Strijbos et al. (2010) did not find correlations between students’ perception of feedback usefulness and their revision behaviors.”
The Effects of Providing and Receiving Peer Feedback on Writing Performance and Learning of Secondary School Students (2020, methodology): “Since the two approaches are equivalent in this context and expectation maximization is already familiar in peer feedback research (e.g., Strijbos et al., 2010), we reported the findings using EM for missing values.”
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.”
Peer reviewers learn from giving comments (2011, background): “However, unlike experienced writers, novice writers lack the ability to view their writing from the perspective of a reader ( Sommers 1980 ).”
The effects of feedback on achievement, interest and self-evaluation: the role of feedback’s perceived usefulness (2014, methodology): “…finding on Hypothesis 1 (students perceive process-oriented feedback as more useful than grade-oriented feedback) is consistent with results of previous studies (e.g., Strijbos et al., 2010; Van der Kleij et al., 2012), indicating a comparatively high perceived usefulness of elaborated feedback.”
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): “However, it cannot be expected that every student will offer high-quality feedback because this requires high-level cognitive processing (Strijbos et al. 2010); students need to be capable of dealing with specific assessment criteria to judge a peer’s performance (Gielen and De Wever 2015).”