Explore the vast range of titles available.

Students benefit from receiving and providing peer feedback, but the degree of participation limits the benefit. Further, students sometimes resist participation, providing few or only short comments. Prior researchers have examined the role of general attitudes toward peer feedback in limiting participation. However, little research has examined how peer feedback experiences predict the subsequent amount of feedback that students provide to peers. Data on peer feedback experiences and behaviors across multiple assignments were taken from students across two psychology courses (N = 360), two biology courses (N = 483), and one astronomy course (N = 170). The zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) regression analyses reveal that receiving fewer critical peer comments in the prior assignment, recognition for higher quality feedback in the prior assignment, and stronger performance on the current assignment predicted higher participation in peer feedback, but norm-setting did not appear to have a role. Implications for practitioners are discussed.

Provision of feedback forms an integral part of the learning process. Receipt of feedback enriches the learning experience, and helps to narrow the gap between actual and desired performance. Effective feedback helps to reinforce good practice, motivating the learner towards the desired outcome. However, a common complaint from learners is that the receipt of feedback is infrequent and inadequate. This paper briefly explores the role of feedback within the learning process, the barriers to the feedback process, and practical guidelines for facilitating feedback.

Research on how peer feedback affects second language (L2) writing in higher education has been limited. This study examines the impact of peer feedback on revision and literature review writing in learners of Chinese as an L2 at a university in mainland China. The study analyzed feedback, revisions, and writing performance of 30 students. The quantitative analysis revealed that revision-oriented feedback had significantly positive effects on revision. Adopted-feedback-revision explained the gain score in the writing performance. The qualitative text analysis demonstrated that students paid unbalanced attention to the genre-specific characteristics of the literature review and the concreteness varied accordingly. Students valued peer feedback for improving comprehension, thinking skills, and audience awareness, especially when it identified issues with specific revision suggestions. This study contributes to the field by addressing how Chinese language learners benefited from peer feedback when writing literature review in higher education, which also has practical implications. Plain Language Summary Highlights: •  Revision-oriented feedback positively affects the revision in literature review writing by undergraduate students of Chinese as a second language. •  Adopted-feedback-revision explains the gain score between the first and the final drafts. •  Students provided unbalanced feedback to genre-specific characteristics of a literature review and the concreteness of feedback varied accordingly. •  Students regarded the most useful feedback as those that could point out problems and provide specific suggestions for revision.

Providing peer feedback is commonly practiced in teaching and learning of public speaking courses. However, there is limited research examining peer motivational feedback in an online setting. This study adopted a qualitative, descriptive approach using document analysis to investigate the frequencies of peer motivational feedback which students’ use in a public speaking course within an e-learning system of a local university. In addition, the specific public speaking skills and the nature of the feedback offered by students were also examined. Twenty-three final year undergraduate students video recorded their speeches, uploaded their videos, offered and received online peer feedback in the e-learning platform. All of the recorded online peer feedback went through a thorough classification process to identify, arrange, and systemize into the specified types of feedback. The data was examined at three levels of analysis to ensure concrete conclusions were drawn. Frequencies and examples of online peer motivational feedback were also presented. The results indicated that students provide relatively more motivational feedback on delivery and voice control skills, while paying less attention to language and proficiency skills. The process of giving and receiving feedback has acted as individualized feedback in which peers helped clarify the goal, criteria and expected standards of good performance. Thus, this study suggests that online peer motivational feedback could be used as a form of practice in the teaching of online public speaking courses due to its ability to motivate and sustain students’ interest in learning public speaking while creating a student-centered learning environment.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose a reciprocal peer review approach that resembled the scholarly peer review process using the Moodle e-learning system. The authors investigated interrelations among engagement in providing peer feedback, engagement in responding to peer feedback, learner-content interaction and learning outcomes. Design/methodology/approach An experimental intervention study was designed. A total of 45 students who enroled in an undergraduate research methods course completed the assigned project. Reciprocal peer review was adopted, in which the participants provided a peer review report on a randomly assigned peer’s research proposal. Subsequently, participants revised and submitted their proposal along with a response letter that highlighted the revisions. Findings This study highlights that the engagement in providing peer feedback exerts an indirect effect on learning outcomes through learner-content interaction. Learner-content interaction fully mediates the causal relationship between engagement in providing peer feedback and learning outcomes. Practical implications Learner-content interaction fully mediates the causal relationship between engagement in providing peer feedback and learning outcomes. Thus, e-learning practitioners who engage in peer review should first construct high-quality course materials to enhance learning outcomes. Originality/value Learning outcomes can be enhanced if there is a high level of engagement in providing peer feedback among learners. However, learner-content interaction fully mediates the positive effect of engagement in providing peer feedback on learning outcomes. Furthermore, engagement in providing peer feedback will enhance the learner’s motivation to intensify his or her learning from the course material.

The research objectives of this study were to examine the individual and combined predictive effects of the quality of online peer-feedback provided and received on primary school students' quality of question-generation. A correlational study was adopted, and performance data from 213 fifth-grade students engaged in online question-generation and peer assessment for six weeks were analysed using hierarchical multiple regression, with the dependent variable of scores on question-generation and independent variables of scores on peer-feedback provided and received. The results from the two-step hierarchical regression analysis indicated that the quality of peer-feedback provided and received, respectively, predicted students' quality of question-generation. Furthermore, the results from the three-step hierarchical regression analysis showed that the quality of peer-feedback provided and received in combination also predicted students' quality of question-generation. Details of the significance of this study are provided, as well as suggestions for instructional implementations.

Peer feedback is a useful strategy in teaching and learning, but its effectiveness particularly in introductory courses can be limited by the relative newness of students to both the body of knowledge upon which they are being asked to provide feedback and the skill set involved in providing good feedback. This paper applies a novel approach to facilitating novice feedback: making use of students’ inherent ability to compare. The ComPAIR application discussed in this article scaffolds peer feedback through comparisons, asking students to choose the “better” of two answers in a series of pairings offered in an engaging online context. In contrast to other peer-feedback approaches that seek to train novices to be able to provide expert feedback (such as calibrated peer review) or to crowdsource grading, ComPAIR focuses upon the benefits to be gained from the critical process of comparison and ranking. The tool design is based on the longstanding psychological principle of comparative judgement, by which novices who may not yet have the compass to assess others’ work confidently can still rank content as “better” with accuracy. Data from 168 students in pilot studies in English, Physics and Math courses at the University of British Columbia are reviewed. Though the use of ComPAIR required little classroom time, students perceived this approach to increase their facility with course content, their ability assess their own work, and their capacity to provide feedback on the work of others in a collaborative learning environment.

Peer feedback is introduced as an effective learning strategy, especially in large-size classes where teachers face high workloads. However, for complex tasks such as writing an argumentative essay, without support peers may not provide high-quality feedback since it requires a high level of cognitive processing, critical thinking skills, and a deep understanding of the subject. With the promising developments in Artificial Intelligence (AI), particularly after the emergence of ChatGPT, there is a global argument that whether AI tools can be seen as a new source of feedback or not for complex tasks. The answer to this question is not completely clear yet as there are limited studies and our understanding remains constrained. In this study, we used ChatGPT as a source of feedback for students' argumentative essay writing tasks and we compared the quality of ChatGPT-generated feedback with peer feedback. The participant pool consisted of 74 graduate students from a Dutch university. The study unfolded in two phases: firstly, students' essay data were collected as they composed essays on one of the given topics; subsequently, peer feedback and ChatGPT-generated feedback data were collected through engaging peers in a feedback process and using ChatGPT as a feedback source. Two coding schemes including coding schemes for essay analysis and coding schemes for feedback analysis were used to measure the quality of essays and feedback. Then, a MANOVA analysis was employed to determine any distinctions between the feedback generated by peers and ChatGPT. Additionally, Spearman's correlation was utilized to explore potential links between the essay quality and the feedback generated by peers and ChatGPT. The results showed a significant difference between feedback generated by ChatGPT and peers. While ChatGPT provided more descriptive feedback including information about how the essay is written, peers provided feedback including information about identification of the problem in the essay. The overarching look at the results suggests a potential complementary role for ChatGPT and students in the feedback process. Regarding the relationship between the quality of essays and the quality of the feedback provided by ChatGPT and peers, we found no overall significant relationship. These findings imply that the quality of the essays does not impact both ChatGPT and peer feedback quality. The implications of this study are valuable, shedding light on the prospective use of ChatGPT as a feedback source, particularly for complex tasks like argumentative essay writing. We discussed the findings and delved into the implications for future research and practical applications in educational contexts.(DIPF/Orig.).

Peer feedback affects adolescents' behaviors, cognitions and emotions. We examined neural circuitry underlying adolescents' emotional response to peer feedback using a functional neuroimaging paradigm whereby, 36 adolescents (aged 9-17 years) believed they would interact with unknown peers postscan. Neural activity was expected to vary based on adolescents' perceptions of peers and feedback type. Ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (vlPFC) activity was found when adolescents indicated how they felt following feedback (acceptance or rejection) from peers of low vs high interest. Greater activation in both cortical (e.g. superior temporal gyrus, insula, anterior cingulate) and subcortical (e.g. striatum, thalamus) regions emerged in response to acceptance vs rejection feedback. Response to acceptance also varied by age and gender in similar regions (e.g. superior temporal gyrus, fusiform, insula), with greater age-related increases in activation to acceptance vs rejection for females than males. Affective response to rejection vs acceptance did not yield significantly greater neural activity in any region. vlPFC response suggests cognitive flexibility in reappraising initial perceptions of peers following feedback. Striatal response suggests that acceptance is a potent social reward for adolescents, an interpretation supported by more positive self-reported affective response to acceptance than rejection from high- but not low-interest peers.

This study investigated the content of peer feedback dynamics using patterns of pair interaction among Iranian EFL learners in English writing class, making use of Audio Stimulated Recall (ASR) interview and the compositions. This qualitative case study was conducted comprising twelve EFL learners at Poldokhtar University. Three kinds of data, including semi-structured interviews, writing assignments, and the artifacts of peer feedback dynamic using patterns of pair interaction, were analyzed by software NVivo 8.0. The findings revealed that the quality of writing was improved by peer feedback dynamics using patterns of pair interaction; the content of peer feedback dynamics became more detailed and various, and the content of peer feedback dynamics focuses on the six aspects including mechanics, syntax, error correction, pragmatic functions, word choice, and style.Specifically, students perceived the contents of the writing, reinforced their critical thinking ability, and enhanced their social interaction skills. Hence, peer feedback should be implemented in L2 writing. Some implications of the study were discussed.