van Driel b and Paul van den Broek c a leiden university graduate school of teaching (iclon), leiden, the netherlands; b melbourne graduate school of teaching, the university of melbourne, melbourne, Australia; c department of educational science, leiden university, leiden, the netherlands ABSTRACT 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 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. The reader as evaluator imposes additional goals or criteria on the text… In a sense then, the process of evaluation simply turns up the power on the reading process: It enlarges the set of constraints that the mental representation one is building must meet and turns reading into testing. (Flower et al. 1986, 23)

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' 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 ¼ 0.91 [0.41, 1.42]) and compared to self-assessment (g ¼ 0.33 [0.01, 0.64]). Peer feedback and teacher feedback resulted in similar writing improvements (g ¼ 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.

In a relatively short period of time, massive open online courses (MOOCs) have become a considerable topic of research and debate, and the number of available MOOCs is rapidly growing. Along with issues of formal recognition and accreditation, this growth in the number of MOOCs being developed increases the relevance of assessment quality. Within the context of a typical xMOOC, the current study focuses on peer assessment of essay assignments. In the literature, two contradicting theoretical arguments can be found: that learners should be matched with same‐ability peers (homogeneously) versus that students should be matched with different‐ability peers (heterogeneously). Considering these arguments, the relationship between peer reviewers’ ability and authors’ essay performance is explored. Results indicate that peer reviewers’ ability is positively related to authors’ essay performance. Moreover, this relationship is only established for intermediate and high ability authors; essay performance of lower ability authors appeared not to be related to the ability of their reviewing peers. Results are discussed in relation to the matching of learners and instructional design of peer assessment in MOOCs.

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 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 highability 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. ARTICLE HISTORY

Research into students' peer-feedback beliefs varies both thematically and in approaches and outcomes. This study aimed to develop a questionnaire to measure students' beliefs about peer-feedback. Based on the themes in the literature four scales were conceptualised. In separate exploratory (N = 219) and confirmatory (N = 121) studies, the structure of the questionnaire was explored and tested. These analyses confirmed the a priori conceptualised four scales: (1) students' valuation of peer-feedback as an instructional method, (2) students' confidence in the quality and helpfulness of the feedback they provide to a peer, (3) students' confidence in the quality and helpfulness of the feedback they receive from their peers and (4) the extent to which students regard peer-feedback as an important skill. The value of this Beliefs about Peer-Feedback Questionnaire (BPFQ) is discussed both in terms of future research and the practical insights it may offer higher education teaching staff.