Paradoxical effects of feedback in international online reciprocal peer tutoring

Topping, Keith J.; Dehkinet, R.; Blanch, Sílvia; Corcelles, Mariona; Durán, David

doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.002

Cited by 46 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…By providing criticism comments, students have an opportunity to practice specific revision skills, such as detecting problems, diagnosing the problem, and selecting appropriate strategies to solve the problem. Consistently, the construction of criticism comments was positively related to student performance across several studies Inuzuka 2005;Li et al 2010Li et al , 2012Lu and Zhang 2012;Topping et al 2013). However, similar to receiving feedback, not all types of criticism are equally effective.…”

supporting

confidence: 55%

“…Because the construction of more specific comments involves practicing skills that are associated with revision, providing more specific comments is also expected to be more effective for the assessor. Several studies supported this hypothesis-students learned more after providing elaborated feedback that included descriptions of problems and scaffolded solutions (Li et al 2010(Li et al , 2012Topping et al 2013). However, these studies did not address whether providing criticism comments that describe problems is equally effective as providing criticism comments that offer solutions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: how students respond to peers’ texts of varying quality

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prior research on peer assessment often overlooks how much students learn from providing feedback to peers. By practicing revision skills, students might strengthen their ability to detect, diagnose, and solve writing problems. However, both reviewer ability and the quality of the peers' texts affect the amount of practice available to learners. Therefore, the goal of the current study is to provide a first step towards a theoretical understanding about why students learn from peer assessment, and more specifically from providing feedback to peers. Students from a large Introduction to Psychological Science course were assigned four peers' papers to review. The reviewing ability of each student was determined, and to whom the students provided feedback was manipulated. The features and focus of the comments from a sample of 186 participants were coded, and the amount of each type was analyzed. Overall, reviewer ability and text quality did not affect the amount of feedback provided. Instead, the content of the feedback was affected by reviewer ability. Low reviewers provided more praise than high reviewers, whereas high reviewers provided more criticism than low reviewers. This criticism from high reviewers described more problems and offered more solutions, and it focused more often on high prose and substance. In the only significant reviewer ability 9 text quality interaction, high reviewers described more problems in the low-quality texts than in the high-quality texts, whereas low reviewers did not make this distinction. These results suggest that high reviewers and low reviewers may utilize different commenting styles, which could significantly impact the benefits of peer assessment.Peer assessment is the quantitative or qualitative evaluation of a learner's performance by another learner of the same status. It is typically implemented in classrooms with the intention of developing the knowledge or skill of all learners involved. Although a substantial amount of research has been conducted on peer assessment, these studies have focused primarily on the reliability and validity of quantitative evaluations (i.e., peer ratings) and the effectiveness of peer feedback in comparison to instructor feedback. In general, this research has found that peers are capable of providing ratings comparable to instructors' ratings (Falchikov and Goldfinch 2000), and that peer feedback is usually just as effective as an instructor's feedback (Topping 2005), if not more effective (Cho and Schunn 2007). One major limitation of the research to date is that there are few empirical studies that have systematically examined the mechanisms of peer assessment-that is, what factors mediate learning (Strijbos and Sluijsmans 2010). Furthermore, when researchers more deeply examined the effects of peer assessment, they often focused only on the benefit of receiving feedback from peers. What is overlooked is how much students learn from the process of providing feedback to peers. Therefore, the goal of the current study is to provide a fi...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 55%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: how students respond to peers’ texts of varying quality

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, Chiu and Savignon's (2006) case study, which found content-based feedback yielded more changes than formfocused comments, and Hosseini's (2012) study, which found explicit targeted (rather than implicit) feedback to result in greater accuracy in preposition use, provided textbased feedback through email communication. Beyond email, other studies have used text-based responses to student writing facilitated by a course management system (CMS) Dropbox and grading system (e.g., L. Lee, 2010;Topping, Dehkinet, Blanch, Corcelles, & Duran, 2013) or discussion boards (e.g., Matsumura & Hann, 2004). A few studies have investigated text-based feedback with additional affordances such as the use of Markin (a Windows-based tool that allows for inserting of color-coded premade feedback codes in a short text) in Byrne's (2007), hyperlinked explanations as in Yeh and Lo's (2009) "Online Annotator for EFL Writing" or Gaskell and Cobb's (2004) premade hyperlinks to relevant concordance lines and tools bridging the feedback with corpus study and language tools.…”

Section: Text-based Electronic Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modes of feedback in ESL writing: Implications of shifting from text to screencast

Cunningham

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Normally reciprocal peer tutoring is used in the same learning program in which peers take responsibility for teaching sequence of a subject content interchangeably (Topping, 2005). In one special occasion, Topping and her colleagues (2013) illustrated a little bit different application of reciprocal peer tutoring in which a pair of peer tutoring students were responsible to tutor different subjects to each other (Topping, Dehkinet, Blanch, Corcelles, & Duran, 2013). In that experiment, Spanish and British age 9 to 12 years children tutored each other online.…”

Section: Definitions and Classificationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Peer tutoring, unlike the discussions so far, has also some undesirable outcomes especially when it is implemented spontaneously (Topping, 2005). In general, implementing reciprocal peer tutoring is complicated and demanding to students as they will be simultaneously engaged in academic task of teaching to their peers and also appropriately behaving in the social setting (Chang & Ku, 2009;Topping et al, 2013). Therefore, in order to effectively and productively utilize peer tutoring, training of students is mandatory (Topping et al, 2013).…”

Section: Expected Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Secondary School Students Physics Achievement Using Reciprocal Peer Tutoring: A Multi-level Quasi-Experimental Study

Alemu

2020

EURASIA J MATH SCI T

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to test the best mix of reciprocal peer tutoring with direct teaching methods to improve students' achievement in secondary school physics teaching in content-focused and high-stake examination-oriented curriculum. Data was gathered from three equivalent grade-9 sections and assigned to three different intervention groups in pre-test post-test multi-level quasi-experimental design. The three groups used reciprocal peer tutoring once a week (N=46), twice a week (N=46) and three lessons in a week (N=51) for 9 weeks in two physics units. Results were that reciprocal peer tutoring helped in improving physics achievement of secondary school students (R2=0.316) in favour of low achieving (P=0.001) and female students (P=0.038) when it is used as a unilateral pedagogy. The conclusion is that reciprocal peer tutoring used as a unitary classroom pedagogy helped all students and differentially less able and female secondary school students to enhance their physics achievement to some extent without negatively impacting their learning. Further replication research with a comparison group was recommended to find a conclusive evidence if the observed failure of mixing pedagogy persists.

show abstract

Paradoxical effects of feedback in international online reciprocal peer tutoring

Cited by 46 publications

References 18 publications

Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: how students respond to peers’ texts of varying quality

Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: how students respond to peers’ texts of varying quality

Modes of feedback in ESL writing: Implications of shifting from text to screencast

Improving Secondary School Students Physics Achievement Using Reciprocal Peer Tutoring: A Multi-level Quasi-Experimental Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About