Facebook-based peer comments outperform paper-and-pen peer comments on post-test writing quality¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Design limits · Ho 2020: groups were assigned but students were analysed as independent (read from the study by two models, 2026-11-01)

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q2 i? The experimental (Facebook) group's post-test writing scores were statistically significantly higher than the control (paper-and-pen) group's. → Ho 2020

Evidence¶

Ho 2020¶

Ho, P. V. P., Phung, L. T. K., Oanh, T. T. T., & Giao, N. Q. (2020). Should Peer E-Comments Replace Traditional Peer Comments? International Journal of Instruction, 13(1), 295-314. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13120a

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Independent-samples t-test comparing post-test scores of the two intact classes (control n=40, experimental n=32); MD=-.499, t=-2.501, p=.015, leading the article to conclude Facebook-based peer comment activities are more effective than traditional ones.

"The students’ average post -test score of the experimental group (M= 6.994; SD= .692) is higher than that of the control gr oup (M=6.495; SD= .942), and the Sig. for the comparison of the average post -test scores of the two groups is p= .015 <.05."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

Writing Skills — outcome: instruction changes it

Facebook-based peer comment activities significantly improve students' writing quality over a semester — related
Paper-and-pen peer comment activities significantly improve students' writing quality over a semester — related
The two groups did not differ significantly in writing quality before the treatment — related
Inter-rater scoring of the writing tests showed good correlation-coefficient reliability — related
Peer Feedback Improves Writing — a broader claim this one bears on
The experimental and control groups did not differ significantly in writing scores at pre-test, supporting attribution of post-test differences to the instructional methods — related

Page metadata

Field	Value
`status`	`review`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-11-01`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.