Students who did not report the discrepancy in peer feedback showed longer first-pass reading times¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r? · q3
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Counterintuitively, participants who did not report the discrepancy showed longer first-pass reading times. → Van Meenen 2023

Evidence¶

Van Meenen 2023¶

Van Meenen, F., Masson, N., Catrysse, L., & Coertjens, L. (2023). Taking a closer look at how higher education students process and use (discrepant) peer feedback. Learning and Instruction, 84, 101711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101711

q3 · i? · causal · r?

In the same eye-tracking study of 59 students processing peer feedback, the article reports that "participants who did not report the discrepancy, showed longer first-pass reading times"; no effect size is printed.

"Counterintuitively, participants who did not report the discrepancy, showed longer first-pass reading times."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Metacognition — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Discrepant peer feedback leads to more transitions between feedback and essay, but only for students who report the discrepancy afterwards — related
• Longer first-pass reading time at the final word of the target sentence was negatively associated with consistency judgement accuracy — related
• First-pass reading measures at the target word showed no main effect on inconsistency identification, and lookbacks from the target word were associated with lower accuracy in consistent texts — related
• Reanalysis of the pre-target text (rereading time and revisit frequency) interacted significantly with consistency condition in predicting consistency judgement accuracy — related