Paper-and-pen peer comment activities significantly improve students' writing quality over a semester¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
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? Control-group students receiving face-to-face paper-and-pen peer comments showed a statistically significant pre-test to post-test gain in writing quality. → 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
Paired-sample t-test on the control group (n=40) in a 15-week quasi-experiment at Ho Chi Minh City University of Science; the mean rose from 5.715 to 6.495 with "p= .000", so the article concludes paper-and-pen peer comment activities affect writing quality.
"The average pre -test score (M=5.715, SD=.878) is lower than the average post -test score (M=6.495; SD= .955), and the Sig. for the comparison of the average scores of the pre -test and post -test is p= .000."
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Writing Skills — outcome: instruction changes it
Related Claims¶
- Facebook-based peer comment activities significantly improve students' writing quality over a semester — related
- Facebook-based peer comments outperform paper-and-pen peer comments on post-test writing quality — related
- The two groups did not differ significantly in writing quality before the treatment — related
- Peer Feedback Improves Writing — a broader claim this one bears on
- Peer assessment improves academic performance by a small average amount relative to no assessment or to teacher assessment — a broader claim this one bears on
- Coached peer review improves the specificity of reviewer comments and receivers' uptake of feedback — related
- 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
- Inter-rater scoring of the writing tests showed good correlation-coefficient reliability — 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.