Students focused more on errors than on pluses both when providing and when processing peer-feedback¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · qualitative r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? During feedback provision, students identified and decoded errors about as often as pluses, but more often evaluated errors and encoded feedback based on errors than based on pluses. → Jochem E. J. Aben 2024 q2 i? During feedback processing, all students voiced more utterances related to sub-phases of dealing with errors than the same sub-phases for pluses, with one exception. → Jochem E. J. Aben 2024 (2)

Evidence¶

Jochem E. J. Aben 2024¶

Jochem E. J. Aben, Mayra Mascareño Lara, Anneke C. Timmermans, Filitsa Dingyloudi, Jan-Willem Strijbos. (2024). The impact of interpersonal perceptions on the process of dealing with errors while providing and processing peer-feedback on writing. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-024-09660-0

q2 · i? · qualitative · r2

Quantitative content analysis of think-aloud transcripts of twelve students providing peer-feedback. Seven students more often identified pluses and five more often identified errors, all hardly decoded errors or pluses, but "the majority of students said more often that they were evaluating errors than pluses" and nearly all encoded error-based feedback more often.

"During the procedure of providing feedback, the think-aloud utterances showed that students focused more on errors than on pluses."

Jochem E. J. Aben 2024 (2)¶

Jochem E. J. Aben, Mayra Mascareño Lara, Anneke C. Timmermans, Filitsa Dingyloudi, Jan-Willem Strijbos. (2024). The impact of interpersonal perceptions on the process of dealing with errors while providing and processing peer-feedback on writing. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-024-09660-0

q2 · i? · qualitative · r2

Quantitative content analysis of think-aloud transcripts during feedback processing. All students voiced more utterances for error-related sub-phases (reading, evaluating, revising) than for pluses, "except for Sarah, who made more utterances regarding reading, evaluating, and revising for pluses than for errors".

"Also during the procedure of processing feedback, the think-aloud utterances showed that students focused more on errors than on pluses."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• During peer-feedback provision, students deal with errors in one of two patterns: quick discovery (identification simultaneous with decoding, often without evaluation) or elaborate discovery (identification resulting from an interpreting/evaluating phase) — related
• During feedback provision, most students compared the text with internal manifestations of quality criteria, which supported error identification and evaluation — related
• During peer-feedback processing, students deal with errors in one of two patterns: immediately knowing whether they agree with feedback, or first having to study the feedback more thoroughly — related
• Feedback provision proceeded linearly through the text, while feedback processing was less linear and used two interchangeable strategies — related