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)¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitativer2·q2
Currency · newest study 2024 · 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? Error identification during feedback provision occurred either simultaneously with decoding and often lacked evaluation-related thoughts, or resulted from an interpreting/evaluating phase. → Jochem E. J. Aben 2024
q2 i? Quick discoveries often concerned lower-order concerns, while elaborate discoveries often concerned higher-order concerns and followed a thorough, iterative interpretation process. → Jochem E. J. Aben 2024
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
Qualitative thematic analysis of think-aloud recordings from six dyads of Dutch 11th-grade students providing peer-feedback on argumentative texts. The analysis identified "'quick discovery of errors' and 'elaborate discovery of errors'" as the two consistent patterns; quick discovery often occurred for lower-order concerns, elaborate discovery for higher-order concerns.
"During the provision of feedback, students dealt with errors consistently in line with one of two patterns that could be described as 'quick discovery of errors' and 'elaborate discovery of errors'."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- During feedback provision, most students compared the text with internal manifestations of quality criteria, which supported error identification and evaluation — related
- Students focused more on errors than on pluses both when providing and when processing peer-feedback — 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
- Providing peer feedback can be more beneficial than receiving it because it is more cognitively engaging — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
two-patterns-error-discovery-feedback-provision |
title |
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) |
description |
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... |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2024 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-18 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — jochem-e-j-aben-2024 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.