Effects of a Comparative Feedback Method on Peer Feedback Characteristics and Revision Quality

Abstract

Peer feedback is regularly used in secondary education to improve students’ writing. However, effective implementation can be quite complicated. This study investigates whether a comparative feedback method affects how students provide peer feedback and if revising based on peer feedback is more effective than without feedback. Participants were 65 10^th grade secondary students, who each wrote and revised a persuasive text. Classes were randomly assigned to three conditions: comparative (peer) feedback, non-comparative (peer) feedback and a no-peer feedback condition. Results showed that text quality increased after revision in all conditions and that revision in both peer feedback conditions resulted in the highest text quality scores. There were no differences in text quality between these two peer feedback conditions, but students provided feedback quite differently. Students in the non-comparative condition provided more lower-order feedback than students in the comparative condition. Furthermore, those lower-order concerns were more directive and specified than in the comparative condition. In both conditions, the quality of the first draft was related to the number of higher-order concerns. However, there was no relationship between feedback comments and revision quality. Further research is needed to understand what support students need to understand and use comparative peer feedback more effectively for revision.