Taking a closer look at how higher education students process and use (discrepant) peer feedback

Florence van Meenen; Nicolas Masson; Leen Catrysse; Liesje Coertjens

doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101711

Taking a closer look at how higher education students process and use (discrepant) peer feedback

Florence van Meenen^*, Nicolas Masson, Leen Catrysse, Liesje Coertjens

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

Little is known on how students process peer feedback (PF) and use it to improve their work. We asked 59 participants to read the feedback of two peers on a fictional essay and to revise it, while we recorded their gaze behaviour. Regarding the PF processing subphase, discrepant PF led to more transitions, but only for participants who reported the discrepancy afterwards. Counterintuitively, participants who did not report the discrepancy, showed longer first-pass reading times. Concerning the PF use subphase, dwell time on essay correlated positively with the quality of the revised essays assessed by professors. Participants with a high-quality revision spent more time addressing higher order comments, corrected one or two lower order aspects at a time and proofread in the end, in which they went beyond the suggestions provided in the PF. These insights can be used when designing training to foster students’ uptake of (discrepant) PF.

Original language	English
Article number	101711
Journal	Learning and Instruction
Volume	84
Early online date	30 Nov 2022
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101711
Publication status	Published - Apr 2023

Keywords

Discrepancy
Eye movement
Feedback processing
Peer feedback

Access to Document

10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101711

Cite this

@article{88876a112ec4456296781dc203b0de5c,

title = "Taking a closer look at how higher education students process and use (discrepant) peer feedback",

abstract = "Little is known on how students process peer feedback (PF) and use it to improve their work. We asked 59 participants to read the feedback of two peers on a fictional essay and to revise it, while we recorded their gaze behaviour. Regarding the PF processing subphase, discrepant PF led to more transitions, but only for participants who reported the discrepancy afterwards. Counterintuitively, participants who did not report the discrepancy, showed longer first-pass reading times. Concerning the PF use subphase, dwell time on essay correlated positively with the quality of the revised essays assessed by professors. Participants with a high-quality revision spent more time addressing higher order comments, corrected one or two lower order aspects at a time and proofread in the end, in which they went beyond the suggestions provided in the PF. These insights can be used when designing training to foster students{\textquoteright} uptake of (discrepant) PF.",

keywords = "Discrepancy, Eye movement, Feedback processing, Peer feedback",

author = "{van Meenen}, Florence and Nicolas Masson and Leen Catrysse and Liesje Coertjens",

year = "2023",

month = apr,

doi = "10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101711",

language = "English",

volume = "84",

journal = "Learning and Instruction",

issn = "0959-4752",

publisher = "PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Taking a closer look at how higher education students process and use (discrepant) peer feedback

AU - van Meenen, Florence

AU - Masson, Nicolas

AU - Catrysse, Leen

AU - Coertjens, Liesje

PY - 2023/4

Y1 - 2023/4

N2 - Little is known on how students process peer feedback (PF) and use it to improve their work. We asked 59 participants to read the feedback of two peers on a fictional essay and to revise it, while we recorded their gaze behaviour. Regarding the PF processing subphase, discrepant PF led to more transitions, but only for participants who reported the discrepancy afterwards. Counterintuitively, participants who did not report the discrepancy, showed longer first-pass reading times. Concerning the PF use subphase, dwell time on essay correlated positively with the quality of the revised essays assessed by professors. Participants with a high-quality revision spent more time addressing higher order comments, corrected one or two lower order aspects at a time and proofread in the end, in which they went beyond the suggestions provided in the PF. These insights can be used when designing training to foster students’ uptake of (discrepant) PF.

AB - Little is known on how students process peer feedback (PF) and use it to improve their work. We asked 59 participants to read the feedback of two peers on a fictional essay and to revise it, while we recorded their gaze behaviour. Regarding the PF processing subphase, discrepant PF led to more transitions, but only for participants who reported the discrepancy afterwards. Counterintuitively, participants who did not report the discrepancy, showed longer first-pass reading times. Concerning the PF use subphase, dwell time on essay correlated positively with the quality of the revised essays assessed by professors. Participants with a high-quality revision spent more time addressing higher order comments, corrected one or two lower order aspects at a time and proofread in the end, in which they went beyond the suggestions provided in the PF. These insights can be used when designing training to foster students’ uptake of (discrepant) PF.

KW - Discrepancy

KW - Eye movement

KW - Feedback processing

KW - Peer feedback

U2 - 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101711

DO - 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2022.101711

M3 - Article

SN - 0959-4752

VL - 84

JO - Learning and Instruction

JF - Learning and Instruction

M1 - 101711

ER -

Taking a closer look at how higher education students process and use (discrepant) peer feedback

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this