CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 160Student Assessment and FeedbackEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback and of various peer feedback forms in a secondary school writing curriculum

Gielen, Sarah, Tops, Lies, Dochy, Filip, Onghena, Patrick, Smeets, Stijn·2010·British Educational Research Journal
DOI 10.1080/01411920902894070
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study examines whether peer feedback can be a substitute for teacher feedback and which measures can be taken to improve its effectiveness. A pre‐test post‐test control group design examined the long‐term learning effects of individual peer feedback and of collective teacher feedback on writing assignments in secondary education. Moreover, it examined the added value of a priori question forms and a posteriori reply forms aimed at supporting the assessee's response to peer feedback. The study supports the ‘non‐inferiority’ hypothesis of there being no significant difference in students’ progress after plain substitutional peer feedback or teacher feedback. Both groups (plain peer feedback and teacher feedback), however, improved significantly less than the groups that worked with question or reply forms, confirming the added‐value of these forms. Almost half of the students found the received peer feedback helpful, but less than a quarter considered giving feedback an aid in their own learning process.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01411920902894070

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 39 references

1 of the 39 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Higgins R.‘Be more critical!’: rethinking assessment feedback. Paper presented at thespaceBritish Educational Research Association Conference Cardiff University.space September 7–10 Wales.
  2. Sambell K., 1997, Improving student learning: improving students as learners, 56
  3. SAS Institute Inc., 2004, SAS/STAT 9.1 User's guide
  4. 10.3102/00346543068003249 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–160 of 160

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Smeets, S.
Affiliations
KU Leuven (BE)
Corresponding author
Gielen, Sarah
ORCID
Onghena, Patrick
Venue
British Educational Research Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-02
Volume
36
Issue
1
Pages
143-162
ISSN
  • 0141-1926 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-3518
DOI
10.1080/01411920902894070
OpenAlex
W2154733194
Semantic Scholar
fc58e55e2c811221edfb4f7a82df2ede5bc6615c
Cited by
160
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 6
FWCI
17.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 1066 d)
Locations
  • British Educational Research Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
peer feedback, teacher feedback, writing instruction, high school students, writing assessment, student perceptions of feedback, long-term learning effects

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review