CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 56Student Assessment and FeedbackEFL/ESL Teaching and LearningEvaluation of Teaching Practices

Improving the understanding of written peer feedback through face-to-face peer dialogue: students’ perspective

Open access
Schillings, Marlies, Roebertsen, Herma, Savelberg, Hans, van Dijk, Anne, Dolmans, Diana·2021·Higher Education Research & Development
DOI 10.1080/07294360.2020.1798889
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Feedback plays a vital role in the process of mastering writing in many academic disciplines. Although peer feedback has been proven helpful to develop students’ academic writing competency, the role of additional face-to-face peer dialogue in this context remains indistinct. Face-to-face peer dialogue on written peer feedback is expected to improve students’ understanding; however, it is unclear under which conditions it might do so. The purpose of this exploratory study is to explore students’ beliefs about peer feedback and to investigate both the instructiveness of face-to-face peer dialogue and the conditions for achieving improved understanding. Second-year university students (N = 84) participated in a mixed-method study that included questionnaires and focus groups. The intervention comprised face-to-face dialogue in small groups about the participants’ written peer feedback on a draft report. Quantitative data showed students perceived peer feedback as meaningful, useful and a very important skill to possess. They felt confident about feedback quality, both provided and received. Overall, students perceived written feedback and face-to-face dialogue to be instructive, although no significant difference between the two forms was established. Qualitative findings revealed that face-to-face dialogue stimulates peers to elaborate on their written feedback, helps them deliver constructive comments and feel responsible for the feedback process. Important conditions appeared to be the quality of the written feedback, the non-anonymous character of the dialogue, and the opportunity to revise the report. It can be concluded that face-to-face peer dialogue is a useful variation within peer feedback, which enhances further elaboration and students’ engagement with feedback. This study provides insight in important conditions to design and implement face-to-face dialogue peer interventions in higher education in the context of academic writing.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/07294360.2020.1798889

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Anonymity of peer feedback can deprive opportunities for face-to-face dialogue, which is vital for elaborating on feedback, fostering constructive commentary, and fostering a sense of responsibility.

    “It was found that the anonymity of peer feedback can also deprive opportunities for face-to-face dialogue, which is vital for elaborating on feedback, fostering constructive commentary, and fostering a sense of responsibility (Schillings et al., 2021).”

    From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Schillings et al., 2021

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Schillings, M., Roebertsen, H., Savelberg, H., van Dijk, A., & Dolmans, D.
Affiliations
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • Department of Educational Development and Research/School of Health Professions Education (SHE), Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences (FHML), Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands
Corresponding author
Schillings, Marlies
ORCID
Venue
Higher Education Research & Development
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2020-07-31
Volume
40
Issue
5
Pages
1100-1116
ISSN
  • 0729-4360 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8366
DOI
10.1080/07294360.2020.1798889
OpenAlex
W3046266703
Cited by
56
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 1
FWCI
10.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Higher Education Research & Development (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
Keywords
peer feedback, written feedback, academic writing, student perceptions, feedback quality, peer revision, university writing instruction, student engagement with feedback

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