CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 105Student Assessment and FeedbackInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies

Gender differences in students’ argumentative essay writing, peer review performance and uptake in online learning environments

Open access
Noroozi, Omid, Banihashem, Seyyed Kazem, Taghizadeh Kerman, Nafiseh, Parvaneh Akhteh Khaneh, Marzieh, Babaee, Maryam, Ashrafi, Hadis, Biemans, Harm J.A.·2023·Interactive Learning Environments
DOI 10.1080/10494820.2022.2034887
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study adopted a pre-test–post-test design to explore gender differences in argumentative essay writing and peer review performance and uptake within a higher education context. To do this, as part of a bigger project, 101 students were asked to individually write an argumentative essay, engage in peer review activities and revise their original essay based on the received reviews from peers. The findings showed that female students perform better than male students in argumentative essay writing in terms of taking a position on the topic. Gender differences were also found in peer review performance, where females provided better justifications for identified problems in peer review, more constructive reviews and higher quality peer review than males. The findings also revealed that although there was no gender difference in overall peer review uptake, females uptake of peer review resulted in improvement of their arguments against the position in the revised essay. These findings suggest that gender plays a significant role in argumentative essay writing, peer review performance and uptake of the received reviews from peers. Recommendations for future research along with how to deal with these gender differences in educational practice in online settings are provided based on the findings.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10494820.2022.2034887

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 64

  1. Aghaee, N., & Hansson, H. (2013). Peer portal: Quality enhancement in thesis writing using self-managed peer review on a mass scale. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(1), 186–203. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v14i1.1394 · DOI
  2. Alghamdi, A., Karpinski, A. C., Lepp, A., & Barkley, J. (2020). Online and face-to-face classroom multitasking and academic performance: Moderated mediation with self-efficacy for self-regulated learning and gender. Computers in Human Behavior, 102, 214–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.08.018 · DOI
  3. Ardila, A., Rosselli, M., Matute, E., & Inozemtseva, O. (2011). Gender differences in cognitive development. Developmental Psychology, 47(4), 984–990. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023819 · DOI
  4. Asterhan, C. S. (2018). Exploring enablers and inhibitors of productive peer argumentation: The role of individual achievement goals and of gender. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 54, 66–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.05.002 · DOI
  5. Asterhan, C. S., Schwarz, B. B., & Gil, J. (2012). Small-group, computer-mediated argumentation in middle-school classrooms: The effects of gender and different types of online teacher guidance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 375–397. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02030.x · DOI
  6. Bacha, N. N. (2010). Teaching the academic argument in a university EFL environment. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(3), 229–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.05.001 · DOI
  7. Barak, M., & Dori, Y. J. (2009). Enhancing higher order thinking skills among inservice science teachers via embedded assessment. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(5), 459–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-009-9141-z · DOI
  8. Bastarrica, M. C., & Simmonds, J. (2019, May). Gender differences in self and peer assessment in a software engineering capstone course. In 2019 IEEE/ACM 2nd International Workshop on Gender Equality in Software Engineering (GE) (pp. 29–32). IEEE.
  9. Chen, T. (2016). Technology-supported peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing classes: A research synthesis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 29(2), 365–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.960942 · DOI
  10. Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender differences in personality traits across cultures: Robust and surprising findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 322–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.322 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Coté, R. A. (2014). Peer feedback in anonymous peer review in an EFL writing class in Spain. Gist Education and Learning Research Journal, 9(9 JUL-DEC), 67–87. https://doi.org/10.26817/16925777.144 · DOI
  12. Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 448–474. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.47.2.448 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Du, X., Zhang, M., Shelton, B. E., & Hung, J. L. (2022). Learning anytime, anywhere: A spatio-temporal analysis for online learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 30(1), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1633546 · DOI
  14. Er, E., Dimitriadis, Y., & Gašević, D. (2021). Collaborative peer feedback and learning analytics: Theory-oriented design for supporting class-wide interventions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(2), 169–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1764490 · DOI
  15. Erkens, G., & Janssen, J. (2008). Automatic coding of dialogue acts in collaboration protocols. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(4), 447–470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-008-9052-6 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Fan, C. Y., & Chen, G. D. (2021). A scaffolding tool to assist learners in argumentative writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 34(1), 159–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1660685 · DOI
  17. Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015). Scripting the role of assessor and assessee in peer assessment in a wiki environment: Impact on peer feedback quality and product improvement. Computers & Education, 88, 370–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.012 · DOI
  18. Glassner, A. (2017). Evaluating arguments in instruction: Theoretical and practical directions. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 95–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.02.013 · DOI
  19. Grosch, K., & Rau, H. A. (2017). Gender differences in honesty: The role of social value orientation. Journal of Economic Psychology, 62, 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2017.07.008 · DOI
  20. Hamer, J., Purchase, H., Luxton-Reilly, A., & Denny, P. (2015). A comparison of peer and tutor feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(1), 151–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.893418 · DOI
  21. Heitmann, P., Hecht, M., Schwanewedel, J., & Schipolowski, S. (2014). Students’ argumentative writing skills in science and first-language education: Commonalities and differences. International Journal of Science Education, 36(18), 3148–3170. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2014.962644 · DOI
  22. Jeong, A., & Davidson-Shivers, G. V. (2006). The effects of gender interaction patterns on student participation in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 54(6), 543–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-006-0636-4 · DOI
  23. King, A. (2002). Structuring peer interaction to promote high-level cognitive processing. Theory Into Practice, 41(1), 33–39. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4101_6 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Klein, P. D., & Boscolo, P. (2016). Trends in research on writing as a learning activity. Journal of Writing Research, 7(3), 311–350. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2016.07.03.01 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Kuhn, D. (1992). Thinking as argument. Harvard Educational Review, 62(2), 155–179. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.62.2.9r424r0113t670l1 · DOI
  26. Kuhn, D., Zillmer, N., Crowell, A., & Zavala, J. (2013). Developing norms of argumentation: Metacognitive, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence. Cognition and Instruction, 31(4), 456–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2013.830618 · DOI
  27. Langan, A. M., Wheater, C. P., Shaw, E. M., Haines, B. J., Cullen, W. R., Boyle, J. C., Penney, D., Oldekop, J. A., Ashcroft, C., Lockey, L., & Preziosi, R. F. (2006). Peer assessment of oral presentations: Effects of student gender, university affiliation and participation in the development of assessment criteria. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293042003243878 · DOI
  28. Latifi, S., Noroozi, O., Hatami, J., & Biemans, H. J. (2021). How does online peer feedback improve argumentative essay writing and learning? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 58(2), 195–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2019.1687005 · DOI
  29. Latifi, S., Noroozi, O., & Talaee, E. (2021). Peer feedback or peer feedforward? Enhancing students’ argumentative peer learning processes and outcomes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(2), 768–784. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13054 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Law, S., & Baer, A. (2020). Using technology and structured peer reviews to enhance students’ writing. Active Learning in Higher Education, 21(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787417740994 · DOI
  31. Lazarou, D., Sutherland, R., & Erduran, S. (2016). Argumentation in science education as a systemic activity: An activity-theoretical perspective. International Journal of Educational Research, 79, 150–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.07.008 · DOI
  32. Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A. L. (2010). Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 525–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00968.x · DOI
  33. Li, M., & Li, J. (2017). Online peer review using turnitin in first-year writing classes. Computers and Composition, 46, 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2017.09.001 · DOI
  34. Liunokas, Y. (2020). Assessing students’ ability in writing argumentative essay at an Indonesian senior high school. IDEAS: Journal on English Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature, 8(1), 184–196. https://doi.org/10.24256/ideas.v8i1.1344 · DOI
  35. Lizzio, A., & Wilson, K. (2008). Feedback on assessment: Students’ perceptions of quality and effectiveness. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3), 263–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701292548 · DOI
  36. Marimuthu, R., Chone, L. S., Heng, L. T., Nah, E. A., & Fen, O. S. (2013). Comparing the online learning strategies of male and female diploma students of an English language course. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90, 626–633. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.07.134 · DOI
  37. Medimorec, S., & Risko, E. F. (2017). Pauses in written composition: On the importance of where writers pause. Reading and Writing, 30(6), 1267–1285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9723-7 · DOI
  38. Mercader, C., Ion, G., & Díaz-Vicario, A. (2020). Factors influencing students’ peer feedback uptake: Instructional design matters. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(8), 1169–1180. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1726283 · DOI
  39. Misiejuk, K., Wasson, B., & Egelandsdal, K. (2021). Using learning analytics to understand student perceptions of peer feedback. Computers in Human Behavior, 117, 106658. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106658 · DOI · Paper page
  40. Mohsen, M. A. (2021). L1 versus L2 writing processes: What insight can we obtain from a keystroke logging program? Language Teaching Research, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688211041292 · DOI
  41. Mokhtar, M. M., Jamil, M., Yaakub, R., & Amzah, F. (2020). Debate as a tool for learning and facilitating based on higher order thinking skills in the process of argumentative essay writing. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 19(6), 62–75. https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.19.6.4 · DOI
  42. Nasri, M., Biria, R., & Karimi, M. (2018). Projecting gender identity in argumentative written discourse. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 7(3), 201–205. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.7n.3p.201 · DOI
  43. Noroozi, O., Kirschner, P. A., Biemans, H. J., & Mulder, M. (2018). Promoting argumentation competence: Extending from first- to second-order scaffolding through adaptive fading. Educational Psychology Review, 30(1), 153–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9400-z · DOI
  44. Noroozi, O., Teasley, S. D., Biemans, H. J., Weinberger, A., & Mulder, M. (2013). Facilitating learning in multidisciplinary groups with transactive CSCL scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8(2), 189–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-012-9162-z · DOI
  45. Prata, M. J., de Sousa, B., Festas, I., & Oliveira, A. L. (2019). Cooperative methods and self-regulated strategies development for argumentative writing. The Journal of Educational Research, 112(1), 12–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2018.1427037 · DOI
  46. Reilly, D., Neumann, D. L., & Andrews, G. (2019). Gender differences in reading and writing achievement: Evidence from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). American Psychologist, 74(4), 445–458. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000356 · DOI
  47. Reynolds, M. R., Scheiber, C., Hajovsky, D. B., Schwartz, B., & Kaufman, A. S. (2015). Gender differences in academic achievement: Is writing an exception to the gender similarities hypothesis? The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 176(4), 211–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2015.1036833 · DOI
  48. Richardson, J. T., & Woodley, A. (2003). Another look at the role of age, gender and subject as predictors of academic attainment in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 28(4), 475–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/0307507032000122305 · DOI
  49. Schulte, A., Sweet, S. A., & Grace-Martin, K. (2003). Data analysis with SPSS: A first course in applied statistics. Teaching Sociology, 31(1), 126. https://doi.org/10.2307/3211435 · DOI
  50. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.
  51. Tsemach, E., & Zohar, A. (2021). The intersection of gender and culture in argumentative writing. International Journal of Science Education, 43(6), 969–990. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1894499 · DOI
  52. Uysal, H. H. (2008). Tracing the culture behind writing: Rhetorical patterns and bidirectional transfer in L1 and L2 essays of Turkish writers in relation to educational context. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17(3), 183–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.11.003 · DOI
  53. Valero Haro, A., Noroozi, O., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2019). The effects of an online learning environment with worked examples and peer feedback on students’ argumentative essay writing and domain-specific knowledge acquisition in the field of biotechnology. Journal of Biological Education, 53(4), 390–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2018.1472132 · DOI · Paper page
  54. Valero Haro, A., Noroozi, O., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2020). Argumentation Competence: students’ argumentation knowledge, Behavior and attitude and their relationships with domain-specific knowledge acquisition. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/10720537.2020.1734995 · DOI
  55. Weber, D., Skirbekk, V., Freund, I., & Herlitz, A. (2014). The changing face of cognitive gender differences in Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(32), 11673–11678. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319538111 · DOI · Paper page
  56. Weisberg, Y. J., DeYoung, C. G., & Hirsh, J. B. (2011). Gender differences in personality across the ten aspects of the big five. Frontiers in Psychology, 2(178), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00178 · DOI · Paper page
  57. Wingate, U. (2012). ‘Argument!’ helping students understand what essay writing is about. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(2), 145–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.001 · DOI
  58. Wu, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2020a). When peers agree, do students listen? The central role of feedback quality and feedback frequency in determining uptake of feedback. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 62, 101897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101897 · DOI
  59. Wu, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2020b). From feedback to revisions: Effects of feedback features and perceptions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 101826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101826 · DOI
  60. Xiong, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2021). Reviewer, essay, and reviewing-process characteristics that predict errors in web-based peer review. Computers & Education, 166, 104146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104146 · DOI
  61. Yu, Z. (2021). The effects of gender, educational level, and personality on online learning outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00252-3 · DOI
  62. Yurdabakan, I. (2011). The investigation of peer assessment in primary school cooperative learning groups with respect to gender. Education 3–13, 39(2), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004270903313608 · DOI
  63. Zhang, M., Bennett, R. E., Deane, P., & van Rijn, P. W. (2019). Are there gender differences in how students write their essays? An analysis of writing processes. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 38(2), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12249 · DOI
  64. Zhao, H. (2014). Investigating teacher-supported peer assessment for EFL writing. ELT Journal, 68(2), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cct068 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Noroozi, O., Banihashem, S. K., Taghizadeh Kerman, N., Parvaneh Akhteh Khaneh, M., Babaee, M., Ashrafi, H., & Biemans, H. J. A.
Affiliations
  • Wageningen University & Research (NL)
  • Faculty of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran
  • Faculty of Social Sciences, Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Turkey
  • Tarbiat Modares University (IR)
  • Kharazmi University (IR)
Corresponding author
Banihashem, Seyyed Kazem
ORCID
Venue
Interactive Learning Environments
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2022-02-08
Volume
31
Issue
10
Pages
6302-6316
ISSN
  • 1049-4820 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-5191
DOI
10.1080/10494820.2022.2034887
OpenAlex
W4210896153
Cited by
105
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 11
FWCI
48.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Interactive Learning Environments (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
Keywords
gender differences, argumentative essay writing, peer review, virtual learning environments, university students, constructive feedback, argumentation

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