Peer feedback or peer feedforward? Enhancing students’ argumentative peer learning processes and outcomes
Open accessAbstract
This study compared the effects of support for peer feedback, peer feedforward and their combination on students’ peer learning processes, argumentative essay quality and domain‐specific learning. Participants were 86 BSc students who were randomly divided over 43 dyads. These dyads, in a two‐factorial experimental design, were assigned to four conditions including: peer feedback (n = 22), peer feedforward (n = 22), mixed (n = 20) and control group (n = 22) conditions. An online peer feedback environment named EduTech was designed which allowed us to implement various types of support in the form of question prompts. In this online environment, students were asked to write an argumentative essay on a controversial topic, to engage in peer learning processes and to revise their essay. Overall, the results showed that students in the three experimental conditions (peer feedback, peer feedforward and their combination) benefited more than students in the control group condition (without any support) in term of peer learning processes, argumentative essay quality and domain‐specific learning. However, there was no significant difference among the three experimental conditions. This implies that peer feedforward can be as important as peer feedback in collaborative learning environments which is often neglected both in theory and practice. Practitioner Notes: What is already known about this topic? Writing argumentative essays is a common practice for higher education students in various disciplines which deal with controversial issues. Writing argumentative essay requires solid argumentation strategies which makes it a challenging task for higher education students. Additional instructional support is needed to help students write high‐quality argumentative essays. What this paper adds? Peer learning is a promising instructional strategy for improving students’ argumentative essay writing and learning. Online support in the form of question prompts to guide students during peer learning can improve their argumentative essay writing and learning. Next to the peer feedback, peer feedforward is also a promising instructional approach to support students’ argumentative essay writing and learning. Implications for practice and/or policy Given the positive effects of peer learning processes, the use of peer feedback and peer feedforward should be given more attention by teachers to support students write high‐quality argumentative essays for controversial issues. Teachers and educational designers should not only provide opportunities for students to engage in peer feedback processes (how I am doing?) but also in peer feedforward processes (where to next?).
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Various approaches, such as a combination of worked examples and scripting, guided peer feedback, feedback and peer feedforward support, mobile-supported, the use of awareness tools in KnowCat, and the rating-plus-qualitative-feedback, can facilitate the acquisition of domain-specific or domain-general knowledge.
“These studies have found that various approaches, such as a combination of worked examples and scripting (Latifi et al., 2021; Valero Haro et al., 2019), guided peer feedback (Noroozi & Mulder, 2017), feedback and peer feedforward support (Latifi et al., 2021), mobile-supported (Chang & Lin, 2020), the use of awareness tools in KnowCat (Pifarré etal., 2014), and the rating-plus-qualitative”
From Online peer feedback in higher education: A synthesis of the literature (2024) · cites this paper as Latifi et al., 2021
The Students’ domain-specific knowledge learning section reports that peer feedback, peer feedforward, and mixed support groups significantly outperformed the unsupported control group. The Learning task and procedure section describes feedback and feedforward scripts, but the paper does not report testing a combination of worked examples and scripting; worked examples appear in a cited reference instead. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
(1978) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 53,488 · see citing works
Vygotsky, L. S. (1964) · Bulletin of the Orton Society · doi:10.1007/bf02928399 · Cited by 20,704 · see citing works
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905 · see citing works
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075070600572090 · Cited by 5,846 · see citing works
Topping, K. J. (2005) · Educational Psychology · doi:10.1080/01443410500345172 · Cited by 1,597 · see citing works
Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment
Liu, N.-F., & Carless, D. (2006) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562510600680582 · Cited by 1,034 · see citing works
Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective
Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.795518 · Cited by 966 · see citing works
Topping, K. J. (2009) · Theory Into Practice · doi:10.1080/00405840802577569 · Cited by 785 · see citing works
Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments?
Tsui, A. B. M., & Ng, M. (2000) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/s1060-3743(00)00022-9 · Cited by 648 · see citing works
The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance
Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x · Cited by 602 · see citing works
Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class
Rollinson, P. (2005) · ELT Journal · doi:10.1093/elt/cci003 · Cited by 581 · see citing works
Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system
Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2005) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.004 · Cited by 522 · see citing works
The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality
Min, H.-T. (2006) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003 · Cited by 482 · see citing works
Training students to become successful peer reviewers
Min, H. (2005) · System · doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003 · Cited by 412 · see citing works
‘Argument!’ helping students understand what essay writing is about
Wingate, U. (2011) · Journal of English for Academic Purposes · doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2011.11.001 · Cited by 392 · see citing works
Flexibility in macro‐scripts for computer‐supported collaborative learning
Dillenbourg, P., & Tchounikine, P. (2007) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00191.x · Cited by 354 · see citing works
Structuring Peer Interaction to Promote High-Level Cognitive Processing
King, A. (2002) · Theory Into Practice · doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4101_6 · Cited by 320 · see citing works
Huisman, B., Saab, N., van den Broek, P., & van Driel, J. (2019) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896 · Cited by 306 · see citing works
Web‐based peer assessment: feedback for students with various thinking‐styles
Lin, S. S. J., Liu, E. Z. F., & Yuan, S. (2001) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1046/j.0266-4909.2001.00198.x · Cited by 305 · see citing works
Training Advanced Writing Skills: The Case for Deliberate Practice
Kellogg, R. T., & Whiteford, A. P. (2009) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520903213600 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction with computer-supported collaboration scripts
Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2007) · International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning · doi:10.1007/s11412-007-9028-y · Cited by 254 · see citing works
Xiao, Y., & Lucking, R. (2008) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.005 · Cited by 243 · see citing works
van den Boom, G., Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2007) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.09.003 · Cited by 232 · see citing works
Panadero, E., Romero, M., & Strijbos, J.-W. (2013) · Studies in Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.10.005 · Cited by 195 · see citing works
Patchan, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2015) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-015-9353-x · Cited by 181 · see citing works
Relations between scripted online peer feedback processes and quality of written argumentative essay
Noroozi, O., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2016) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.002 · Cited by 176 · see citing works
Self-citationNoroozi, O., Kirschner, P. A., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2017) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-017-9400-z · Cited by 171 · see citing works
Self-citationRahimi, M. (2013) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/1362168812459151 · Cited by 165 · see citing works
Stegmann, K., Wecker, C., Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2012) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-011-9174-5 · Cited by 149 · see citing works
How does online peer feedback improve argumentative essay writing and learning?
Latifi, S., Noroozi, O., Hatami, J., & Biemans, H. J. A. (2019) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2019.1687005 · Cited by 148 · see citing works
Self-citationTeaching the academic argument in a university EFL environment
Bacha, N. N. (2010) · Journal of English for Academic Purposes · doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2010.05.001 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Students’ reflection on online self-correction and peer review to improve writing
Yang, Y. (2010) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.017 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
Teaching and Learning the Writing of Persuasive/Argumentative Discourse
Crowhurst, M. (1990) · Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l éducation · doi:10.2307/1495109 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
Lin, G.-Y. (2018) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2017.08.010 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Wood, N. V. (1995) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Noroozi, O., Hatami, J., Bayat, A., van Ginkel, S., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2020) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2018.1543200 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
Self-citationThe effects of online peer feedback and epistemic beliefs on students’ argumentation-based learning
Noroozi, O., & Hatami, J. (2019) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2018.1431143 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Self-citationCreating a Contrastive Rhetorical Stance
Mei, W. S. (2006) · RELC Journal · doi:10.1177/0033688206071316 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Evaluating and Selecting Counterarguments
Leitão, S. (2003) · Written Communication · doi:10.1177/0741088303257507 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Bayerlein, L. (2014) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.870531 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Gielen, M., & Wever, B. D. (2015) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.12096 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Noroozi, O., & Mulder, M. (2017) · Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education · doi:10.1002/bmb.20981 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Self-citationDijks, M. A., Brummer, L., & Kostons, D. D. N. M. (2018) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1447645 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Tomás, C., & Jessop, T. S. (2018) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1463355 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J. A., Busstra, M. C., Mulder, M., & Chizari, M. (2011) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.08.009 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Self-citationValero Haro, A., Noroozi, O., Biemans, H. J. A., & Mulder, M. (2019) · Journal of Biological Education · doi:10.1080/00219266.2018.1472132 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Self-citationE-portfolios supporting primary students' writing performance and peer feedback
Nicolaidou, I. A. (2013) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.004 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Noroozi, O. (2016) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2016.1208112 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Self-citationWritten peer-feedback to enhance students’ current and future learning
Ion, G., Barrera-Corominas, A., & Tomás-Folch, M. (2016) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-016-0017-y · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Rethinking the Argumentative Essay
Schneer, D. (2013) · TESOL Journal · doi:10.1002/tesj.123 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- [7]7. Earl, L. (2003). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning. In T. R. Guskey & R. J. Marzano (Eds.), Experts in assessment series. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
- [42]42. Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- [50]50. Wu, S. M. (2006). Creating a contrastive rhetorical stance: Investigating the strategy of problematization in students' argumentation. RELC Journal, 37(3), 329-353.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A SWOT analysis of ChatGPT: Implications for educational practice and research
Farrokhnia, M., Banihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O., & Wals, A. (2024) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/14703297.2023.2195846 · Cited by 1,384 · see citing works
Self-citationBanihashem, S. K., Noroozi, O., van Ginkel, S., Macfadyen, L. P., & Biemans, H. J. A. (2022) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100489 · Cited by 246 · see citing works
Self-citationBetter by You, better than Me? ChatGPT-3 as writing assistance in students’ essays.
Bašić, Ž., Banovac, A., Kružić, I., & Jerković, I. (2023) · doi:10.35542/osf.io/n5m7s · Cited by 189 · see citing works
Online peer feedback in higher education: A synthesis of the literature
Kerman, N. T., Banihashem, S. K., Karami, M., Er, E., van Ginkel, S., & Noroozi, O. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-12273-8 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Self-citationA systematic review of the key components of online peer feedback practices in higher education
Gao, X., Noroozi, O., Gulikers, J., Biemans, H. J. A., & Banihashem, S. K. (2024) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100588 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Self-citationEnhancing the Peer-Feedback Process Through Instructional Support: A Meta-Analysis
Hornstein, J., Keller, M. V., Greisel, M., Dresel, M., & Kollar, I. (2025) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-025-10017-3 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
“The literature suggests that students can be supported in this cognitively demanding activity using different kinds of instructional support (e.g., Bürgermeister et al., 2021; Latifi et al., 2021a; Valero et al., 2019).”
Lahza, H. F., Demartini, G., Noroozi, O., Gašević, D., Sadiq, S., & Khosravi, H. (2025) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2025.105260 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Self-citationStudents' argumentation performance in online learning environments: Bridging culture and gender
Ranjbaran, F., Babaee, M., Parvaneh Akhteh Khaneh, M., Gohari, M., Daneshvar Ghorbani, B., Taghizadeh Kerman, N., Banihashem, S. K., & Noroozi, O. (2023) · International Journal of Technology in Education · doi:10.46328/ijte.460 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Self-citationRen, X., & Zhou, Y. (2025) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2025.2479167 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
He, H., Said, N., & Peter, J. (2026) · Learning, Culture and Social Interaction · doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2026.101028
- Authors
- Latifi, S., Noroozi, O., & Talaee, E.
- Affiliations
- Tarbiat Modares University (IR)
- Corresponding author
- Latifi, Saeed
- Venue
- British Journal of Educational Technology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2021-01-24
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 768-784
- ISSN
- 0007-1013 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-8535
- OpenAlex
- W3123366285
- Cited by
- 163
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 4
- FWCI
- 45.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- research.wur.nl
- Locations
- British Journal of Educational Technology (publishedVersion)
- Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Keywords
- peer feedback, peer learning, argumentative essay writing, argumentation strategies, cooperative learning, question prompts, domain-specific learning, university students, controversial issues
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
