Cited by 57Student Assessment and FeedbackVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

Inferring mindful cognitive‐processing of peer‐feedback via eye‐tracking: role of feedback‐characteristics, fixation‐durations and transitions

Bolzer, M., Strijbos, J.W., Fischer, F.·2015·Journal of Computer Assisted Learning

Abstract

Abstract Feedback literature identifies mindful cognitive processing of (peer) feedback and (peer) feedback characteristics – as well as the presence of justifications for feedback – as important for its efficiency. However, mindful cognitive processing has yet to be operationalized and investigated. In this study, an operationalization of mindful cognitive processing is introduced, alongside an investigation to identify valid measures for it. In a between‐subjects design, peer feedback (PF) content [elaborated specific feedback with justifications (ESF + J) vs. elaborated specific feedback without justifications (ESF)] was varied. Students received a scenario containing an essay by a fictional student and fictional PF, followed by a text revision, distraction and PF recall task. Eye tracking was applied to measure (a) how written PF was (re‐) read (fixation durations) and (b) the number of transitions occurring between PF and essay text. Mindful cognitive processing was inferred from the relation between fixation durations on PF and number of transitions between essay text and PF with (a) text revision performance and (b) PF recall performance. When no justifications were provided, recipients invested more time in reading the PF and essay and increased the effort to relate the PF to essay text. Fixation durations and number of transitions proved to be valid measures to infer mindful cognitive processing.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jcal.12091

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • It is not guaranteed that the studies ensured that the students actually engaged in mindful processing.

    “Therefore, it is not guaranteed that the studies ensured that the students actually engaged in mindful processing, as a kind of manipulation check (Bolzer et al., 2015).”

    From Enhancing the Peer-Feedback Process Through Instructional Support: A Meta-Analysis (2025) · cites this paper as Bolzer et al., 2015

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bolzer, M., Strijbos, J. W., & Fischer, F.
Affiliations
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
Corresponding author
Bolzer, M.
Venue
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-12-16
Volume
31
Issue
5
Pages
422-434
ISSN
  • 0266-4909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2729
OpenAlex
W1594662815
Cited by
57
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2015: 2
FWCI
17.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
peer feedback, feedback characteristics, fixation duration, eye movements, textual revision, essay revision

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