Review, Revise, and Resubmit: The Effects of Self-Critique, Peer Review, and Instructor Feedback on Student Writing
Abstract
These experiments examined the common practice of allowing students to revise and resubmit papers after receiving feedback. Blind graders evaluated students’ first and second drafts of an introduction in American Psychological Association (APA) format. Across experiments, just over 50% of students’ scores improved across drafts when evaluated by blind graders compared to over 80% improvement for the scores assigned by the graduate student lab instructors. In examining the effects of the source of feedback on first drafts, no difference between self-critique, peer review, and feedback from the lab instructor was found in blind graders’ scores. The results suggest that high scores obtained through the review–revise–resubmit procedure do not reflect good writing in an objective sense, but rather an ability to satisfy a particular reviewer.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Peer feedback compared to self-assessment showed a small but significant composite effect size of 0.33 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.64) based on three studies (Diab 2011; Stellmack et al. 2012; Cahyono and Amrina 2016).
“Regarding the comparison between peer feedback and self-assessment, the composite effect size of the three available studies that directly make this comparison (Diab 2011; Stellmack et al. 2012; Cahyono and Amrina 2016) was small but significant (0.33 [0.01, 0.64]).”
From The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students' academic writing: a Meta-Analysis (2019) · cites this paper as Stellmack et al. 2012
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
Greenberg, K. P. (2015) · Teaching of Psychology · doi:10.1177/0098628315587618 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Ink and algorithm: Exploring temporal dynamics in generative <scp>AI</scp> ‐assisted writing
Yang, K., Cheng, Y., Zhao, L., Raković, M., Swiecki, Z., Gašević, D., & Chen, G. (2026) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.70031 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- Stellmack, M. A., Keenan, N. K., Sandidge, R. R., Sippl, A. L., & Konheim-Kalkstein, Y. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Minnesota (US)
- Mount Saint Mary College, Newburgh, NY, USA
- Corresponding author
- Stellmack, Mark A.
- ORCID
- Stellmack, Mark A.
- Venue
- Teaching of Psychology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-09-01
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 235-244
- ISSN
- 0098-6283 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-8023
- OpenAlex
- W2136286794
- Cited by
- 42
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 11.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Teaching of Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Keywords
- student writing, peer review, self-criticism, instructor feedback, draft revision, APA style, writing assessment
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
