Facilitating improved writing among students through directed peer review
Abstract
This study contributes to scant empirical investigation of peer critique of writing among heterogeneously grouped native and nonnative speakers of English, now commonplace in higher education. This mixed-methods study investigated the use of directed peer review to improve writing among graduate students, the majority of whom were nonnative speakers of English. Following a modified version of the Optimal Model of peer critique of university coursework, statistically significant gains were realized between the initial draft of a business proposal and its final submission for each of the measured items: support, audience focus, writing conventions, and organization. In addition, during the qualitative phase, students were observed to identify how peer editors naturally engaged in probing and collaborative styles of feedback known as discovery mode interactions. Approximately 80% of the students engaged in interactions to clarify the text and align it with the author’s intentions, and approximately 37% sought to enhance and develop the text. Finally, the results suggest that the face-to-face peer review did improve the quality of a business communication assignment and implies a number of essential instructional practices toward improved writing and collaboration.
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?
In the other five studies adopting a one-group pretest-posttest design where students engaged with multiple peers, the weighted composite effect size was 1.00 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.72).
“In the other five studies adopting a one-group pretest-posttest design (Noroozi, Biemans and Mulder 2016; Cheng, Liang and Tsai 2015; Crossman and Kite 2012; Sampson and Walker 2012; Cho and Cho 2011), students engaged with multiple peers during peer feedback. The respective effect sizes for these five studies ranged from small to large (0.34 [0.16, 0.53], 0.35 [-0.05, 0.76], 0.64 [0.56, 0.72], 1.”
From The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students' academic writing: a Meta-Analysis (2019) · cites this paper as Crossman and Kite 2012
Cites
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075070600572090 · Cited by 5,846 · see citing works
Peer Assessment between Students in Colleges and Universities
Topping, K. (1998) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.2307/1170598 · Cited by 2,173 · see citing works
Student Peer Assessment in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Peer and Teacher Marks
Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543070003287 · Cited by 1,170 · 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
Topping, K. J. (2009) · Theory Into Practice · doi:10.1080/00405840802577569 · Cited by 785 · see citing works
Detection, Diagnosis, and the Strategies of Revision
Flower, L., Hayes, J. R., Carey, L., Schriver, K., & Stratman, J. (1986) · College Composition & Communication · doi:10.2307/357381 · Cited by 450 · see citing works
Formative Peer Assessment of Academic Writing Between Postgraduate Students
Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/713611428 · Cited by 449 · see citing works
Analyzing Talk in ESL Peer Response Groups: Stances, Functions, and Content
Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00456.x · Cited by 235 · see citing works
Peer Response Groups in the Writing Classroom: Theoretic Foundations and New Directions
DiPardo, A., & Freedman, S. W. (1988) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543058002119 · Cited by 211 · see citing works
Peer assessment in university teaching: evaluating seven course designs
van den Berg, I., Admiraal, W., & Pilot, A. (2006) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602930500262346 · Cited by 205 · see citing works
Using Peer Review to Improve Student Writing in Business Courses
Rieber, L. J. (2006) · Journal of Education for Business · doi:10.3200/joeb.81.6.322-326 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
The Effects of Peer Editing on the Writing Proficiency of Low-Achieving Tenth Grade Students
Karegianes, M. L., Pascarella, E. T., & Pflaum, S. W. (1980) · The Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1080/00220671.1980.10885236 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Contemporary Business Communication
Lynn, H. C. (1995) · Journal of Applied Communications · doi:10.4148/1051-0834.1367 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Perspectives on talk and learning
Hynds, S., & Rubin, D. L. (1990) · National Council of Teachers of English eBooks · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Kolin, P. C., & Bronson, J. G. (1984) · IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication · doi:10.1109/tpc.1984.6448779 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Theory and vocabulary for communication assessments
Goulden, N. R. (1992) · Communication Education · doi:10.1080/03634529209378887 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 17 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
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
Peer Feedback in Second Language Writing
Yu, S., & Lee, I. (2016) · Language Teaching · doi:10.1017/s0261444816000161 · Cited by 294 · see citing works
Active learning: The importance of developing a comprehensive measure
Carr, R. A., Palmer, S. R., & Hagel, P. (2015) · Active Learning in Higher Education · doi:10.1177/1469787415589529 · Cited by 166 · see citing works
Peer review as a strategy for improving students’ writing process
Baker, K. M. (2016) · Active Learning in Higher Education · doi:10.1177/1469787416654794 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
Understanding student engagement with peer feedback on master’s theses: a Macau study
Yu, S., Zhang, Y., Zheng, Y., Yuan, K., & Zhang, L. (2018) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1467879 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
Winstone, N., Boud, D. J., Dawson, P., & Heron, M. (2021) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2021.1902467 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Pham, T. N., Lin, M., Trinh, V. Q., & Bui, L. T. P. (2020) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/2158244020914554 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
“Regardless of whether global aspects or local aspects are placed centrally in e-PF, this process is deemed to aid students in producing better piece of writing (Crossman & Kite, 2012; Lai, 2010).”
BackgroundA review of educational dialogue strategies to improve academic writing skills
Schillings, M., Roebertsen, H., Savelberg, H. H. C. M., & Dolmans, D. H. J. M. (2018) · Active Learning in Higher Education · doi:10.1177/1469787418810663 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Developing team skills through a collaborative writing assignment
Thomas, T. A. (2014) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.850587 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Using technology and structured peer reviews to enhance students’ writing
Law, S., & Baer, A. (2017) · Active Learning in Higher Education · doi:10.1177/1469787417740994 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Li, H. H., & Zhang, L. J. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0251569 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
O’Neill, T., Boyce, M., & McLarnon, M. J. W. (2020) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2020.00049 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Students’ Perception of Peer Review in an EFL Classroom
Harutyunyan, L., & de Brusa, M. F. P. (2011) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.5539/elt.v11n4p138 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Peer review in academic writing: Different perspectives from instructors and students
Ahmed, R. A. (2020) · TESOL Journal · doi:10.1002/tesj.537 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Peer Review: A Tool to Enhance the Quality of Academic Written Productions
de Brusa, M. F. P., & Harutyunyan, L. (2019) · English Language Teaching · doi:10.5539/elt.v12n5p30 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Designs for Learning Analytics to Support Information Problem Solving
Winne, P. H., Vytasek, J., Patzak, A., Raković, M., Marzouk, Z., Savoji, A. P., Ram, I., Samadi, D., Lin, M. P.-C., Liu, A., et al. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-64274-1_11 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Achen, R. M. (2018) · Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · doi:10.14434/josotl.v18i4.23040 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Write Now! Using reflective writing beyond the humanities and social sciences
Cannady, R. E., & Gallo, K. (2014) · Journal of Further and Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0309877x.2014.938266 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Effectiveness of Guided Peer Review of Student Essays in a Large Undergraduate Biology Course
Kelly, L. J. (2015) · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Communication Roulette: Engaging Students in the Practice of Tailored Communication
Fulmer, B. P., Fulmer, S., & Liu, Y. (2021) · Issues in Accounting Education · doi:10.2308/issues-19-078 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Dirrigl, F. J., & Noe, M. (2013) · Journal of Biological Education · doi:10.1080/00219266.2013.863795 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Parrott, H. M., & Cherry, E. (2014) · Teaching Sociology · doi:10.1177/0092055x14557440 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Dirrigl, F. J., & Noe, M. (2018) · Journal of Biological Education · doi:10.1080/00219266.2018.1501410 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
An Evaluation of peer review in US Graduate Research courses
Bernadowski, C., & Aspinall, J. (2014) · International Forum Journal · doi:10.63201/fnuj6440 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Hasim, Z. (2014) · Research Commons (University of Waikato) · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Engaging in a collaborative space: exploring the substance and impact of peer review conversations
Lineback, J. E., & Holbrook, E. (2024) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2023.2290978 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Bickford, C. (2015) · Journal of Academic Writing · doi:10.18552/joaw.v5i1.161 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Capello, S. A., Gyimah-Concepcion, M., & Billimack, V. V. (2021) · Impacting Education Journal on Transforming Professional Practice · doi:10.5195/ie.2021.163 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Lakarnchua, O., & Wasanasomsithi, P. (2013) · Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education · doi:10.17718/tojde.19097 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Christensen, V. T., & Hobel, P. (2020) · Journal of Academic Writing · doi:10.18552/joaw.v10i1.613 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Improving Graduate Student Oral Presentations Through Peer Review
Lax, J. R., & Fentiman, A. (2016) · ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition · doi:10.18260/p.25620 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Peer Evaluation as an Effec tive Tool to Improve Twelfth-Gr ade Students' Writing
Ebersviller, J. R. (2013) · Cornerstone (Minnesota State University, Mankato) · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Christensen, V. T., & Hobel, P. (2022) · International Linguistics Research · doi:10.30560/ilr.v4n4p38 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Writing Feedback from a Research Perspective
Raitskaya, L., & Тихонова, Е. В. (2022) · Journal of language and Education · doi:10.17323/jle.2022.16377 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Kim, S. (2023) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1177/13621688231193074 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Duzhin, F., & Narayanan, A. (2020) · New Directions in the Teaching of Physical Sciences · doi:10.29311/ndtps.v0i15.3466 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Assignment exemplars: Creating a one stop site for students
Campbell, C., & Smala, S. (2016) · Griffith Research Online
Improving report writing by peer assessment using Coursera
Christiansen, H. L. (2015) · Technical University of Denmark, DTU Orbit (Technical University of Denmark, DTU)
Alhodithi, N. I. (2016) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2843934
Comparison of College Faculty and Business Professionals as Evaluators of Student Business Letters
Stengel, D. N., & Curry, J. (2021) · Business and Professional Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/23294906211008150
Re-inventing Critical Thinking and Writing Tasks Using a CDL Approach
Mun, L. K., & Luu, J. (2022) · International Journal of TESOL Studies · doi:10.58304/ijts.20230102
Graduate writers’ perceptions of teacher-student group conferences in an EAP writing course
Kunkel, M. (2024) · Journal of English for Academic Purposes · doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2024.101368 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Multilingual doctoral writers’ use of L2 peer feedback in the natural sciences
Sandström, K. (2025) · Education Inquiry · doi:10.1080/20004508.2025.2603014
- Authors
- Crossman, J. M., & Kite, S. L.
- Affiliations
- Saint Leo University (US)
- Johnson & Wales University (US)
- Venue
- Active Learning in Higher Education
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-09-03
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 219-229
- ISSN
- 1469-7874 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-2625
- OpenAlex
- W2016371775
- Cited by
- 43
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4
- FWCI
- 28.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Active Learning in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- non-native English speakers, graduate students, business communication, writing instruction, collaborative feedback, writing quality
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
