Understanding the benefits of receiving peer feedback: A case of matching ability in peer-review
Open accessAbstract
Peer assessment is a technique with many possible benefits for instruction across the curriculum. However, the value obtained from receiving peer feedback may critically depend upon the relative abilities of the author and the reviewer. We develop a new model of such relative ability effects on peer assessment based on the well-supported Flower and Hayes model of revision processes. To test this model across the stages of peer assessment from initial text quality, reviewing content, revision amount, and revision quality, 189 undergraduate students in a large, introductory course context were randomly assigned to consistently receive feedback from higher-ability or lower-ability peers. Overall, there were few main effects of author ability or reviewer ability. Instead, as predicted, there were many interactions between the two factors, suggesting the new model is useful for understanding ability factors in peer assessment. Often lower-ability writers benefitted more from receiving feedback from lower-ability reviewers, while higher-ability writers benefitted equally from receiving feedback from lower-ability and higher-ability reviewers. This result leads to the practical recommendation of grouping students by ability during peer assessment, contrary to student beliefs that only feedback from high ability peers is worthwhile.
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?
'Ability and skills' is an important matching principle given there is accumulating evidence that it can affect the processes and outcomes of peer assessment.
“we stress that 'ability and skills' is an important matching principle given there is accumulating evidence that it can affect the processes and outcomes of peer assessment (e.g.Alqassab et al., 2018;Huisman et al., 2018;Patchan & Schunn, 2016;Patchan et al., 2013).”
From A systematic review of peer assessment design elements (2023) · cites this paper as Patchan & Schunn, 2016
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Patchan, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2015) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-015-9353-x · Cited by 181 · see citing works
Self-citationPatchan, M. M., Schunn, C. D., & Correnti, R. J. (2016) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/edu0000103 · Cited by 165 · see citing works
Self-citationWu, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2023) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2023.102160 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Self-citationCao, Z., Yu, S., & Huang, J. (2019) · Studies In Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.08.001 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Gao, Y., Schunn, C. D. D., & Yu, Q. (2019) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1499075 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
“Considering our focus on substance and high prose issues, which are more likely to improve the quality of the text when implemented (Lundstrom and Baker 2009; Rahimi 2013; Patchan and Schunn 2016), comments on low prose issues were eliminated from further analysis.”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationA systematic review of peer assessment design elements
Alqassab, M., Strijbos, J.-W., Panadero, E., Ruiz, J. F., Warrens, M., & To, J. (2023) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-023-09723-7 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
“…social constellation), we stress that ‘ability and skills’ is an important matching principle given there is accumulating evidence that it can affect the processes and outcomes of peer assessment (e.g. Alqassab et al., 2018; Huisman et al., 2018; Patchan & Schunn, 2016; Patchan et al., 2013).”
BackgroundUsing Google Docs for Peer-then-Teacher Review on Middle School Students’ Writing
Neumann, K. L., & Kopcha, T. J. (2019) · Computers & composition/Computers and composition · doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2019.102524 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Metacognitive Instruction for Peer Review Interaction in L2 Writing
Bui, G., & Kong, A. (2019) · Journal of Writing Research · doi:10.17239/jowr-2019.11.02.05 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Lipowsky, F. (2020) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-61403-7_4 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Designing effective peer assessment processes in higher education: a systematic review
Fleckney, P., Thompson, J., & Vaz‐Serra, P. (2024) · Higher Education Research & Development · doi:10.1080/07294360.2024.2407083 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
“…feedback processes are compulsory and assessed, students feel more accountable for their feedback (Li et al., 2020); value the process more (Wanner & Palmer, 2018); are more likely to participate (Purchase & Hamer, 2018); and may give better and more consistent feedback (Patchan & Schunn, 2016).”
Epp, C. D., Akçayır, G., & Phirangee, K. (2019) · Reflective Practice · doi:10.1080/14623943.2019.1642189 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
“The writing quality rubric we used was developed by Patchan and Schunn (2016).”
BackgroundMethodFarrokhnia, M., Latifi, S., Papadopoulos, P. M., Hogenkamp, L., Gijlers, H., Khosravi, H., & Noroozi, O. (2026) · International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education · doi:10.1186/s41239-026-00579-9 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Gao, Y., An, Q., & Schunn, C. D. (2023) · Studies In Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2023.101252 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Self-citationZhang, Y., Schunn, C. D., & Wu, Y. (2024) · Studies In Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2024.101411 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Self-citationNannings, M., van Weerdenburg, M., van der Zanden, P. J. A. C., & Hoogeveen, L. (2025) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs15060819 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Reviewer, essay, and reviewing-process characteristics that predict errors in web-based peer review
Xiong, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2021) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104146 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
“…of the feedback in Y. Xiong and C.D. Schunn their revisions, and quality of their revisions (e.g., (Cho & MacArthur, 2010; Gao, Schunn, & Yu, 2019; Patchan & Schunn, 2016; Patchan, Schunn, & Correnti, 2016; Saeed & Ghazali, 2017; Wu, Petit, & Chen, 2020)), or focused on the qualitative…”
BackgroundSelf-citationYallop, R. M. A., Taremaa, P., & Leijen, D. A. J. (2021) · Journal of Writing Research · doi:10.17239/jowr-2021.12.03.02 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Using peer assessment to improve middle school mathematical communication
Patchan, M. M., Rambo-Hernandez, K. E., Deitz, B. N., & McNeill, J. (2022) · The Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1080/00220671.2022.2074948 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
“Peer assessment (often also called peer review) is the quantitative evaluation and qualitative feedback of a learner’s performance by another learner among students (Patchan & Schunn, 2016).”
BackgroundSelf-citationConsistency in providing peer feedback: the role of individual and situational factors
Gao, X., Schunn, C. D., Noroozi, O., Gulikers, J. T. M., Banihashem, S. K., & Biemans, H. J. A. (2025) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2025.2517617 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
“For example, the cognitive complexity of the issues presented in the essay for the given reviewer can affect the depth, focus, and quality of the feedback (Gao, Schunn, and Yu 2019), as well as whether the review identifies more issues (Patchan and Schunn 2016).”
Self-citationModeling Student Evaluations of Writing and Authors as a Function of Writing Errors
Roscoe, R. D., Wilson, J., Patchan, M. M., Chen, D., & Johnson, A. C. (2020) · Journal of language and Education · doi:10.17323/jle.2020.10316 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Contribution of Teacher Feedback to Learners’ Work Revision: A Systematic Literature Review
Charalampous, A. K., & Δάρρα, Μ. Δ. (2023) · World Journal of Education · doi:10.5430/wje.v13n3p40 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Student Perspectives of Peer Assessment in Programming Courses
Alkhalifa, A. K., & Devlin, M. (2021) · doi:10.1145/3481282.3481292 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Wilson, J., Cordero, T. M. C., Potter, A., Myers, M., MacArthur, C. A., Beard, G., Fudge, E. A., Raiche, A., & Ahrendt, C. (2024) · International Journal of Changes in Education · doi:10.47852/bonviewijce42024011 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
Student Experiences With Peer Review and Revision for Writing-to-Learn in a Chemistry Course Context
Finkenstaedt-Quinn, S. A., Milne, S. L., Petterson, M. N., Chen, J., & Shultz, G. V. (2024) · Written Communication · doi:10.1177/07410883241263542 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
“Despite these findings, additional research indicates that students can benefit from peer feedback irrespective of reviewer ability (Finkenstaedt-Quinn, Polakowski, et al., 2021; Patchan & Schunn, 2016).”
Effect of Scaffolding and Peer Review on Learning in a PAD Class
Ding, L., Sitthiworachart, J., & Morris, J. M. (2023) · World Journal of English Language · doi:10.5430/wjel.v13n2p499 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Ouyang, F., Zhang, N., Bai, X., & Liu, X. (2024) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2024.2402540 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Rogers, P. (2023) · Perspectiva educacional · doi:10.4151/07189729-vol.62-iss.2-art.1415 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Impact of Teacher and Peer Feedback on University Students' Spelling and Punctuation
Al-Farsi, S., & Slimi, Z. (2025) · European Journal of English Language Studies · doi:10.12973/ejels.5.2.113 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Gao, X., Schunn, C. D., Noroozi, O., Gulikers, J. T. M., Biemans, H. J. A., & Banihashem, S. K. (2026) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2026.102428 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Self-citationYan, E. (2023) · Multilingual education yearbook · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-32811-4_6 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Dann, B. (2019) · Advances in higher education and professional development book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-0426-0.ch008
Matching Authors and Reviewers in Peer Assessment Based on Authors’ Profiles
Alkhalifa, A. K., Devlin, M., & Alkhattabi, M. (2022) · Journal of Information Technology Education Innovations in Practice · doi:10.28945/5038
Chen, X. (2023) · Frontiers in Humanities and Social Sciences · doi:10.54691/fhss.v3i6.5148
Students’ Perception as Review Providers and Receivers on Writing
Indriani, K. S., & Widiastuti, N. M. A. (2024) · Ethical Lingua Journal of Language Teaching and Literature · doi:10.30605/25409190.616
“Many studies found out that students' writing skills improve after receiving a review from their friends (Bamford, 2021; Patchan & Schunn, 2016).”
BackgroundUrbanek, M. T., Vinton, D., & Moon, A. C. (2025) · Chemistry Education Research and Practice · doi:10.1039/d5rp00118h
Effects of peer feedback and self-assessment on writing
Lorca, A. L., Peltzer, K., Busse, V., & Krause, U.-M. (2026) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102253 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Tong, Y., Schunn, C. D., Zhang, Y., & Zhang, X. (2026) · International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning · doi:10.1007/s11412-026-09487-6
Self-citationAccept, elaborate, modify, or no uptake?: Which peer feedback features matter?
Gao, X., Schunn, C. D., Gulikers, J. T. M., Banihashem, S. K., Biemans, H. J. A., & Noroozi, O. (2026) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2026.102491
Self-citationWang, Y., & Zhong, M. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10410268/v1
- Authors
- Patchan, M. M., & Schunn, C. D.
- Venue
- Journal of Writing Research
- Published
- 2016-10
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 227-265
- ISSN
- 2030-1006 (ISSN-L)
- 2294-3307
- OpenAlex
- W2531731755
- Cited by
- 39
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 10.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- Journal of Writing Research (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- 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 › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
- Keywords
- peer feedback, peer review, peer assessment, revision process, writing instruction, undergraduate writing
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
