A good deal of SoTL literature shows that engaging in peer feedback can help improve student writing (e.g., Topping, 1998; Cho & MacArthur, 2010; Cho & Cho, 2011; Crossman & Kite, 2012). Still, there are some gaps in the literature. First, most studies published on this topic consider the effect of peer feedback on revisions to a single essay, rather than on whether students use peer comments on one essay when writing another essay. In addition, there is little in the literature about a “dose-response” curve: is peer feedback more effective in improving writing after a certain number of such activities, and/or are there diminishing returns after quite a few sessions? We designed a study to address these gaps by linking the comments given and received on essays to how students change their writing on later essays, in a course in which students write 12 essays over a year and engage in one hour of peer feedback every week. In this poster we report on a pilot study with one section of this course during 2013-2014. We collected all essays and peer comments from the participants in the study, as well as comments by the instructor on those essays. We have coded the peer comments and are in the process of coding instructor comments and the essays themselves. The poster will show our research design, data collection methods, and plan for data analysis for this very complex study with a large amount of qualitative data.
Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328–338. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.006
Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2010). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 629–643. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9146-1
Crossman, J. M., & Kite, S. L. (2012). Facilitating improved writing among students through directed peer review. Active Learning in Higher Education, 13(3), 219–229. http://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412452980
Topping, K. (1998). Peer Assessment Between Students in Colleges and Universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276. http://doi.org/10.3102/00346543068003249
