Students’ online argumentative peer feedback, essay writing, and content learning: does gender matter?

Figures & data

Figure 1. The online learning environment: In this phase, students are asked to read the theoretical text and materials in order to be prepared for writing individual argumentative essay.

Figure 2. The online learning environment: In this phase, students see their own original essay, read the feedback of the two learning partners, and finally revise their original essay based on the feedback.

Table 1. Coding scheme to analyse the quality of students’ argumentative essays and feedback with variables, points, labels and corresponding descriptions.

Variables	Points	Labels for argumentative essay quality	Descriptions of the labels for argumentative essay quality	Labels for feedback quality	Descriptions of the labels for feedback quality
Intuitive opinion	Zero	Not mentioned	No intuitive opinion is presented.	Not mentioned	No feedback on intuitive opinion is presented.
	One	Non-elaborated intuitive opinion	Intuitive opinion is presented but it is not discussed or elaborated on or it is discussed in an insignificant way.	Non-elaborated feedback on intuitive opinion	Feedback on intuitive opinion is presented but justification for the feedback is not discussed or elaborated on or it is discussed in an insignificant way.
	Two	Elaborated intuitive opinion	Intuitive opinion is presented and it is discussed or elaborated on in a significant way.	Elaborated feedback on intuitive opinion	Feedback on intuitive opinion is presented and justification for the feedback is discussed or elaborated on in a significant way.
Claims in favour of the topic	Zero	Not mentioned	No claim is presented in favour of the topic.	Not mentioned	No feedback on pro-claim(s)is presented.
	One	Non-elaborated pro-claim	Only one claim is presented in favour of the topic.	Non-elaborated feedback on pro-claim(s)	Feedback on pro-claim(s) is presented but justification for the feedback is not discussed or elaborated on or it is discussed in an insignificant way.
	Two	Elaborated pro-claim	Multiple claims (two or more) are presented in favour of the topic.	Elaborated feedback on pro-claim(s)	Feedback on pro-claim(s) is presented and justification for the feedback is discussed or elaborated on in a significant way.
Justification for claim(s) in favour of the topic	Zero	Not mentioned	No justification for pro-claim(s) is presented. None of the pro-claim(s) are justified. Pro-claim(s) are just being presented without any back up/support in terms of presenting scientific facts, evidence, examples, figures etc.	Not mentioned	No feedback on scientific facts in favour of the topic is presented.
	One	Non-elaborated justification for pro-claim(s)	Justification for pro-claim(s) is presented. Pro-claim(s) are being backed up/supported (with scientific facts, evidence, examples, figures etc.) but they are not strongly connected to the pro-claim(s). Justification for pro-claim(s) are not discussed or elaborated on in a significant way.	Non-elaborated feedback on scientific facts	Feedback on scientific facts in favour of the topic is presented but justification for the feedback is not discussed or elaborated on or it is discussed in an insignificant way.
	Two	Elaborated justification for pro-claim(s)	Justification for pro-claim(s) is presented. Pro-claim(s) are being backed up/supported (with scientific facts, evidence, examples, figures etc.) and they are strongly connected to the pro-claim(s). Justification for pro-claim(s) are discussed or elaborated on in a significant way.	Elaborated feedback on scientific facts	Feedback on scientific facts in favour of the topic is presented and justification for the feedback is discussed or elaborated on in a significant way.
Claims against the topic	Zero	Not mentioned	No claim is presented against the topic.	Not mentioned	No feedback on con-claim(s)is presented.
	One	Non-elaborated con-claim	Only one claim is presented against the topic.	Non-elaborated feedback on con-claim(s)	Feedback on con-claim(s) is presented but justification for the feedback is not discussed or elaborated on or it is discussed in an insignificant way.
	Two	Elaborated con-claim	Multiple claims (two or more) are presented against the topic.	Elaborated feedback on con-claim(s)	Feedback on con-claim(s) is presented and justification for the feedback is discussed or elaborated on in a significant way.
Justification for claim(s) against the topic	Zero	Not mentioned	No justification for con-claim(s) is presented. None of the con-claim(s) are justified. Con-claim(s) are just being presented without any back up/support in terms of presenting scientific facts, evidence, examples, figures etc.	Not mentioned	No feedback on scientific facts against the topic is presented.
	One	Non-elaborated justification for con(s)-argument	Justification for con-claim(s) is presented. Con-claim(s) are being backed up/supported (with scientific facts, evidence, examples, figures etc.) but they are not strongly connected to the con-claim(s). Justification for con-claim(s) are not discussed or elaborated on in a significant way.	Non-elaborated feedback on scientific facts	Feedback on scientific facts against the topic is presented but justification for the feedback is not discussed or elaborated on or it is discussed in an insignificant way.
	Two	Elaborated justification for con(s)-argument	Justification for con-claim(s) is presented. Con-claim(s) are being backed up/supported (with scientific facts, evidence, examples, figures etc.) and they are strongly connected to the con-claim(s). Justification for con-claim(s) are discussed or elaborated on in a significant way.	Elaborated feedback on scientific facts	Feedback on scientific facts against the topic is presented and justification for the feedback is discussed or elaborated on in a significant way.
Integration of pros and cons	Zero	Not mentioned	No integration of pros and cons is presented.	Not mentioned	No feedback on integration of pros and cons is presented.
	One	Non-elaborated integration of pros and cons	Integration of pros and cons is presented but justification for the integration is not discussed or elaborated on or it is discussed in an insignificant way.	Non-elaborated feedback on integration of pros and cons	Feedback on integration of pros and cons is presented but justification for the integration is not discussed or elaborated on or it is discussed in an insignificant way.
	Two	Non-elaborated integration of pros and cons	Integration of pros and cons is presented and justification for the integration is discussed or elaborated on in a significant way.	Elaborated feedback on integration of pros and cons	Feedback on integration of pros and cons is presented and justification for the integration is discussed or elaborated on in a significant way.
Conclusion	Zero	Not mentioned	No conclusion is presented.	Not mentioned	No feedback on conclusion is presented.
	One	Non-elaborated conclusion	Conclusion is presented but it is not discussed or elaborated on or it is discussed in an insignificant way.	Non-elaborated feedback on conclusion	Feedback on conclusion is presented but justification for the feedback is not discussed or elaborated on or it is discussed in an insignificant way.
	Two	Elaborated conclusion	Conclusion is presented and it is discussed or elaborated on in a significant way.	Elaborated feedback on conclusion	Feedback on conclusion is presented and justification for the feedback is discussed or elaborated on in a significant way.

Table 2. Differences among female and male students in terms of mean scores for feedback quality (Max = 2; Min = 0).

Variables	Label	Feedback quality		Difference between males and females
		Mean	SD	Statistics
Intuitive opinion	Male	1.44	.48	F(1, 187) = 5.43, p < .05, η^2 = .03
	Female	1.32	.53
	Total	1.26	.57
Claims in favour of the topic	Male	1.24	.54	F(1, 187) = .04, p = .85
	Female	1.25	.56
	Total	1.14	.53
Justification for claim(s) in favour of the topic	Male	1.34	.48	F(1, 187) = 6.10, p < .05, η^2 = .03
	Female	1.21	.52
	Total	1.22	.53
Claims against the topic	Male	1.34	.48	F(1, 187) = 2.18, p = .14
	Female	1.26	.51
	Total	0.98	.64
Justification for claim(s) against the topic	Male	1.15	.52	F(1, 187) = 3.75, p = .05
	Female	1.04	.60
	Total	1.10	.55
Integration of pros and cons	Male	1.22	.53	F(1, 187) = 2.23, p = .14
	Female	1.14	.55
	Total	1.10	.42
Conclusion	Male	1.21	.35	F(1, 187) = 3.70, p = .06
	Female	1.14	.40
	Total	1.44	.48

Table 3. Differences among female and male students in terms of mean scores for argumentative essays both in pre-test, post-test, and improvements from pre-test to post-test.

Variables	Difference between essay quality of males and females in the pre-test	Difference between essay quality of males and females in the post-test	Essay quality improvements of all students from pre-test to post-test	Difference between essay quality improvements of males and females from pre-test to post-test
Intuitive opinion	F(1, 187) = .40, p = .53	F(1, 187) = .80, p = .37	F(1, 187) = .00, p = .96	F(1, 187) = 1.22, p = .27
Claims in favour of the topic	F(1, 187) = .10, p = .75	F(1, 187) = 2.36, p = .13	F(1, 187) = 4.11, p < .01, η^2 = .02	F(1, 187) = 2.17, p = .14
Justification for claim(s) in favour of the topic	F(1, 187) = .76, p = .38	F(1, 187) = .06, p = .81	F(1, 187) = 1.76, p < .01, η^2 = .01	F(1, 187) = .31, p = .58
Claims against the topic	F(1, 187) = .02, p = .88	F(1, 187) = 1.27, p = .26	F(1, 187) = 55.93, p < .01, η^2 = .23	F(1, 187) = .46, p = .50
Justification for claim(s) against the topic	F(1, 187) = .42, p = .52	F(1, 187) = .09, p = .93	F(1, 187) = 3.21, p = .07	F(1, 187) = .17, p = .68
Integration of pros and cons	F(1, 187) = .78, p = .38	F(1, 187) = 9.66, p < .01, η^2 = .05	F(1, 187) = 86.96, p < .01, η^2 = .32	F(1, 187) = 8.52, p < .01, η^2 = .04
Conclusion	F(1, 187) = .49, p = .48	F(1, 187) = .99, p = .32	F(1, 187) = 50.51, p < .01, η2 = .21	F(1, 187) = .12, p = .73