Steps to implementation: the role of peer feedback inner structure on feedback implementation

References

• Armengol-Asparó, C., C. Mercader, and G. Ion. 2022. “Making Peer-Feedback More Efficient: What Conditions of Its Delivery Make the Difference?” Higher Education Research & Development 41 (2): 226–239. doi:10.1080/07294360.2020.1840527.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atman, C. J., R. S. Adams, M. E. Cardella, J. Turns, S. Mosborg, and J. Saleem. 2007. “Engineering Design Processes: A Comparison of Students and Expert Practitioners.” Journal of Engineering Education 96 (4): 359–379. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00945.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bader, M., T. Burner, S. H. Iversen, and Z. Varga. 2019. “Student Perspectives on Formative Feedback as Part of Writing Portfolios.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 2019, 44 (7): 1017–1028. doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1564811.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berger, J. 2013. INSTANT MBA: When Giving Feedback, Give Criticism between Two Positives. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/feedback-between-two-positives-2013-6
   Google Scholar
• Bhatia, V. K. 2002. “Applied Genre Analysis: Analytical Advances and Pedagogical Procedures.” In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the Classroom: Multiple Perspectives (pp. 279–283). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Bottini, S., and J. Gillis. 2021. “A Comparison of the Feedback Sandwich, Constructive-Positive Feedback, and within Session Feedback for Training Preference Assessment Implementation.” Journal of Organizational Behavior Management 41 (1): 83–93. doi:10.1080/01608061.2020.1862019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carless, D. 2019. “Feedback Loops and the Longer-Term: Towards Feedback Spirals.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 44 (5): 705–714. doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1531108.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carless, D., and D. Boud. 2018. “The Development of Student Feedback Literacy: Enabling Uptake of Feedback.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 43 (8): 1315–1325. doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, B., M. Resendes, C. S. Chai, and H.-Y. Hong. 2017. “Two Tales of Time: Uncovering the Significance of Sequential Patterns among Contribution Types in Knowledge-Building Discourse.” Interactive Learning Environments 25 (2): 162–175. doi:10.1080/10494820.2016.1276081.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, W., Q. Lyu, J. Su, S. C. A. Chai, W. Zhang, G. Su, and X. Li. 2023. “How Does Feedback Formulation Pattern Differ between More-Improvement and No-Improvement Student Groups? An Exploratory Study.” In Blikstein, P., Aalst, J. Van., Kizito, R., & Brennan, K, (Eds.), Proceedings of International Conference of the Learning Sciences 2023 (pp. tbc). Montreal, Canada: International Society of the Learning Sciences. doi:10.22318/icls2023.747522.
   Google Scholar
• Cho, K., and C. D. Schunn. 2007. “Scaffolded Writing and Rewriting in the Discipline: A Web-Based Reciprocal Peer Review System.” Computers & Education 48 (3): 409–426. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi, E., D. A. Johnson, K. Moon, and S. Oah. 2018. “Effects of Positive and Negative Feedback Sequence on Work Performance and Emotional Responses.” Journal of Organizational Behavior Management 38 (2-3): 97–115. doi:10.1080/01608061.2017.1423151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dijks, M. A., L. Brummer, and D. Kostons. 2018. “The Anonymous Reviewer: The Relationship between Perceived Expertise and the Perceptions of Peer Feedback in Higher Education.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 43 (8): 1258–1271. doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1447645.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, D. W., and F. P. Johnson. 1991. Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills. Gloucester: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Fong, C. J., D. L. Schallert, K. M. Williams, Z. H. Williamson, S. Lin, Y. W. Kim, and L.-H. Chen. 2021. “Making Feedback Constructive: The Interplay of Undergraduates’ Motivation with Perceptions of Feedback Specificity and Friendliness.” Educational Psychology 41 (10): 1241–1259. doi:10.1080/01443410.2021.1951671.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han, J., J. Pei, and H. Tong. 2022. Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques. MA: Morgan Kaufmann.
   Google Scholar
• Henderson, M., R. Ajjawi, D. Boud, and E. Molloy. 2019. “Identifying Feedback That Has Impact.” In The Impact of Feedback in Higher Education: Improving Assessment Outcomes for Learners (pp. 15–34). Switzerland: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Henley, A. J., and F. D. DiGennaro Reed. 2015. “Should You Order the Feedback Sandwich? Efficacy of Feedback Sequence and Timing.” Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 35 (3-4): 321–335. doi:10.1080/01608061.2015.1093057.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huisman, B., N. Saab, P. Van Den Broek, and J. Van Driel. 2019. “The Impact of Formative Peer Feedback on Higher Education Students’ Academic Writing: A Meta-Analysis.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 44 (6): 863–880. doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hyland, K. 2004. Disciplinary Discourses, Michigan Classics ed.: Social Interactions in Academic Writing. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Iglesias Pérez, M. C., J. Vidal-Puga, and M. R. Pino Juste. 2022. “The Role of Self and Peer Assessment in Higher Education.” Studies in Higher Education 47 (3): 683–692. doi:10.1080/03075079.2020.1783526.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipnevich, A. A., D. A. Berg, and J. K. Smith. 2016. “Toward a Model of Student Response to Feedback.” In Handbook of Human and Social Conditions in Assessment (pp. 169–185). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lipnevich, A. A., F. J. Eßer, M. J. Park, and N. Winstone. 2023. “Anchored in Praise? Potential Manifestation of the Anchoring Bias in Feedback Reception.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 30 (1): 4–17. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2023.2179956.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, N.-F., and D. Carless. 2006. “Peer Feedback: The Learning Element of Peer Assessment.” Teaching in Higher Education 11 (3): 279–290. doi:10.1080/13562510600680582.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu, J., and N. Law. 2012. “Online Peer Assessment: Effects of Cognitive and Affective Feedback.” Instructional Science 40 (2): 257–275. doi:10.1007/s11251-011-9177-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mann, W. C., and S. A. Thompson. 1987. “Rhetorical Structure Theory: Description and Construction of Text Structures.” In Natural Language Generation: New Results in Artificial Intelligence, Psychology and Linguistics (pp. 85–95). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, J. 2015. “Situating Speech: A Rhetorical Approach to Political Strategy.” Political Studies 63 (1): 25–42. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.12039.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayordomo, R. M., A. Espasa, T. Guasch, and M. Martínez-Melo. 2022. “Perception of Online Feedback and Its Impact on Cognitive and Emotional Engagement with Feedback.” Education and Information Technologies 27 (6): 7947–7971. doi:10.1007/s10639-022-10948-2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson, M. M., and C. D. Schunn. 2009. “The Nature of Feedback: How Different Types of Peer Feedback Affect Writing Performance.” Instructional Science 37 (4): 375–401. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noroozi, O., H. Biemans, and M. Mulder. 2016. “Relations between Scripted Online Peer Feedback Processes and Quality of Written Argumentative Essay.” The Internet and Higher Education, 31: 20–31. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.05.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Noroozi, O., and J. Hatami. 2018. “The Effects of Online Peer Feedback and Epistemic Beliefs on Students’ Argumentation-Based Learning.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 56 (5): 548–557. doi:10.1080/14703297.2018.1431143.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patchan, M. M., C. D. Schunn, and R. J. Correnti. 2016. “The Nature of Feedback: How Peer Feedback Features Affect Students’ Implementation Rate and Quality of Revisions.” Journal of Educational Psychology 108 (8): 1098–1120. doi:10.1037/edu0000103.
   Google Scholar
• Patton, M. Q. 1999. “Enhancing the Quality and Credibility of Qualitative Analysis.” Health Services Research 34 (5 Pt 2): 1189–1208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perkins, D. 2003. King Arthur’s Round Table: How Collaborative Conversations Create Smart Organizations. Hoboken, NJ:John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Prochazka, J., M. Ovcari, and M. Durinik. 2020. “Sandwich Feedback: The Empirical Evidence of Its Effectiveness.” Learning and Motivation 71: 101649. doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2020.101649.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, D. R. 1998. “Formative Assessment: Revisiting the Territory.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5 (1): 77–84. doi:10.1080/0969595980050104.
   Google Scholar
• Strijbos, J. W., R. L. Martens, F. J. Prins, and W. M. Jochems. 2006. “Content Analysis: What Are They Talking about?” Computers & Education 46 (1): 29–48. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strijbos, J.-W., and D. Sluijsmans. 2010. “Unravelling Peer Assessment: Methodological, Functional, and Conceptual Developments.” Learning and Instruction, 20 (4): 265–269. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Su, W., and A. Huang. 2022. “Rather to Receive Praise than Criticism? Understanding Students’ Perceptions of Feedback Valences in Academic Writing.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International. doi:10.1080/14703297.2022.2155211.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Topping, K. J. 2005. “Trends in Peer Learning.” Educational Psychology 25 (6): 631–645. doi:10.1080/01443410500345172.
   Google Scholar
• Tan, J. S., and W. Chen. 2022. “Peer Feedback to Support Collaborative Knowledge Improvement: What Kind of Feedback Feed-Forward?” Computers & Education 187: 104467. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104467.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, C. A. 1976. “A Rhetorical Definition of Movements.” Central States Speech Journal 27 (2): 88–94. doi:10.1080/10510977609367873.
   Google Scholar
• Winstone, N. E., R. A. Nash, M. Parker, and J. Rowntree. 2017. “Supporting Learners’ Agentic Engagement with Feedback: A Systematic Review and a Taxonomy of Recipience Processes.” Educational Psychologist 52 (1): 17–37. doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, Y., and C. D. Schunn. 2020. “From Feedback to Revisions: Effects of Feedback Features and Perceptions.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 60: 101826. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101826.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, Y., and C. D. Schunn. 2021. “From Plans to Actions: A Process Model for Why Feedback Features Influence Feedback Implementation.” Instructional Science 49 (3): 365–394. doi:10.1007/s11251-021-09546-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu, Y., and C. D. Schunn. 2022. “Assessor Writing Performance on Peer Feedback: Exploring the Relation between Assessor Writing Performance, Problem Identification Accuracy, and Helpfulness of Peer Feedback.” Journal of Educational Psychology 115 (1): 118. doi:10.1037/edu0000768.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zaki, M. J. 2001. “SPADE: An Efficient Algorithm for Mining Frequent Sequences.” Machine Learning 42 (1/2): 31–60. doi:10.1023/A:1007652502315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zarrinabadi, N., and M. Rezazadeh. 2020. “Why Only Feedback? Including Feed up and Feed Forward Improves Non-Linguistic Aspects of L2 Writing.” Language Teaching Research 27 (3): 575–592. doi:10.1177/1362168820960725.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhan, Y. 2021. “Are They Ready? An Investigation of University Students’ Difficulties in Peer Assessment from Dual Perspectives.” Teaching in Higher Education. doi:10.1080/13562517.2021.2021393.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhu, Q., and D. Carless. 2018. “Dialogue within Peer Feedback Processes: Clarification and Negotiation of Meaning.” Higher Education Research & Development 37 (4): 883–897. doi:10.1080/07294360.2018.1446417.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar