From plans to actions: A process model for why feedback features influence feedback implementation

Abstract

Implementing peer feedback in revisions is a complex process involving first planning to fix problems and then actual implementing feedback through revisions. Both phases are influenced by features of the peer feedback itself, but potentially in different ways, and yet prior research has not examined their separate role in planning or the mediating role of planning in the relationship of feedback features and implementation. We build on a process model to investigate whether feedback features had differing relationships to plans to ignore or act on feedback versus actual implementation of feedback in the revision, and whether planning mediated the relationship of feedback features and actual implementation. Source data consisted of peer feedback comments received, revision plans made, and revisions implemented by 125 US high school students given a shared writing assignment. Comments were coded for feedback features and implementation in the revision. Multiple regression analyses revealed that having a comment containing a specific solution or a general suggestion predicted revision plans whereas having a comment containing an explanation predicted actual implementation. Planning mediated the relationship to actual implementation for the two feedback features predicting plans, suggestion and solution. Implications for practice are discussed.

Appendices

Appendix A

Peer review rubrics

Thesis Did the author include a clear, specific thesis in his or her introduction?

7—The author’s introduction includes a clear, specific thesis statement that connects Louv’s rhetorical strategies with the argument he is making about the separation between people and nature.

6—6

5—The author’s introduction includes a thesis, but the thesis does not make a specific or clear connection between Louv’s rhetorical strategies and his argument about the separation between people and nature.

4—4

3—The author’s introduction includes a thesis, but the thesis is overly general or simply a restatement of the essay prompt.

2—2

1—The author did not include a thesis in his or her introduction.

Argument Did the author accurately describe Louv’s argument about the separation between people and nature?

7—The author accurately describes all of Louv’s argument.

6—6

5—The author accurately describes most of Louv’s argument.

4—4

3—In the majority of the essay, the author misunderstands Louv’s argument.

2—2

1—The author does not address Louv’s argument and instead writes about his or her own argument about the separation between people and nature.

Rhetorical strategies What rhetorical strategies did the author analyze in his or her essay?

7—The author analyses multiple, subtle rhetorical strategies that Louv uses accurately (such as appeal to a common cause, evoking nostalgia, or other sophisticated strategies).

6—6

5—The author analyses three or more obvious rhetorical strategies that Louv uses (such as using rhetorical questions, anecdotes, or other obvious strategies).

4—4

3—The author analyses only 1-2 obvious rhetorical strategies that Louv uses (such as rhetorical questions) or misunderstands Louv’s strategies.

2—2

1—The author didn’t write about Louv’s rhetorical strategies (instead discussed a different topic, connected to personal experience, or just summarized Louv’s piece).

Evidence for claims How strong is the textual evidence for each claim about Louv’s rhetorical strategies?

7—Every claim has accurate evidence for all important aspects of the claim. Most evidence is conveyed through direct quotes.

6—6

5—5-Every claim has evidence, but some of the evidence is not accurate or not complete. Some evidence is conveyed through direct quotes.

4—4

3—Several claims are missing evidence, or most of the evidence is not accurate. Little or no evidence is conveyed through direct quotes.

2—2

1—No evidence is provided for any of the claims.

Explaining evidence Are the explanations of the textual evidence logical and thorough?

7—Explanations of all the evidence provided are thorough, logical and connected to the essay’s thesis.

6—6

5—Explanations are sufficient, but not always thorough, logical, and clearly connected to the essay’s thesis.

4—4

3—Explanations are simplistic, sometimes absent, or not clearly connected to the essay’s thesis.

2—2

1—Explanations are missing or unrelated to the prompt (such as based in personal experience).

Organization Did the author organize his or her essay logically and clearly?

7—The essay has a clear organization with a logical progression of ideas and body paragraphs that are each focused on a single argument that connects back to the thesis.

6—6

5—The essay has a clear organization and progression of ideas, but the body paragraphs may sometimes be unfocused or not clearly connected to the thesis. The organization may be simplistic with formulaic transitions and a list-like progression of ideas.

4—4

3—The organization of the essay is difficult to follow in many places due to jumps in logic, lack of transitions, repetition, and lack of focused body paragraphs that connect to the thesis.

2—2

1—The essay is very disorganized with most ideas presented in random, repetitive, or illogical ways that make the author’s argument and its connection to a thesis very difficult to understand.

Control of language How appropriate are the writing style and vocabulary for an academic essay?

7—Mature, sophisticated prose style, using specific academic terminology (such as pathos and ethos) and control of language.

6—6

5—Clear prose style with few lapses in academic word choice.

4—4

3—The prose generally conveys the writer’s ideas but is inconsistent in controlling the elements of effective writing, such as academic word choice.

2—2

1—Simplistic style and vocabulary.

Conventions How well does the paper follow the conventions (grammar, punctuation, and spelling) of Standard Written English?

7—The paper follows the conventions of Standard Written English very well with very few or no errors.

6—6

5—The paper mostly follows the conventions of Standard Written English, but has about 1-2 error per paragraph. The errors don’t interfere with your understanding the writer’s ideas.

4—4

3—The paper does not consistently follow the conventions of Standard Written English and may include up to 3-5 errors per paragraph. In places, the errors make it hard to understand the writer’s ideas.

2—2

1—In many sentences, the paper does not follow the conventions of Standard Written English. The errors make it very difficult to understand the write’s ideas in many places.

Appendix B

A typology of peer assessment in the present study

	Variable	Range of variation
1	Curriculum area/subject	Advanced Placement Language and Composition
2	Objectives	Of staff and students Time saving and cognitive/affective gains
3	Focus	Quantitative/ qualitative/formative
4	Product/output	Argumentative writing
5	Relation to staff assessment	Supplementary
6	Official weight	Contribute to assessee final grade
7	Directionality	Reciprocal
8	Privacy	Anonymous
9	Contact	Distance
10	Year	Same year
11	Ability	Similar ability
12	Constellation assessors	Groups
13	Constellation assessed	Groups
14	Place	Out of class
15	Time	Free time
16	Requirement	Compulsory for assessors/assessees
17	Reward	Course credit