What if we asked students to peer-edit each other's written work?

Contents:

• How the research was conducted
• How mutual commenting is related to the quality of written work
• How the number of added and deleted words is related to the quality of the text

How the Research Was Conducted

The feedback study focuses on mutual Peer editing, which has two main forms. The first involves a student making changes to a peer's text by adding or deleting words. The second involves the student leaving comments in the margins, suggesting ways to improve the work. The editing process was conducted in Google Docs using Suggestion Mode, which highlights all changes in color, and the commenting feature, which allows the document author to accept or reject edits. Peer editing promotes the development of critical thinking and collaboration skills among students, making it an important tool in the educational process. Research shows that the practice of peer editing is based on Lev Vygotsky's sociocultural learning theory. This theory posits that students develop their skills by moving from their current level to their desired level through interactions with others, receiving their help and support. Peer editing is also analyzed through the lens of computer-supported collaborative learning theory, in which students exchange feedback in an online environment using digital tools. This approach not only promotes skill development but also improves the quality of the learning process, enabling students to work more effectively in teams and master the material.

Galina Shulgina's study involved 187 master's students enrolled in various STEM programs, such as electrical engineering, electronics, artificial intelligence, and bioengineering. All of them took an academic writing course in English, in which each student was required to prepare an article on their research. Zhang Han's experiment, conducted in the same course but among a different cohort, involved 239 master's students also enrolled in STEM programs. This study highlights the importance of academic writing in scientific endeavors and contributes to the development of skills necessary for successful communication in STEM fields.

The study was conducted using a similar methodology. The course lasted 12 weeks and was divided into six two-week blocks. The first block served as an introductory one, and in subsequent blocks, students worked on various components of a scientific article: introduction, methodology, results, conclusions, and abstract. In the first week of each block, students watched video lectures on the structure and features of each component of the article. They then participated in online classes, where they could ask the instructor questions and complete practical assignments to consolidate the material covered. During this week, students also wrote a draft of the text, which was then evaluated by the instructor. This approach helps develop scientific writing and critical thinking skills, which are important for successful scientific work.

In the second week of training, students studied video lectures on the style of scientific writing and the standards accepted in the academic community. After watching the lectures, an online seminar was held during which the instructor answered questions regarding the content of the video lectures and the drafting process. The students were then divided into pairs for peer editing. Each participant worked on their partner's draft, providing comments and edits to help improve the quality of the research paper. This approach fostered critical thinking skills and collaboration in an academic environment.

Students received edited versions of their texts from their peers and were given several additional days to review the edits and comments. If necessary, they could incorporate suggested changes into their work. Students then submitted their final versions to the instructor for review. Thus, after completing, for example, the introduction, in the next two-week block, students moved on to describing the methodology and continued working on their texts until the end of the course. This process fosters a deeper understanding of the material and the development of critical analysis skills, which is an important aspect of the learning process.

In the first week of the course, each student developed a research project. Zhang Han used the evaluations of these projects as a baseline for comparison with the evaluations of the annotation texts that students wrote in the final week of the course. This allowed her to analyze the impact of peer editing on students' long-term performance, as well as assess how the quality of texts written at the end of the course changed compared to their first works.

After completing five cycles of peer editing and instructor-assessed student work, the researchers collected data for further analysis. This data will help study the effectiveness of peer editing methods and their impact on the quality of student work.

Zhang Han examined the relationship between the number of comments and edits students received (including added and deleted words in their work) and their performance. The study covers both short-term outcomes, such as grades for specific texts during the course, and long-term indicators, including grades for the final work of the course. This helps us understand how feedback influences the development of students' writing skills and their academic achievement.

Galina Shulgina conducted a study on the relationship between the number and content of comments received and the quality of texts in the short term. During her work, she also analyzed how the number of comments correlated with the number of changes made to the text. Particular attention was paid to how taking into account comments from classmates affects the overall quality of the texts created.

Read also:

Formative feedback in an online course: key Principles

Effective formative feedback is an essential element of online learning. It helps learners recognize their achievements and areas for improvement. To provide quality feedback, follow these basic principles.

First, feedback should be specific. Point out specific aspects of the student's work so that they understand what exactly needs to be improved or changed. General recommendations do not always help with development.

Second, timeliness is important. Feedback should be provided as soon as possible after the assignment is completed so that the student can use the advice received in their future work.

The third principle is constructiveness. Focus on positive aspects and point out opportunities for growth. This will help create a supportive atmosphere conducive to learning.

The fourth aspect is personalization. Consider the individual characteristics and level of preparation of each student, adapting your feedback to their needs.

The fifth principle is the use of examples. Use specific examples from the student's work to make the feedback clearer and more visual.

Finally, the sixth principle is to encourage self-assessment. Encourage students to analyze their own achievements and mistakes, which promotes the development of critical thinking and independence.

Following these principles, you can effectively provide formative feedback in online courses, which will significantly improve the quality of learning and student engagement.

How Peer Commenting Is Related to Writing Quality

Research has shown that the relationship between comments and text quality varies in the short and long term. An important factor is also the number of sentences that the student used in their text, as well as the content of these comments. The main findings of the study can be summarized as follows: comments influence the improvement of text quality depending on their use and content.

• The number of comments received has virtually no correlation with the quality of the current draft—that is, with short-term results. Galina Shulgina found a positive, but very small, correlation, while Zhang Han found no effect.
• A large number of corrections made based on comments did not improve, but rather decreased, the quality of the text. Simply put, as Galina found, if a student corrected almost everything in their work that their partner advised them to, this did not lead to a good result.
• The more comments students received that pointed out problems in the text (rather than simply praising the author or containing different formulations of their ideas), the lower the quality of the final articles.
• At the same time, it was found that it is precisely the inclusion of comments pointing out problems that helps improve the text.

Students often face difficulties in providing high-quality feedback on their colleagues' texts, as well as in effectively using the information received to improve their own writing. Research shows that the main problems include a lack of confidence in their analytical skills, a lack of clear criteria for evaluating texts, and difficulty implementing received recommendations. These factors can hinder the development of critical thinking and written communication skills, which in turn hinders the process of learning and self-improvement. Not all students are able to thoroughly analyze large amounts of feedback and use it as a resource for improving their paper. To achieve a high-quality result, it is necessary to carefully analyze each comment and consider only constructive corrections. However, when a single article receives numerous reviews, students often take a simplistic approach, limiting themselves to only minor edits and ignoring serious issues, such as poor text structure. Personal and cultural characteristics may also come into play in this context. Some students may believe that their peers lack the experience to criticize others' work, which leads to less attention to peer feedback compared to instructor comments. This can negatively impact the quality of the work and the development of critical thinking.

• If the text is initially weak, then students, when giving feedback to its author, primarily note minor, glaring flaws.

However, they may not notice serious shortcomings in the text.

Authors of articles usually make changes in accordance with the comments most often voiced by their classmates. However, this approach does not lead to a significant improvement in the quality of the material.

• For a weak text with many errors, comments are more often left specifically about the problems, rather than praising the author or summarizing/paraphrasing what was written.

The author of the text, faced with numerous critical comments, may react negatively and refuse to deeply analyze the comments necessary for revising the article. Unsuccessful wording by reviewers can aggravate the situation: if the identified problems are not accompanied by specific suggestions for correction or if their essence is unclear, this complicates the process of improving the text. Properly structured feedback and clear recommendations play a key role in improving the quality of materials. Zhang Han's research found that a large number of comments does not always lead to an improvement in the quality of the current draft, but it does have a positive impact on the final course text's grade. This suggests that the amount of feedback received contributes to students' long-term skill development. Even if a student fails to revise their text based on a partner's comments, they are unlikely to repeat the same mistakes in future assignments. Commenting on peers' work also promotes skill development: by regularly evaluating others' texts, students better understand academic standards, and the identified shortcomings allow them to learn from the mistakes of others. Thus, active participation in the text review process not only improves the quality of individual work but also helps develop a deeper understanding of academic writing.

How does the number of added and deleted words relate to text quality?

With corrections made, the text demonstrates the opposite dynamics.

• The more edits student editors make to a draft, the better the final version of a particular text. This applies to a wide variety of interventions—from correcting spelling errors to reorganizing the text at the sentence and paragraph levels.
• However, the number of edits received does not improve writing skills over the long term—recall that this was assessed by comparing grades for the very first and last texts of the course. According to Zhang Han, this may indicate that, although edits from their peers help students identify the weaknesses of their texts, the quality of subsequent works still depends more on the student's own competencies, their proficiency in English, and their academic style.

Interestingly, of all the edits, the most beneficial is the removal of unnecessary words. This may be explained by the fact that the editor, noticing a fragment with several errors, suggests its complete deletion, which ultimately improves the text. The researcher notes that students perceive such edits from their peers rather positively, viewing them as adjustments consistent with the author's original intent.

Adding fragments of text is often perceived as intruding on the author's original idea, making such edits less acceptable to students, despite their potential benefit. Furthermore, introducing new text requires the draft author to expend significant effort in analysis and integration, which also reduces the likelihood of such edits being accepted. As a result, students may choose to avoid changes that require additional effort, even if they can improve the quality of their work.

Results Research on the practice of peer editing leads to several key conclusions. First, peer editing improves the quality of texts through collaborative work. Participants have the opportunity to exchange opinions, which helps identify errors and omissions that the author might have missed. Second, this practice develops critical thinking and analytical skills in editors, as they learn to evaluate texts from different perspectives. Third, peer editing promotes a deeper understanding of the topic as participants explore and discuss each other's content. This creates a favorable environment for learning and professional development. In conclusion, the practice of peer editing is an effective tool for improving writing skills and producing higher-quality texts. Students benefit from receiving edits and comments from their peers, as well as from commenting and editing others' work. Received comments help develop academic writing skills, and corrections directly improve the quality of texts.