IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/reihed/v61y2020i6d10.1007_s11162-020-09591-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Peer Feedback Improves Students’ Academic Self-Concept in Higher Education

Author

Listed:
  • Bianca A. Simonsmeier

    (Universität Trier)

  • Henrike Peiffer

    (Universität Trier)

  • Maja Flaig

    (Universität Trier)

  • Michael Schneider

    (Universität Trier)

Abstract

Peer feedback has been shown to be an effective strategy to improve academic achievement. However, little evidence is available about the effects of peer feedback on academic outcomes other than achievement, such as academic self-concept (ASC). ASC and achievement are reciprocally related and thus mutual reinforce themselves. The present study focuses on the effect of a four week long structured web-based peer feedback intervention on ASC in the domain of academic writing as a part of a seminar assignment in a sample of undergraduate psychology students. The study investigated the effectiveness with 49 students in a randomized-controlled trial with a pre-and post-test. Each student acted as an author and a reviewer. Results indicated significant improvements in ASC for the domain of academic writing over time as compared to a control group. Furthermore, the causal effect of peer feedback compared to no feedback on ASC for academic writing was strong with d = 0.72. The effect was domain specific, as the ASCs for the sub-domains statistics and language remained unchanged by the intervention. Overall, the results revealed that participation in a peer feedback system is an effective method to enhance ASC in the context of higher education.

Suggested Citation

  • Bianca A. Simonsmeier & Henrike Peiffer & Maja Flaig & Michael Schneider, 2020. "Peer Feedback Improves Students’ Academic Self-Concept in Higher Education," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 61(6), pages 706-724, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:reihed:v:61:y:2020:i:6:d:10.1007_s11162-020-09591-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s11162-020-09591-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11162-020-09591-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11162-020-09591-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonas Lechermeier & Martin Fassnacht, 2018. "How do performance feedback characteristics influence recipients’ reactions? A state-of-the-art review on feedback source, timing, and valence effects," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 68(2), pages 145-193, April.
    2. Brian E. Roe & David R. Just, 2009. "Internal and External Validity in Economics Research: Tradeoffs between Experiments, Field Experiments, Natural Experiments, and Field Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1266-1271.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rode, Julian & Le Menestrel, Marc & Cornelissen, Gert, 2017. "Ecosystem Service Arguments Enhance Public Support for Environmental Protection - But Beware of the Numbers!," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 213-221.
    2. Hermann, Daniel & Musshoff, Oliver & Agethen, Katrin, 2014. "I will never switch sides: an experimental approach to determine drivers for investment decisions of conventional and organic hog farmers," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 183084, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Kee, Jennifer Y. & Segovia, Michelle S. & Palma, Marco A., 2023. "Slim or Plus-Size Burrito? A natural experiment of consumers’ restaurant choice," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    4. Grüner Sven, 2020. "Sample Size Calculation in Economic Experiments," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 240(6), pages 791-823, December.
    5. Norbert Hirschauer & Oliver Mußhoff, 2012. "Smarte Regulierung in der Ernährungswirtschaft durch Name-and-Shame," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 81(4), pages 163-182.
    6. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    7. Jörg Peters & Jörg Langbein & Gareth Roberts, 2018. "Generalization in the Tropics – Development Policy, Randomized Controlled Trials, and External Validity," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 33(1), pages 34-64.
    8. Bennett, Davara L. & Webb, Calum J.R. & Mason, Kate E. & Schlüter, Daniela K. & Fahy, Katie & Alexiou, Alexandros & Wickham, Sophie & Barr, Ben & Taylor-Robinson, David, 2021. "Funding for preventative Children’s Services and rates of children becoming looked after: A natural experiment using longitudinal area-level data in England," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    9. Marie Ferré & Stefanie Engel & Elisabeth Gsottbauer, 2023. "External validity of economic experiments on Agri‐environmental scheme design," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(3), pages 661-685, September.
    10. Chambers, Paul E. & Glenn Dutcher, E. & Mark Isaac, R., 2018. "Improving Environmental Quality Through Aid: An Experimental Analysis of Aid Structures With Heterogeneous Agents," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 435-446.
    11. Ning Xu & Jian Hong & Timothy C. G. Fisher, 2016. "Generalization error minimization: a new approach to model evaluation and selection with an application to penalized regression," Papers 1610.05448, arXiv.org.
    12. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    13. Mußhoff, O. & Hirschauer, N., 2013. "Planspiele als experimentelle Methode der Politikfolgenabschätzung: Das Beispiel der Stickstoffextensivierung," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 48, March.
    14. Elisabeth Vollmer & Daniel Hermann & Oliver Musshoff, 2019. "The disposition effect in farmers’ selling behavior: an experimental investigation," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 50(2), pages 177-189, March.
    15. Bernard Gumah & Liu Wenbin & Maxwell Akansina Aziabah, 2021. "Supervisors’ Leadership Styles’ Influence on Foreign Teachers’ Self-Efficacy in a Cross-Cultural Work Setting: A Moderated Mediation Analysis," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440219, March.
    16. Daniel Gregg & John Rolfe, 2018. "Myopia and saliency in renewable resource management," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 62(3), pages 394-419, July.
    17. Siebert, Johannes Ulrich & Kunz, Reinhard E. & Rolf, Philipp, 2021. "Effects of decision training on individuals’ decision-making proactivity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 294(1), pages 264-282.
    18. Pavel Ciaian & Federica Di Marcantonio & Liesbeth Colen & Kjersti Nes & Jesus Barreiro-Hurle & François J. Dessart & Luisa Menapace & Carlo Russo & Annarita Colamatteo & Negin Fathinejad & Maria Anna , 2020. "Economic analyses of differences in composition of seemingly identical branded food products in the Single Market," JRC Research Reports JRC120297, Joint Research Centre.
    19. Marette Stéphan & Roosen Jutta & Blanchemanche Sandrine, 2011. "The Combination of Lab and Field Experiments for Benefit-Cost Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 2(3), pages 1-36, August.
    20. Yannick Gabuthy & Nicolas Jacquemet, 2013. "Analyse économique du droit et méthode expérimentale," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) halshs-00746617, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:reihed:v:61:y:2020:i:6:d:10.1007_s11162-020-09591-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.