Who’s talking? Dialogic peer feedback shifts students’ focus from superficial to meaningful revisions

Abstract

When revising their writing, students tend to make more superficial revisions—related to lower-order concerns, such as grammar and punctuation—than meaningful revisions, addressing higher order concerns, such as overall content and structure. This research aims to encourage students to prioritize higher-order concerns during peer feedback and subsequent revision. In two studies, we investigated the effects of dialogic peer feedback interventions on (a) active engagement of writers during peer feedback talks, (b) the focus on higher rather than lower-order concerns during the talks, (c) writer’s revisions in the final draft, and (d) revision quality. In two studies we assigned students randomly to two conditions (Nstudy 1 = 25, Nstudy 2 = 57). They either received a short instruction on how to engage in talks about texts (dialogue-driven condition), or on what to focus on during the talk (control condition). Subsequently, students talked about their first drafts and revised their texts accordingly. Results showed that in both studies writers (a) talked significantly more in the dialogue-driven condition than in the control condition, and (b) were focused more on higher-order concerns. Study 2 further demonstrated that (c) students made more meaningful revisions in the dialogue-driven condition than in the control condition, even though (d) this did not affect revision quality. This research demonstrated that dialogic talk shifts students’ focus from lower to higher-order concerns. However, no transfer effect on revision quality was found. More research is therefore needed to understand how writers can use feedback more effectively for revision.