Capstoneproject

Running Head: TECH IMPACT ON PEER FEEDBACK
Exploring Technology Impact on Peer Feedback

and Revision in the Writing Process
Iris V. Carter
North Carolina State University

TECH IMPACT ON PEER FEEDBACK
2
Abstract
As a part of the writing process, students are introduced early to the idea of editing and revision
using peer feedback. However, most students struggle to provide purposeful or useful
suggestions to peers as well as have difficulty incorporating the feedback in their own writing.
This study looked at fourth graders, reading at a fifth grade level, at a direct instruction charter
school to determine the effect of technology on the peer feedback process. The primary research
question was to what extent does multimodal peer feedback impact fourth grade students depth
and frequency of feedback given during the revision component of the writing process? The
secondary research question was in what ways does the multimodal feedback impact fourth
grader perception of the peer feedback process? Students first completed peer feedback with the
traditional paper approach and then with technological tools, an iPad and the app Seesaw, that
allowed for multimodal feedback. The use of the two methods of peer feedback allowed for a
comparison between the two methods. With the added multimodal tools, depth and frequency of
peer feedback were positively impacted. Students were more specific with praise, requests for
additional details, and with suggestions for improvement with content or organization. There was
also a positive impact on perception of the peer feedback process. Students were more
comfortable and confident with the process. Students also had an increase in appreciation for
giving and receiving peer feedback to improve writing, and perceived they could provide more
useful and specific feedback.

3
Exploring Technology Impact on Peer Feedback and Revision in the Writing Process
Introduction
For many of us, the writing process is not a foreign concept. It is something that we
practiced repeatedly throughout our time in school, most often starting in elementary school.
Many of us can remember starting with the prewriting where we had to brainstorm and plan out
the idea and content. From there we moved on to creating a rough draft where we wove together
our thoughts and plan into an initial version. The next step or steps as they are often merged
together are the revision and editing stage(s). Often for younger writers, although even for some
more mature writers, this is the stage in the writing process that is either the most difficult or
most dreaded, or perhaps some combination thereof. It is here where teachers often incorporate
peer review and feedback or try to give his/her own feedback to try and help students refine
his/her writing and become better writers. As Taylor (2014), discusses peer review can help
students improve his/her own writing skills as they learn to reflect and evaluate peers writing.
However, many times students struggle to incorporate the feedback from his/her peers
effectively as well as struggle to provide suggestions or revisions to the peers that will enhance
the writing (Taylor, 2014). So how do we make this process more purposeful and effective for
students? What tool(s) can teachers provide to aid students in the peer feedback and revision
process?
This study is an attempt at identifying potential technological tools to revitalize the peer
feedback and revision process for elementary students. To what extent can the use of e-portfolio
tools and multimodal peer feedback assist students in the peer feedback and revision process?
Will adding the technological tools impact the revision process and guide students to be more
4
engaged in the peer feedback, application of those comments and feedback, and ultimately
enhance the writing?
Review of Literature
Peer Feedback
Before diving into the study, we must first dig a little deeper into the idea of peer
feedback. How useful do students view peer feedback, what is the purpose of peer feedback and
does it really develop students writing? Marrs, Zumbrunn, McBride and Stringer (2016)
conducted a study to look at students perceptions about writing feedback. They found that many
students did like feedback because of the chance to correct mistakes, improve the writing and
hear about the positive elements of his/her writing. In the study, Marrs, Zumbrunn, McBride and
Stringer (2016) discussed how many of these students had had positive experiences with
feedback. On the contrary, those that had prior negative experiences did not like feedback
because they did not like receiving the negative comments. Taylor (2014) goes further and
explains that often students dont find peer feedback helpful and neglect to include the revisions
or suggestions in future drafts and versions. For lower ability students especially, the concept of
peer feedback can be challenging as they may receive numerous corrections and suggestions and
may be unmotivated to incorporate all of the revisions (Nicolaidou, 2013). Sometimes students
reject the suggestions because they dont think the peer editing the paper is as strong as them
academically, they only care about the teacher feedback, or they view the revisions as inaccurate
or incorrect (Taylor, 2014). In fact, Nicolaidou (2013) discusses some of these same concerns as
observed by the teacher--that corrections were incorrect, repetitive, or that subsequent versions
rejected the revisions or edits. Additionally, students often feel uncomfortable providing the
5
feedback because they dont want to put themselves or friendships in social jeopardy or dont
feel confident in their own writing or editing skills (Taylor, 2014 & Lenters & Grant, 2016). It
seems there are mixed reviews from the literature but ultimately students do not have positive
views of peer feedback and struggle to provide or incorporate the feedback.
To be effective, students need clear guidelines, modeling and opportunities to engage in
peer feedback (Lenters & Grant, 2016). By providing specific aspects to focus on with forms or
questions to address students can provide more purposeful comments to his/her peers (Taylor,
2014). Additionally, teachers must work to establish an inviting and supportive environment for
students where they understand the importance of providing positive feedback as well (Marrs,
Zumbrunn, McBride & Stringer, 2016). By providing positive feedback students can cultivate a
community of respect where they can appreciate each other's feedback (Taylor, 2016) and work
to going beyond grammatical editing to more content and stylistic editing (Lenters & Grant,
2016). To help foster this community of respect, students should be instructed about the benefits
of the peer review and feedback process to help them understand the purpose and importance to
the writing process (Marrs, Zumbrunn, McBride & Stringer, 2016 and Taylor, 2014). Taylor
(2014) points out though that students will need help learning how to use the feedback and revise
his/her writing by taking the suggestions into account. Students with more practice and training
in how to provide feedback and incorporate it will make the most changes in his/her writing
drafts (Nicolaidou, 2013). This means thoughtful planning about the process, what to do, and
what the expectations are for providing and using the feedback must be provided for students in
order to be successful.
6
With careful teacher planning, peer review can help students learn how to read more
carefully, pay attention to details, provide constructive feedback, respond to feedback on his/her
own work, and ultimately develop his/her reading, writing, and collaboration skills (Taylor,
2014). Empirical studies have even shown that peer feedback as an instructional strategy does
help students create improved drafts and furthers the writing development (Nicolaidou, 2013). So
even though planning and effective teaching of the peer feedback process is vital, the literature
points to the benefits of utilizing peer feedback to help students enhance their writing.
Incorporating Technology
Having seen the potential benefits that peer feedback can offer it is important now to
consider the literature around the idea of using technology to enhance learning so as to determine
if peer feedback could be enhanced by technology. But as Finley (2014) explains, we should not
be asking if technology enhances the learning but rather focusing on how to make sure to align
knowledge, instructional practice, and technology in such a way as to influence academic
achievement positively. To do this we can use the TPACK (Technological Pedagogical and
Content Knowledge) framework. With this framework we can be sure to consider the what
(content), the how (type of instruction), and the appropriate tool (technology) within the context
to make the content and learning accessible to students (Finley, 2014). The TPACK framework
is also helpful in ensuring that the main goal or purpose is to meet students needs (Finley, 2014)
and think about how a digital tool could help make the learning more meaningful for students
(An introduction to technology integration, 2012). The idea and goal should be to use a digital
tool because you can do it better with the technology than without (An introduction to
7
technology integration, 2012). So this study is about looking at if the technology tool does in fact
help develop the writing and further the learning.
Holland (2013) discusses the evolution of writing with the use of technology from what
she terms as writing 1.0 to 2.0, or a digitized version of the initial handwritten draft. However,
she mentions how using tools like iPads can take the writing process even further to writing 3.0
where students can go even further to work on collaboration and gain feedback with video,
shared notes, or comments and ultimately use different applications to publish the final piece in
different mediums (Holland, 2013). It is this writing 3.0 that this study seeks to tap into with
the use of additional technological tools.
Expanding upon the idea of using iPads in the writing process, Lenters and Grant (2016)
investigated the use of multimodal devices for the peer feedback component of the writing
process. The study found that with careful implementation and the use of guiding questions, the
multimodal feedback seemed to offer means and possibilities to furthering peer feedback for
students by helping students communicate more precisely and with less misinterpretation his/her
critiques (Lenters & Grant, 2016). The students commented that the visual and audio feedback
was less awkward as providing it face to face and was useful because they could revisit the
suggestions as often as needed (Lenters & Grant, 2016). This study helps illustrate the possibility
that multimodal feedback can help provide the technological tool to further student learning.
Nicolaidou (2013) goes further to explore if e-portfolios can be an effective pedagogical
strategy to support constructive peer feedback in primary education, noting that other studies
suggest that e-portfolios facilitate the exchange of ideas, feedback, and comments for students
although most studies have focused on secondary and higher education. In Nicolaidous study, a
8
weblog was used with students to be the shared space for the collection of individual portfolios
and provide a means for students to provide each other with feedback (Nicolaidou, 2013). The
study found that over time the feedback became more detailed ad constructive and students
valued the feedback they received. However, it is worth noting that the teacher observed that the
real beneficiaries were the average and high ability students as they were better able to offer
suggestions, edits and incorporate the feedback they received (Nicolaidou, 2013). Despite the
mixed results, the e-portfolio does seem to offer ease of access to student work as well as help
facilitate communication and feedback amongst the students however the study does not prove
causality between e-portfolios and changes in peer feedback skills (Nicolaidou, 2013). By
looking at this study we can see another potential tool to offer a means for students to
communicate and provide feedback through the e-portfolio.
In summary, a review of the literature indicates that peer feedback is an important
pedagogical tool that if implemented with careful teacher planning and instruction can be useful
in furthering students writing skills as well as enhancing the actual drafts. Through the eyes of
the TPACK framework and review of the literature we can also see how the added tools of
technology can help aid in the pedagogical strategy and delivery of content to students. Tools
such as iPads and e-portfolios have been shown to help facilitate the peer feedback process for
both students and teachers.
Purpose and Research Questions
This study seeks to further explore the idea of incorporating technological tools into the
peer feedback process to see how they may impact students in the peer feedback process to go
beyond simple grammatical and conventional revisions to more constructive and stylistic or
9
content revision suggestions. The literature points to the potential benefits of multimodal
feedback in eliciting more authentic and understandable responses for students as well as the
benefits of e-portfolios in facilitating communication between students. Thus, this studys focus
will look at how a blending of these elements can enhance the writing process, specifically the
peer feedback component for students. The study will explore how providing students with
iPads to capture the multimodal feedback as well as an e-portfolio tool (Seesaw) to transfer and
access the feedback impacts the type of peer feedback given and students response to that peer
feedback.
The primary research question that will guide this study is: To what extent does
multimodal peer feedback impact fourth grade students depth and frequency of feedback given
during the revision component of the writing process?
A secondary question for the action research is: In what ways does the multimodal
feedback impact fourth grader perception of the peer feedback process?
This study followed a collaborative action research design where the researcher
collaborated with a fourth grade classroom teacher to implement the intervention within one
reading class to examine the effects in relation to the research questions.
Setting and Participants
The action research was conducted at a Charter School in Wake Forest. The Charter
School is a K-12 Direct Instruction School1, although there are several different campus
locations. The total school population is 1,637 with 10.18% free and reduced lunch. 84% of the
1
Direct Instruction is a teaching model that utilizes carefully designed lessons with specific prescribed teaching
tasks to provide clear instruction to students who are placed and instructed in groups based on his/her skill level.
Only ten percent of each lesson is new material so as to focus on introducing new skills gradually and promote
mastery of content (Basic Philosophy, 2015).
10
school is White, 0.04% Biracial, 0.03% Asian, 0.05% African American, 0.05% Hispanic, 0.002
American Indian/Alaskan, and 0.002% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.
This study was conducted at the 3-8 campus in a fourth grade reading classroom. As is
the nature of the Direct Instruction, students in the classes are ability grouped and switch from
homeroom classes to his/her assigned reading and math classes based upon skill level. Although
the twenty-eight students are fourth graders, they are working on the fifth grade SRA Reading
Mastery Program. There are twenty-eight students in the class; fourteen boys and fourteen girls.
68% percent of the class is white, 0.07% Biracial, 0.07% Hispanic, 0.07% Asian, and 0.07%
African American. Two students (0.07%) of the class are on free and reduced lunch. In the class
there is only one student with an IEP for speech. The fourth grade teacher, Mrs. S, has been
teaching this fifth grade level of reading to fourth graders for four years.
The researcher is a first grade teacher at the Charter School (at the K-2 campus). The
researcher met Mrs. S in college in the teaching program. After graduation the researcher started
at the private school version of the current charter school and was transferred to the public school
version (to complete Teaching Fellows). During the transfer there was an opening for a fourth
grade position at the charter school and the researcher recommended Mrs. S apply for the
position.
The research project the students completed was about North Carolina animals and this
was Mrs.Ss sixth year implementing the research project. As part of the project, students
conducted research online through teacher selected resources about different animals that they
created a research paper from. The writing component of the research project was guided by Six
11
Traits Writing2 with the focus of this particular paper being on the Ideas and Organization Traits.
Specifically Mrs. S concentrated the writing on main ideas with three supporting details as well
as having a lead and thesis in the first paragraph. The rubric the students used to guide his/her
writing breaks down each of these elements to help students understand what they would be
assessed on (see Appendix A).
All twenty-eight students completed the animal research paper for Mrs. Ss class and
participated in the multimodal peer feedback via the e-portfolio as part of the writing process.
Through discussions with Mrs. S on elements of the writing process for this research
paper that have historically been problematic or difficult for students, the idea of using
technology to enhance the peer feedback portion of the process was realized. According to Mrs.
Ss observations, the fourth grade students generally struggle with the peer feedback concept.
Typically the students work through her provided peer feedback form and check off that
elements of the paper were present, adequate or did not need correcting when often this is not the
case. Other feedback, support and suggestions often do not go beyond grammatical or
conventional edits.
Intervention
Having determined the need for some revamping of the peer feedback process to help
assist students in better supporting one another and working through the peer feedback portion
collaboratively, it was determined to add the use of iPads and an e-portfolio tool, Seesaw (this is
2
The Six Traits Writing program is a sequenced writing program based on writing traits: ideas,
organization, sentence fluency, word choice, voice and conventions. Each trait is taught as having four
key qualities and characteristics to teach writing. Here is a link to more information:
http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/ruth-culham-writing-program/
12
a portfolio tool with web or app access where students can add documents or items and peers,
parents or teachers can also access them), to the peer feedback revision process.
Initial Instruction
For the purposes of this study and to aid in guiding an understanding of the research
questions, Mrs. S first presented the concept of peer feedback in the revision process as she does
each year. She began by introducing students to the peer feedback form (see Appendix B) and
modeling how to use the form to provide suggestions and comments to a teacher assigned partner
of a sample expository paragraph (see Appendix C). The students were given his/her partners
typed rough draft and a copy of the peer feedback form to begin the revision process. This form
was created as suggested by Taylor (2014, p. 10) to help students have specific questions and
criteria to provide feedback. Additionally, positive elements of the paper were added to have
students also highlight what was done well in the paper following Marrs, Zumbrunn, McBride &
Stringers (2016) suggestions.
Students handwrote his/her feedback and suggestions as well as provided verbal
clarification if necessary. Due to time constraints, this peer feedback happened over several days
to allow students a chance to provide feedback for the entire paper. After this initial peer
feedback student peer feedback forms and rough drafts were collected and analyzed for baseline
data to use in comparison with the multimodal peer editing in the second round. This initial peer
feedback allowed students additional chances at practicing giving peer feedback, using the peer
feedback form and reading other student papers following Lenters and Grants (2016, p. 186)
recommendations for improving the peer feedback process.
Multimodal Instruction
13
After the initial instruction and practice with peer review, Mrs. S brought the class back
together and introduced them to the e-portfolio, Seesaw. Mrs. S created a class within the
portfolio with each student registered as a member for the class. Since students do not have
his/her own email accounts, the class is setup so that with a QR code or text code, the students
can gain access into Mrs. S Reading Seesaw class portfolio.
Mrs. S modeled and instructed the students on how to use the peer feedback form (same
form as before, Appendix B) with the new multimodal features. She used a new sample piece to
provide an additional example of the peer feedback process to the class (see Appendix D). Mrs.
S instructed the students to first enter the app and then click the plus sign. Next students click on
the photo icon and take a photo of his/her partners paper. Then to begin giving the feedback the
students click on the pencil, click on voice record and can begin drawing and recording. When
the student has finished, or after the 5 minutes, the students click on the checkmark and select
his/her name. Then to make it so the partner can find the feedback they type in the comment box
that pops up feedback for [student name]. If the student still has more to say they can go
through the same steps to leave another video or look at other comment options.
Once Mrs. S finished modeling and students uploaded his/her document they received a
new (different from the previous instruction) peer review partner. Mrs. S and I felt that
providing a new partner for the student would help maintain interest in the project, allow for a
new collaboration and set of eyes, as well as provide an additional revision for all students. The
students will again have a typed and printed copy of the rough draft. Using the same peer
feedback form as before, students will then use the iPads to access the Seesaw e-portfolio tool to
14
provide audio, video, and/or text feedback to his/her partner. Due to the large number of students
in the class, Mrs. S requested access to the theatre so that students could spread out.
Although in the theatre the students were still provided with a microphone and
headphone that plugged into the iPad to help minimize background noise and help the students
concentrate on their own feedback.
Data Collection Strategies
To adequately determine the difference that the multimodal feedback and e-portfolio
made for students during the peer feedback and revision process, an initial baseline sample of
data was collected. This baseline data was taken after using the traditional method for peer
feedback (for purposes of this paper, traditional means providing feedback using the peer
feedback form to guide the comments and critique that are handwritten and clarified only if
needed). The baseline data consisted of an analysis of the type and frequency of feedback given
(see Table 1 below), and a brief attitude survey and questionnaire (see Table 2 below) about the
peer feedback process for students.
Table 1: Type and Frequency Feedback Tally (*note the study did have 28 students)
15
Table 2: Student Attitude Survey and Questionnaire
This baseline data was used to determine the impact the added technological tools had on
the revision process for students: were different types of feedback given, was more or less
feedback given, to what extent did the students use the feedback form to guide the critiques, how
did students feel about giving feedback with the different tools, and how do students perceive the
feedback via the different tools.
After the students were introduced to the multimodal feedback and e-portfolio tools for
the peer review process, a second set of data was collected. For this data, the type and frequency
of the feedback was analysed using the same feedback criteria chart (see Table 1 above). Mrs. S
16
also completed a classroom observational log throughout the process of the peer feedback with
the iPads and e-portfolio tools (see Table 3 below). Additionally, the students completed the
same survey and questionnaires as before (see Table 2 above) and Mrs. S completed a survey
and questionnaire( see Table 4 below). Using this data in comparison with the baseline data
helped assess the impact of the technological tools on the revision process--highlighting
similarities or differences in types and frequency of feedback as well as student response.
Table 3: Classroom Peer Feedback Observation Log

17
Table 4: Teacher Feedback Survey and Questionnaire
Finally a small focus group of nine students was selected based on student survey
responses to meet to discuss the differences in the peer feedback processes that they engaged in.
The students selected were chosen based on the responses they gave on the peer feedback form.
They stated extreme positive comments about the technology peer review, expressed a new
mindset or belief towards peer review, or expressed negative thoughts or feelings about the
process or feedback (which differed from the vast majority). To participate in the focus group,
students had to sign and return the permission form (Appendix E) with a parent signature. Nine
students were given the permission form and all but one returned it signed.
18
The interview questions were aimed at addressing the types of feedback the students felt
they could give, what kind of feedback they received, which they found more beneficial, and
which they would choose to do again (see Table 5 below). This focus group helped identify the
psychological impact that the multimodal tools and e-portfolio had on the peer feedback process.
Table 5: Focus Group Questions
Plan for Increasing Validity
As the purpose of the study was to determine the impact that e-portfolio tools can have on
facilitating communication specifically within the revision component of the writing process in
terms of offering peer feedback, one type of validity that was necessary to plan for was
19
truth-value validity. In order to determine the impact, accurate facts, interpretations, and
conclusions must be reached. To increase this particular type of validity, triangulation of data
analysis of the peer survey, focus group, negative case analysis, teacher observations, researcher
observation, and peer feedback analysis were used. The researcher and teacher also collaborated
in gathering different feedback and observations so as to compare and check for biases and
accurate data recording. In conjunction with the truth-validity, neutrality and confirmability were
also a focus of this study. In an effort to understand the impact that the multi-modal tools had on
peer feedback during revision, it was important to the researcher and teacher to ensure that the
results were accurate and not due to researcher or teacher bias. With the focus on accurate data
and triangulation, as well as researcher and teacher collaboration it was possible to also make
available an audit trail through the tables and appendices to support the results of the study.
The purpose of the study was to begin to explore further the potential benefits of
combining multimodal feedback and e-portfolio tools on peer feedback given during the revision
process. Should the study yield positive findings the question about applicability and
transferability would arise. For this reason, the focus on the usefulness of the results in different
contexts or with different individuals was accounted for. The detailed description of the setting,
study and participants are meant as a means of ensuring this validity.
Finally, the major driver of this research project was looking for a solution to helping
students understand the peer feedback process and better be able to offer constructive feedback
on content or writing style and not just editing. Thus another validity to plan for was focusing on
the ability of the study to increase our understanding of the problem, resolve that problem and
20
use the results to transform the teaching. To plan for this a presentation of the results of the
study as well as a discussion of the results and our reflection are included.
Results and Discussion
After all of the data was collected, the researcher began the data analysis by reviewing
the types of feedback and frequency using the tally sheet (Table 1) for both the traditional paper
method and the multimodal intervention. To help maintain as much consistency and objectivity
to the type and frequency throughout the feedback only the researcher did this analysis. The
hope was that this would help ensure validity as the same person would be doing all of the
classifying of different components, with the same denotation. The totals of all peer surveys
were input into tables and the peer feedback responses to the open ended questions were
analysed for common themes. Focus group responses and teacher interview responses were
transcribed and analyzed for themes and important outliers or elements.
To address the first research question, to what extent does multimodal peer feedback
impact fourth grade students depth and frequency of feedback during the revision component of
the writing process, a type and frequency table was used to review the student work. The two
tables, included below (Table 6 and 7), indicate each students response as well as the total for
the class. The classroom observation log, researcher observations, teacher interview, and focus
group questions were also analysed to give insight into the potential impact of the intervention
on depth and frequency of feedback during the revision process.
Table 6: Type and Frequency Feedback: Traditional Paper

21
Table 7: Type and Frequency Feedback: Multimodal (Seesaw/Digital)

22
A comparison of the tables (Tables 6 and 7) indicates that on paper students specifically
identified the element 275 times versus the 249 times with the digital version. There are multiple
possible explanations for this and all should be considered. First, with the paper feedback form
students were required to write down the identifying element, making it more apparent for the
researcher when the element was identified. The writing down of the feedback also made it
more apparent to the student doing the peer feedback which elements were left to address.
Secondly, as will be explored further below, some students felt rushed for time or felt they could
not include everything because of the time limit on the video. Third, it is possible that the
23
researcher over-identified or under-identified on either assessment of the feedback. This too will
be further explored and discussed below.
Further analysis of the tables (tables 6 and 7) reveals that students made more comments
about their opinion, positive feedback, or compliments of the piece--either specifically or
vaguely with the multimodal feedback. For example, (see Appendix K for additional
transcriptions) students said things like:
On your fifth paragraph when you talked about the eagle scout and what he said, that
was a really good idea and really cool.
You also didnt end with anything to restate the whole three paragraphs. Like you could
say something like (gives example).
You should split your lead and main idea thesis. It hooks me but it doesnt make sense
as one sentence.
I liked how you organized all the facts but you are writing about your writing in some
parts of it, so Id like you to work on that too.
I can definitely tell what the lead is (reads it). It makes me want to know more about that
so that really hooked me.
On paper vague statements and specific compliments totaled 54 and 27 respectively.
With the multimodal feedback these numbers increased to 77 and 176. This analysis suggests
that with the intervention, students were able to provide more specific, positive feedback to their
peers. While listening to the multimodal feedback, the researcher observed these more positive
statements as students would identify the element and offer a reason why it was working for the
24
paper, giving additional positive feedback to the suggested three glows of the peer feedback
form.
With the traditional paper feedback the students simply checked the box for needing the
detail of 102 times (see table 6 and 7). There was only one vague request for more detail needed,
for example, For supporting details you have good ones in the first two, but in the third
paragraph maybe you need more, (see Appendix K for additional transcriptions), or what this
researcher deems as the equivalent to checking a box, with the multimodal method. It is
important to note though that this could be because there wasnt a box to check off on the iPad.
This raises the question as to whether or not that encouraged students to have to be more specific
with what detail was missing, thus this may need further exploring in the future and will be
discussed more below. Therefore, it cannot be assumed with this data alone that students were
more specific with what details were missing. However, the charts (see Table 6 and 7) do show
that specific requests for particular details or specific suggestions increased from 4 with the
traditional paper method to 87 with the multimodal. Additionally, specific content suggestions
increased from 47 to 56 and specific organization suggestions from 1 to 54. These numbers help
support the aforementioned idea that students could be more specific in their feedback and
request for detail using the multimodal intervention. Once again though it is important to note
though that increases in vague organization statements (9 to 27) and vague content statements
(15 to 23) were also observed. Again, there are several possible reasons for this, and this too
must be further explored.
In addition to looking at these numbers about the depth of feedback, the researcher also
observed that eight students made more than just one five minute video to record the feedback.
25
One student made a total of four videos. This is important to note because the students were only
told they needed to make one video using the peer feedback form to guide the feedback. The
classroom observation log (see Appendix I) also indicated the fact that several students
commented that five minutes was not enough time to leave the feedback and many asked for
permission to leave additional videos. When reviewing the multimodal feedback, it was evident
that almost all students used the entire five minutes to leave feedback, and several were cut off
mid-review. Although not all went on to make another video or leave additional feedback, some
did take the initiative. The classroom observation (see Appendix 9) also showed several students
asking clarification questions so they could leave more detailed feedback. For example, asking
for help using the under-lining features or asking for assistance with using other features in
seesaw to type a comment or leave only a voice recording. During the review of the multimodal
feedback, the researcher also noted a new theme emerge in the feedback. Students added
commentary beyond the peer feedback form to identify elements that didnt make sense as well
as offering suggestions for how it could make more sense to them.
To further explore the impact on the depth and frequency of feedback with the
intervention, the researcher conducted a focus group with students. The focus group was created
based on the student peer survey and was created with a sample of the range of student opinions
in the class. In the focus group (see Appendix H for transcription) the students stated that the
multimodal feedback allowed them a chance to underline the suggestions as they were talking to
help their partner understand, offered the chance to give and get more specific feedback and
ideas, and allowed you to explain why you would have checked the box for needing more detail.
All of these responses add to the implication above that the intervention not only led to students
26
leaving more specific feedback but that they could self-identify that they were able to both give
and receive more detailed feedback. In the teacher survey (Table 8.1 and 8.2), Mrs. S also
indicated, with a strongly agree response, that she felt students were specific about the content,
word choice, and organization feedback and an agree response about being specific with style
feedback. In the open ended response, Mrs. S observed that most students gave accurate
feedback although they occasionally missed some things. She thinks that this may be because
there was a lack of understanding about main idea sentences and how to sort the information into
the different parts of the paper. Further discussions with Mrs. S also indicated that she strongly
agreed that with the multimodal intervention students were engaged and on task with the
feedback process using the peer feedback form.
It is important to restate here that a more detailed peer review form was created at the
beginning of this research process to help students give specific feedback (as suggested by the
literature and explained above). Conversations with Mrs. S indicate that this form was also
useful because as she stated, requiring them to write examples ensures theyre not just checking
off boxes to get finished. The students did use this same peer feedback form for the traditional
paper feedback as well as the multimodal feedback to help increase validity when comparing the
type and frequency of feedback between the two methods. Since the same peer feedback form
was used on both occasions the type and frequency comparison, focus group discussions,
classroom observations and teacher interview and feedback lead the researcher to believe that
depth and frequency of feedback were positively impacted using the multimodal method.
Table 8.1: Teacher Feedback Response: Part 1

27
Table 8.2: Teacher Feedback Response: Part 2
To address the second research question, in what ways does the multimodal feedback
impact fourth grader perception of the peer feedback process, a comparison of the peer feedback
28
likert scale responses and open ended response themes was completed. The focus group
responses, teacher interview, classroom observation, and teacher survey were used to investigate
these themes and trends further to help identify the impact on perception.
The two tables, (see Table 9 and 10 below), indicate the total likert responses for each
question, as well as if the student left the question blank. A comparison of these tables indicate
that there was an increase in the number of students who understand how to give feedback. It
went from 9 strongly agree with traditional paper to 16 with multimodal. There were 15 who
agreed with paper and only 8 who agreed about understanding, but this could be because they
changed opinion to strongly agree. It is important to note that it is possible they felt they
understood it more because it was also the second time doing peer feedback with the form. In
fact, it was noted in the classroom observation (see Appendix 9) that the students were more
familiar with the form and process and didnt have to rely as much on the feedback form.
A comparison of Tables 9 and 10 indicates that students felt more comfortable giving
feedback to the peers with the iPad. On paper only 9 strongly agreed that they were comfortable
but with the intervention this increased to 15. Originally on paper there were 7 undecided but
this changed to 1. There was also 1 student who disagreed with being comfortable with the
paper method but this went to zero. On the teacher survey (see Table 8.1), Mrs. S agreed that
students understand how to give feedback and strongly agreed that students were comfortable
with the process. The survey also indicated that Mrs. S agreed that students worked well with
the peer feedback process. with the teacher, Mrs. S also noted. In the focus group the students
also indicated feeling more comfortable and confident with giving feedback. The data from these
29
various sources suggests that the multimodal intervention helped students feel more comfortable
as well as have an increased understanding of the peer feedback process.
Table 9: Peer Feedback Response: Traditional Paper
Table 10: Peer Feedback Response: Multimodal Feedback

30
In terms of liking receiving feedback (see Tables 9 and 10), 11 students initially strongly
agreed with the paper method. This number increased to 14 after the intervention. The number
in agreement stayed the same for both. On the first survey there was one student who strongly
disagreed but this went down to 0 after the second survey. This suggests that overall students
perception towards receiving feedback became more positive. On the other hand the undecided
increased from 2 to 3 and the disagree from 0 to 1. It is possible that the undecided and
disagreement increased for several reasons. Those students may not have liked having to change
their paper or hear what needed to be fixed (and may not have heard it from the initial partner),
31
or after receiving their initial grade on the feedback and rough draft may not have developed a
negative attitude towards the grade because they did not agree with the grade.
After using the intervention it appears that overall more students perceived that they
could give more useful feedback to their peers (see Tables 9 and 10) as only 8 strongly agreed
with this on paper and this increased to 12; 7 were initially undecided decreasing to 4. It is
important to note that there were 11 who agreed initially and this decreased to 10, but this could
be because they switched to strongly agree. It is also important to note that these scores may
have been influenced because after the initial feedback on paper, the students got a grade on the
quality of feedback that they gave and this may have influenced their perception of the feedback
they could give (either for the positive or negative).
In addition to the peer response likert scales, a look at the open ended questions and
themes that arose helps explore perceptions towards giving and receiving peer feedback. Both
the open ended after the traditional method (see Table 11 below) and after the multimodal
intervention (see Table 12 below) indicate students liked hearing the feedback and opinions.
Both surveys indicated that students didnt like getting negative or bad feedback, but this was to
be expected as this came about in the literature review as well. However, after the intervention
some new themes that emerged were how much easier and faster it was to give the feedback
using the intervention, how they felt they could understand the feedback better, and several who
expressed that they liked giving the feedback even more after the intervention. Another new
theme that emerged was the amount of students who couldn't identify a worst part of the
process or find something that they didnt like about peer feedback using this method. It is
important to note though that another theme that emerged after the intervention was more
32
students commenting on getting unhelpful feedback. This could be be for several reasons:
students were giving more feedback in general, students felt rushed for time with the timer on the
app (as expressed in the focus group and observations), or students are still struggling and
learning how to provide feedback.
Table 11: Peer Feedback Open Response Themes: Traditional

33
Table 12: Peer Feedback Open Response Themes: Digital
Classroom observations (see Appendix 9) also indicated that students perceived the peer
feedback process with the multimodal intervention positively. Students were talking about being
excited to use the iPads and one student even commented, This is fun. I wish we could do this
everyday. With these observations and the peer survey students in the focus group were also
asked to provide more detail on their perception towards giving and receiving feedback.
Students in the focus group (see Appendix H for transcription) discussed that it was easier to be
more specific on the iPad because you do not run out of space, you can explain why you needed
more detail and you could offer suggestions about what to change and not be mean. Further
questioning helped the students explain it was more helpful to do the feedback with the
intervention because it was easier, faster, you could underline what to fix or where the mistake
34
was and you could explain your feedback better. All but one student said they liked giving
feedback because they could help others as well as help their own writing. The other student was
worried about hurting other students feelings.
In the focus group all but one student discussed how they liked getting feedback because
it was helpful, tells you what was good about the writing, and told you what to fix. They also
mentioned that with the underlining they could see what the partner was talking about, know
where the mistake was, understood what was meant and it wasnt as confusing. Students also
discussed that with the multimodal intervention they received better suggestions. The students
also mentioned that they felt more comfortable with getting feedback from their peers because
they knew that everyone would be nice and honest. The other student did not like getting
feedback because he/she felt that they continued to be told about the same mistake and it
continued to be brought up. Students in the focus group also expressed a difference with
receiving feedback with the multimodal intervention in that it felt more real because you could
hear the gut reaction, knew what they were thinking, and you could hear the tone of the partner.
In the teacher survey (see Table 8.1 and 8.2) there is also mention of the positive attitude
towards peer feedback (strongly agree) as well as the observation from Mrs. S that the students
were excited to have their voice valued, use the technology, and continue to do the writing.
However, the form also points out that not all students thought that they needed to make
changes. This observation by Mrs. S matches the data that some students were still undecided
about peer feedback making writing better, although all students either strongly disagreed or
disagreed that peer feedback was not important.

35
Further investigation of Tables 9 and 10 (the peer response likert scales) sheds additional
light on the perception of how much peer feedback is important and helps make the writing
better. After the initial peer feedback 16 strongly disagreed that feedback was not important but
there were 2 students who agreed. The second time the survey was conducted 20 strongly
disagreed and 0 agreed that peer feedback is not important. In terms of peer feedback not making
writing better, after the first round, 12 students strongly disagree, 10 disagreed, 4 were undecided
and 1 strongly agreed. 13 strongly agreed that peer feedback will help improve the paper, 8
agreed, and 4 were undecided. After the intervention, 19 students strongly disagree, 5 disagreed,
2 were undecided, and 0 agreed that peer feedback did not make the writing better. After the
intervention, there were still 13 who strongly agreed that peer feedback will help improve the
paper, but now 11 agreed, and 2 were undecided. On the open ended responses of the peer survey
(see Tables 11 and 12) some themes that initially emerged about the best parts of the peer
feedback process on paper were getting to hear other opinions and getting to use the feedback to
improve ones paper. These themes remained with the intervention, indicating that students
perceived that peer feedback did have value and would help improve the paper. This data
suggests that overall students felt that peer feedback was important and did help make the
writing better.
Another element of student perception that was looked at was the perception of how
specific ones peers were in feedback. Initially, there were 14 who strongly disagreed that peers
were not specific enough, 2 who were undecided, and 1 who agreed. After the intervention, 16
strongly disagreed, 1 was undecided and 0 agreed that peers were not specific enough. This
seems to indicate that students felt the peer were specific enough. Along these same lines
36
students were asked if they use what peers suggest to revise their paper. Initially 2 students
strongly disagreed (with the paper method) and this decreased to 0, 5 students were undecided
and this number went down to 3. With the paper method 5 students agreed to using the feedback
but this increased to 9 with the intervention. It is important to note though that initially 14
strongly agreed with this and this number reduced to 12. During the teacher interview (see Table
13), Mrs. S observed that most students used the feedback they received from the multimodal
intervention more although there were still some who did not use the feedback. This corresponds
with the students who were still undecided and the number of strongly agree decreasing. Mrs. S
also observed that those who didnt use the paper feedback also did not use the second feedback.
This could be explored further to determine the reasons as to why the feedback from either
partner or method was disregarded. However, as explored in the existing literature, students
may not have included it because they were unmotivated or felt overwhelmed by the amount of
suggestions (Nicolaidou, 2013) or because they thought the feedback was inaccurate and only
want teacher feedback (Taylor, 2014).
Table 13: Teacher Interview Questions and Responses

37
Prior to the peer feedback process starting on paper the researcher and Mrs. S
collaborated to create a more detailed peer feedback form to guide student comments and
suggestions. On the peer feedback survey, students were asked if the feedback form helped them
give specific comments. After the first revision 10 students strongly agreed, but after the second
15 students agreed. The number of students who agreed remained the same however the
undecided went from 5 students on paper to 0. Students were also asked if the peer feedback
form was helpful in general and 13 students strongly agreed on paper but this increased to 16
38
after the intervention. On paper 9 students agreed that it was helpful but this increased to 11
students. The number of undecided students decreased from 4 to 0. The third perception for the
peer feedback form that was looked at was if students felt the form helped them think about their
own paper. With the first paper method 14 students strongly agreed which decreased to 13. The
number of students who agreed went from 8 to 11 and the number of undecided went from 4 on
paper to 2.
In the focus group (see Appendix H for transcription) students were asked for further
details about this peer feedback form. Students discussed the fact that the form was helpful
because it helped you think about what to suggest or change and helped you say what needed to
be changed Mrs. S also indicated in the teacher interview (see Table 13) that going forward she
would continue to use the more detailed form because they needed something explicit to guide
them through the process. The data indicates that students perceived themselves as able to
provide more useful feedback with the peer feedback form and that it was helpful to the process.
Conclusions
After completing the multimodal intervention and analyzing the data some conclusions
can be drawn in reference to the research questions. The first research question was: to what
extent does multimodal peer feedback impact fourth grade students depth and frequency of
feedback given during the revision component of the writing process?
Although the specific identification of elements on the peer feedback form decreased
from 275 to 249, as discussed previously this may have been because the students were not
39
required to write down the identifying element. As previously mentioned, this also could be
because the researcher over or under identified elements when listening to the video feedback.
Also, some students commented on the peer feedback survey and in the focus group that they felt
they did not have enough time to identify each element and talk about suggestions or what to
improve because of the five minute time limit. The students were very familiar with the peer
feedback form since they had used it on the initial paper feedback, however they were not used
to giving the multimodal feedback. This means it is possible that with some practice with this
intervention they may get even faster at this and be able to provide the specific identifications.
Another possibility that will be explored further below is adjusting the assignment to have
students only focus on one paragraph or element per video.
Despite the specific identification of particular elements in the writing, after looking at
the type and frequency comparison forms, focus group discussions, classroom observations, and
teacher interview it appears that the that depth and frequency of feedback were positively
impacted using the multimodal method. Students were able to provide more specific positive
feedback to peers as well as provide additional positive feedback beyond the form requirement
of three glows.
One thing to consider is that by doing the multimodal feedback students could not simply
check off a box that stated they need more detail. They had to ask for more detail in the video
and many then went on to explain what detail was missing and offered suggestions for
improvement. Thus the lack of a box to check may have encouraged or prompted the students to
leave the additional comments. Students often did not only mention the detail missing but went
on to give specific suggestions or recommendations for improvement, often going beyond the
40
requirement of one post or video. With the multimodal feedback students were more specific
with organization and content statements or suggestions, however as noted earlier there was also
an increase in the amount of vague organization and content statements. This is something to
investigate further to determine if it is because students still need help providing stronger
feedback, students overall were just providing more feedback because as mentioned in the focus
group one can talk and say more than write, or if there is another reason. Despite this, in the
multimodal feedback the researcher also observed that additional comments and feedback were
given about whether or not a paragraph, sentence or idea made sense or confused the
reader--something that was not observed with the paper method. Therefore, when looking at all
of the observations, surveys, focus groups, and feedback again it seems that the depth and
frequency of feedback was positively influenced by the addition of the multimodal feedback.
The second research question was: in what ways does the multimodal feedback impact
fourth grader perception of the peer feedback process? Upon first analysis of the data it was
evident that students were more comfortable and confident with the peer feedback process with
the multimodal intervention. This could be because of the added practice as Nicolaidou (2013)
suggested was necessary to help increase student success. The added practice allowed several
students in the surveys and focus groups to comment that they were more comfortable because
they didnt have to fear what the peers feedback would be--they knew they would be kind and
honest. However, to determine the ultimate source of the comfort and confidence it would be
necessary to further investigate this.
With the multimodal intervention students perceived that they could provide more useful
and specific feedback, especially when using the peer feedback form to help them through the
41
process. Students also found the use of the intervention to make the peer feedback process easier
to both provide feedback to peers as well as understand the feedback they received. After the use
of the intervention students appeared to have an increased appreciation of the feedback process,
several commenting that there was nothing that could be done to improve the process and that
there was no worst part. One thing to consider is the influence of the peer feedback form on
the positive experience. As Taylor (2014) suggested students are more successful with the peer
feedback process when given specific guidelines for what to include. That being said, it is
important to note that the positive attitude and perceptions of the process could be in part
because of the form or because of the intervention. To determine the extent of influence of just
the intervention more research needs to be conducted.
After the intervention, students perception about the importance of peer feedback in
making writing better appears to be positively affected. Students discussed appreciating the
feedback because it told what was good about the writing as well as what needed to be fixed.
With the intervention they felt these items were easier to understand and interpret and that they
received better suggestions. Despite these comments on the surveys and in the focus groups, not
all included the feedback in the revisions. As Nicolaidou (2013) suggests this could be because
they were unmotivated to actually make the changes or as Taylor (2014) mentioned because they
only value teacher feedback. Further research would need to be conducted to determine the
discord between students stating they found it useful and then the lack of application. Ultimately
though, after triangulating the different sources of data, the data indicates that fourth grader
perception towards the peer feedback process became more positive with a greater appreciation
42
for giving and receiving feedback, how it can be useful in the writing process, and with increased
comfort and confidence in the overall process.
Multimodal Intervention: Next Steps
On the peer feedback form students were asked what could be changed or enhanced with
the peer feedback process to make it better. Some suggestions from the students were
considering using laptops, adding a typing option, using laptops (to make the typing easier),
adding more components to the feedback form or by changing it and doing it completely face to
face. In the focus group additional suggestions were made like having students use one color in
the drawing tool when underlining positive elements and a different color for negative. The focus
group also mentioned that it would be beneficial to break up the peer feedback and focus on one
paragraph or element of the writing per video. That way the students giving feedback could
really offer suggestions and analyze that part and the student receiving would know exactly
which elements needed to be addressed. Students also mentioned they really liked having
random partners assigned because they were concerned their friends would not be as honest
because they didnt want to hurt their feelings.
In discussing with Mrs. S after the focus group and analysis of the peer feedback form,
some plans for future use of the multimodal intervention will include the student suggestions of
different colors for positive and negative, breaking apart the feedback process into one paragraph
at a time, and keeping the partners random. Further, after using the intervention Mrs. S
mentioned that she does plan to use this type of peer feedback with the detailed peer feedback
form in the future because more students (although not all) incorporated the feedback from the
multimodal process.
Research: Plans for the Future

43
As mentioned in the participant section, this study was done in a fourth grade ability
grouped reading class. All of the students are on the same reading level. Of course, this does not
mean they all have the same writing capabilities as writing is very developmental and each
student is different. However, it may be worth investigating if the multimodal intervention
would also show the same positive effects on depth, frequency and perception when done in a
traditional, multi-leveled reading class.
Additionally, as suggested by the research a very specific peer feedback form was
provided to the students to aid in the process. It may be interesting to determine if with the
multimodal format students need as detailed and specific of a feedback form to be as
successful--or if they could be given more freedom and still be as successful. Students also were
told they would be graded on the peer feedback process. Mrs. S explained this was not meant to
impact the study but becauses she wanted to encourage them to do their best and provide quality
feedback (both on the traditional paper method and with the multimodal) without simply rushing
to complete the form. This is something that could also be explored to determine if without the
added incentive the depth and frequency and feedback process as a whole would still be as
positively influenced.
Third, in determining the depth and frequency of the feedback the researcher often found
that some of the analysis seemed subjective and open to interpretation. If possible, it would be
interesting to find a more objective approach or method for further analyzing the depth and
feedback to provide even more insight into how the multimodal intervention effects feedback
given.
44
Finally, Mrs. S noted that not only did the papers improve with the multimodal feedback,
but that the class average increased from a 76.1 to an 83.6. This is an area that could also use
additional research to determine to what extent the multimodal feedback can increase or impact
the overall quality of student writing and grades.

45
References
An introduction to technology integration [Video file]. (2012, December 12). Retrieved from
http://www.edutopia.org/technology-integration-introduction-video
Basic philosophy of Direct Instruction. (2015). Retrieved September 27, 2016, from National
Institute for Direct Instruction website http://www.nifdi.org/what-is-di/basic-philosophy
Finley, T. (2014, August). How to integrate tech when it keeps changing [Blog post].
Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/integrate-tech-keeps-changing-todd-finley
Holland, B. (2013, November 26). Redefining the writing process with iPads [Blog post].
Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/blog/redefining-writing-process-with-ipads-
beth-holland
Lenters, K., & Grant, K. (2016). Feedback loops: Assembling student editors, stories,
and devices for multimodal peer feedback. Language Arts, 93(3), 185-199.
Marrs, S., Zumbrunn, S., McBride, C., & Stringer, J. K. (2016). Exploring elementary student
perceptions of writing feedback. i-manager's Journal on Educational Psychology, 10(1),
16-28.
Nicolaidou, I. (2013). E-portfolios supporting primary students writing performance and peer
feedback. Computers & Education, 68, 404-415.
Taylor, S. M. (2014). Can peer review help Johnny write better? The Journal of Adventist
Education,4-10.
46
Appendix A: Expository Writing Rubric

47
48
Appendix B: Peer Feedback Form

49
50
51
Appendix C: Sample Expository Paragraph 1
The javelina is a pig-like creature. This mammal has dark gray bristly hair with a white collar
around its neck. The javelina also has a dark stripe down its back. When they are young, the
javelinas are reddish or yellow-brown. When full grown, javelinas can weigh 40 to 60 pounds.
They are usually 46-60 inches long and 20-24 inches high. Javelinas have short tails and have a
scent gland near their rear. This four-legged creature has only 3 toes on his hind legs, while pigs
have four. They do have long snouts just like their pig counterparts. These snouts allow the
javelinas to find food. The javelina is a unique looking creature.

52
Appendix D: Sample Expository Paragraph 2
The falcon is the most common bird of prey. There are more than forty different species of
falcons that can be found on every continent except Antarctica. Usually the falcon prefers to live
in more temperate regions in the northern hemisphere. Falcons make their nest in high places
like mountains, cliffs and the tops of trees. Falcons have incredible flying ability and vision to
spot and capture their prey. They are predators who hunt several types of animals including
mice, frogs, fish and other smaller birds.
Appendix E: Permission Form and Letter for Focus Group

53
Appendix F: Open Responses for Peer Feedback: Traditional: On Paper
1. What was the best/most helpful part about the peer feedback process? What was the worst/least helpful
part about the peer feedback process?
The best part/most helpful part about the feedback process is that you can learn what others
think about your writing. The worst part/least helpful part about the feedback process is that you
cant decide which idea you should use if your partner put 2 ideas.
Best: I get to do it. Worst: finding out a sentence.
Maybe for best, just being told what I got. For worst I would say it was getting graded.
Most helpful was that I used my partners papers to help me improve mine. I dont have a
worst.
The most helpful part was when M told me to take out tree, flying and ground squirrels. I didnt
really use the suggestions.
It helped me learn from my mistakes. Sometimes not good feedback.
Best: Helping make writing better. Worst: Not knowing what to do in your writing.
The most helpful was the thesis. The least helpful was the 3 main ideas.
The best part was I got better at writing. The worst part was I did not know who my partner
was.
Best part was getting the feedback to improve. Worst thing was get bad feedback.
Seeing my grade
Most helpful was getting to know what to fix. Not helpful things are that Im scared to see how I
did.
Getting and revising the facts. Finding information to write down.
When my partner gave me a suggestion. I dont know the worst part.

54
The best/most helpful part about the peer feedback process was that you could compare the
feedback and your writing at the same time. The worst/least helpful part was that there wasnt a
lot of choices to choose from.
Getting my feedback. That I have to give negative comments to my partner.
The best thing was when we corrected peoples writing. The worst part was when we went back
to correct the writing.
The spelling corrections. Some comments were weird.
Best: he pointed out my mistakes. Worst: he told me to put the wrong things on my writing.
Best: what I got told was good. Worst: how I got something wrong.
Best part: getting others opinions. Not as helpful: I liked all of it.
All information. My bad grade now.
The partner shows you other ways you could do something. Nothing bad to me.
Hear what other say. Need more practice.
2. Has doing peer feedback this way changed how you feel about peer feedback? Yes or No? Why?
Doing peer feedback changed the way I feel about peer feedback because now I know what
others think about my writing.
No, because it would be kind of hard.
Yes because I can do better.
Yes/no because some parts were more helpful some werent.
Yes because now I know I will get a better grade.
Yes because it has helped me out a little bit more.
Yes because it makes me feel more confident in my writing.
Yes because it give my ideas what to say.
Yes, now I feel comfortable to do feedback with other people.

55
Yes because I get to see what I can improve.
Yes! I thought I would have a horrible grade.
Yes because we use little graphs.
No, because it means that I need to do a better job.
Yes because doing it this way, I can see all of my answers at one and that I can compare all of
them at the same time.
No because I still like to improve my writing.
Yes because Ive never done it before.
Yes it makes me more comfortable.
Yes because now I understand how to improve my writing.
Yes: I learned you can help someone without being mean.
Yes because I feel what they are talking about.
No.
3. How can the peer feedback process in the future be improved?
Peer feedback can be improved by put more into the feedback.
It could be improved by me learning.
It helps me do better in the future.
I can do what my teacher said better.
I could try to give better suggestions.
Add more details.
Maybe adding thoughts about negativity.

56
We might be able to discuss further.
Maybe not as many questions.
I dont know.
It cant. I like it just the way it is.
Talk about it with a partner.
It can make my grades better and I will get a better max grade.
The peer feedback process in the future can be improved by letting the partners sit together and
let them write down the feedback together.
Maybe you can share ideas with your partner.
It can be improved by reading and learning about writing.
Better handwriting would help.
I dont think there should be any changes.
Reading better. Making better decisions.
I like it how it is.
Nothing.
Dont know.
Just teacher.
4. Is there anything else you would like to say about peer feedback?
Peer feedback helped me know other peoples ideas they had for my writing. Now I can keep on
improving my writing.
No
No
I liked doing it.

57
I like peer feedback because it helps you get better grades.
No
No
I enjoy see what they like and what I need to improve on.
No
Well it was fun to see what people thought of my writing.
No
No
No
No
It really helps me improve.
No
It was good overall and helped me.
No
No
I like how you get other opinions about your writing.
Nope
No:
No
Appendix G: Open Responses for Peer Feedback: Digital/Seesaw
1. What was the best/most helpful part about the peer feedback process? What was the
worst/least helpful part about the peer feedback process?

58
The best part is that I can learn what other people think of my paper. I didnt like it because the
feedback had only 5 minutes to do the video.
The best thing was when I got my feedback. The worst thing was my grade.
Being told what I can do better. People being petty.
I don't have a worst. I loved when I got to edit my paper.
Most helpful: to take away space in between paragraphs. Least helpful: suggestions.
The best thing was it was helpful. The worst part was he was sort of mean like you need to
change this now.
Best: I would make my writing better. Worst: on paper feedback I didnt feel as satisfied.
The most helpful was the drawing tool. The least helpful: I was having trouble making a voice
comment.
The most helpful was the seesaw. The least helpful was some friends say you are writing about
your writing but you are not.
Best: my grade went up. Worst: I thought I shouldnt write some suggestions they said.
It is fast and easy.
Best part of the feedback was videoing myself giving feedback. Worst part was typing and
thinking of sentences.
My peers helped me with conventions but it was like 5 minutes of getting nothing.
Seesaw. Worst: when 1 of my partners didnt give me any feedback.
The best/most helpful part was with misspelled words.
Using seesaw. Doing it on paper.
Nothing bad. You get helped good.
Best: getting different comments. Worst: liked it all.
Getting feedback. Having to do my essay over.

59
Getting to fix my writing with the feedback helped. There was no worst part. It was so much
fun.
Most helpful was getting to listen to what they say. Worst thing was none of it. It really helped
me improve.
Seesaw. Filling the form.
Everything. Nothing.
My peers suggestion. My max grade.
I dont know really.
The best part was using the ipads. There was no bad part.
2. Has doing peer feedback this way changed how you feel about peer feedback? Yes or No?
Why?
Yes because now I can improve and make my paper better.
No because it doesnt make me any smarter for feedback.
Yes.
Yes because my partners helped me.
Yes because now I like peer feedback.
Yes because it is fun and helps me learn how to write.
Yes because I feel more satisfied.
Yes! I like doing this way better. Mostly because you can write and tell them everythingnot
just writing.
Yes because I now understand how to do it.
Yes because its easier and shorter.
No because I like using computers and videoing myself.

60
Yes because Ive never done it before and thought it was fun.
Yes because now I know how to give feedback.
No, I still love peer feedback.
Yes because my peers all gave me helpful feedback.
Yes because it helped me.
Yes. It is faster and more fun.
No because I always loved it.
Yes because I understand how to do everything.
Yes because you can do it and not lose it or get it crumpled up.
Yes because I liked using the seesaw and computers. Its faster.
No I still like it.
No because it just means I have to do better on my max grade.
Yes! I thought it would take forever but it didn't.
Yes because using the ipads is way easier.
3. How can the peer feedback process in the future be improved?
It could have more information for your paper.
I learn.
I dont know.
No way.
Using laptops instead of ipads.
There is no other way.
Not doing it on paper.
Probably take out the microphone. All of a sudden it was quiet then loud. Sometimes there was
white noise.
61
It cant be improved.
By studying.
None.
Read books and thinking about their writing.
I dont really think it could be improved.
Dont know.
In the future like when I am writing a book. It could help get out typos.
Not saying um well like 20 times.
It cant. Good now.
I like it how it is.
Nothing.
I cant its really good.
Maybe by having you type the feedback while recording.
I think we can talk about it with our partner like 1 on 1.
Nothing.
It could improve my max grade and how I write.
Maybe by making it faster.
It cant. it is good now.
4. Is there anything else you would like to say about peer feedback?
The peer feedback form helped me and it was awesome.
No.
No sorry.
It was awesome.
Not really.
62
No.
No.
I liked this a lot more because I can explain my words and say what I mean.
No.
No.
No.
No thank you.
Yes, I love peer feedback.
No.
No.
I think it is very helpful.
I think it is very helpful.
No.
Well it was awesome!!
No thank you.
Nope.
No.
No.
No.
63
Appendix H: Focus Group Interview
1. Do you like getting peer feedback on your papers? Why or why not?
The group consensus was that everyone liked it a lot.
a. I like it because it helps my writing like my spelling and punctuation.
b. It helps me fix what makes sense.
c. It tells you the positive things and what you could work on.You know what you need
to correct.
d. I liked it because someone else says what is right or wrong and what you have to fix.
e. Everyone was nice about what you needed to change.
f. Sometimes it was hard because they just said fix this and I didnt know what to fix.
g. People were harping over the same mistake and trying to make me fix something and
just kept talking about it.
2. Do you like giving feedback? Why or why not?
a. I like giving feedback because I want to help others with their writing and I love to help
others.
b. I do like giving feedback because it helps me and the other person with their writing.
c. I like giving feedback because that means someone else might get a better grade.
d. Yes I do because it helps me with my paper.
e. I like giving feedback because I know Im helping.
f. No, because I might hurt that persons feelings.
g. Yes because it helps other people out.
h. I like giving feedback because it helps me and other people on their writing.
3. Which type of Peer Feedback Process did you prefer? Why?
All of them preferred the digital way.

64
a. It was nicer in the video because you could hear what they meant and hear like the
expression.
b. On the iPad we could circle what we were talking about in the paper and we couldnt do
that on the paper.
c. You can explain and underline as you explain so they dont have to scan the paper to
find what you are talking about.
d. The iPad is better because your peers can understand what you mean. You can talk and
interact
e. You could say more than you can write.
f. You can write on the paper and speak to them.
g. You can get more information.
h. You can say what you really mean and also in the expression you mean.
4. What kind of feedback did you receive the first waywith only paper?
a. Not as many ideas.
b. I didnt really know what they meant.
c. On paper no one can hear your thoughts.
d. The feedback I got on paper was pretty good but didnt really help.
e. I got good feedback.
f. Not great. People only underline stuff.
g. I received unclear feedback on the paper that I didnt know what the person meant.
5. What kind of feedback did you receive using Seesaw and the text, audio, and video features?
a. There was lots of drawing on the paper with the iPad and sometimes it was too much.
b. One mentioned: There was this one comment that was a little mean, like change this
now! ..but other comments she liked

65
c. Sometimes they said to change stuff we didnt have to change.
d. More specific about each part.
e. More suggestions about what to change or fix.
f. You could explain if something made sense or didnt make sense and give more ideas.
g. The feedback I got on the iPad was a lot better so I know where to put stuff and fix it.
h. People had to skip paragraphs because there wasnt time.
i. Some feedback that isnt confusing.
j. I received clear understandable feedback because they showed me where I messed up.
6. Which type of peer feedback was more helpful to your writing? Why?
a. Paper
i. Paper because it came first and my paper was good by the time we did video.
b. Digital
i. iPad because it was easier and went quicker.
ii. I think the iPad helped me most on feedback because it was more awesome and
good and I could get more done.
iii. The digital way because it was easier to look back.
iv. iPad because while Im listening I can fix things.
v. I think it was the iPad. I do because they underlined everything I needed to fix
or everything I did great with.
vi. I think the iPad helped me most because I really knew what they were trying to
tell me.
vii. The iPad because it pointed out what I needed to change so I know where my
mistake is.
c. Were the peers more specific?

66
i. Yes. Most gave more feedback than just what was asked on the form.
ii. You got more ideas and suggestions on the iPad too.
iii. They also gave more about the little details for making sense of a sentence as
they read it.
iv. Yes because they thought about what they were going to say and they put it in a
way that I understood it.
v. Yes because for example on paper they would say things like you forgot a
comma but on the iPad they would say put a comma here and show it
vi. Yes because they were being honest and underlining or circling my errors.
d. Was it easier to understand what they meant?
All agree that this was the case.
i. On the video I understood what they meant better. On the paper they said
something but then I didnt know what they meant.
ii. Still sometimes though I had a question about what they said because I still
didnt understand.
iii. Yes I wasnt so confused and it wasnt so frustrating.
iv. Yes because you could see what they circled and what they actually meant.
7. What type of peer feedback could you give with Seesaw? The Traditional method?
a. Which was easier to be more specific? iPad
i. It was easier on the iPad because you could talk and you dont run out of space
to write stuff like on paper.
ii. Instead of just check the box or circle on the form you had to talk about it and
that helped explain it.

67
iii. On the iPad I felt like I could give the stuff that I didnt like about their writing
and not be mean on the video.
iv. I could say what I meant and give feedback that wasnt confusing.
v. I felt like I could give good feedback but it would be better face to face.
vi. I could give more helpful and more feedback on the iPad.
8. What could be better about the peer feedback process?
All but one said that they would rather do it face to face.
a. They said then they could explain even more what they mean.
b. Some thought doing it on a laptop might make it better because then you could underline,
and type, and do more.
c. Another suggestion for doing it the digital way but as a way to enhance it because of the
5 minute timeline:
i. Do two colors like green for positive and red for need to fix. This would make
it easier to know when you listen to it.
ii. Have a specific folder for just us so you dont have to scroll for like forever to
find your own video.
iii. Focus on one paragraph at a time in the video. Then you could really take your
time and not have to rush to talk about everything.
iv. Fix the time because people were skipping because they were running out of
time.
v. **4 said they would want different people to do each paragraph, 2 said they
would want the same, 1 said undecided
9. Which type of peer feedback do you want to do more of in the future? Why?
a. All say they want to do digital except for the editing.

68
b. Mixed on the editing because sometimes it was hard to show the comma/what to fix on
the iPad. Others liked it because you could draw in the comma and stuff on the iPad.
10. How do you feel about peer feedback now? Is it different than before?
a. Yes in the future I wont be nervous about it because I know they wont be mean.
b. Now I feel more comfortable about how to give feedback.
c. Yes, because I wasnt really confident before because I didnt know what they would
think.
d. Yes because at first I felt like it would not do anything but now I feel like it really
helped me.
e. Yes. At first I said oh, I dont want to do this but on the iPad. I was like oh yeah!
f. Yes because the first time we did this I was lost.
g. Yes because I feel like I am getting better.
h. Yes because I know people that arent my friends will not be mean and will be nice too
and they will be honest.
After listening to commentsnew questions that arose:
1. Did you feel like you could hear the gut reactions/what they really thought? /Did it seem more
real?
a. Yes, it seemed like more real and like you could hear their thoughts.
b. It seemed real because you could say what you mean.
c. They also had to sort of talk about it and you could hear what they were thinking as they
read it.
d. Yes because I could understand what they meant.
e. The iPad made it seem real because it was like we were face to face talking about each
other's writing.
69
f. The iPad felt more real because it was like face to face but in digital version.
2. How would you want your partner chosen? (we did it random, do you like?)
a. Random is better so we really know what others are thinking.
b. Your friends might just play with you and would have been nicer to not hurt your
feelings.
c. Then you can know what other people think who you dont play with 24/7.
3. What did you think of the peer feedback form?
a. I really liked it. It makes you think about what you dont think about.
b. The form didnt make you feel bad about saying to fix something or having to fix
something.
c. The peer feedback form was pretty good because it has questions that I dont normally
think about.
d. It was very helpful. I did not know I was writing about my writing but then I realized I
was.
e. The peer feedback form was useful because it showed what I needed to change.
f. It will make my writing better.
g. It was helpful because now I know what people like and dont like about my writing.
Appendix I: Classroom Observation Log

70
Appendix J: Sample Peer Feedback Responses: Traditional Paper Method
(Additional comments written in aside from checking boxes.)
Student A:
The word slick and astonishing.
Youre ending sentence.
In your story most of the facts are not true.
Student B:
Suggestion for lead: What has keen eyesight and is 23 in long? Its the bobcat.
71
Suggestion for main idea: The bobcats behavior is right on point.
Suggestion for restating the closing: As you can see bobcats physical characteristics and
behavior and habitat are awesome.
I think you should space the paragraphs more and really take your time on the important things.
Student C:
Very interesting.
Amazing word choice.
Scientific voice.
Suggestion for conclusion: As you can see the great horned owls physical characteristics and
behavior help it survive in its habitat.
Suggestion for conclusion: I hope you had fun learning about the great horned owl.
Dont put as many details in the first paragraphs.
Student D:
I love the vocabulary and description.
I liked when you said they look nice the aquarium.
I like how you dont just list the types of animals but you tell where they are from.
Suggestion for introduction: Can you guess where otters live? In the ocean!
Suggestion for thesis: Youll soon uncover the mystery of the otter.
Suggestion for conclusion: Wow youre an expert. You now know (list 3 paragraphs).
Suggestion for powerful ending: Well Ill see you next time. I got to learn more facts about
otters.
Student E:
Good lead.
Good word choice.

72
Good start to paragraphs.
List details that dont relate to main idea: The bird is national since 1782. Could say that it is
for the United States because people from other countries might be confused.
Student F:
Good word choice.
Logical order.
My favorite sentence is the cottonmouth/water moccasin show white lines on their mouth.
Suggestion for lead: What kind of snake can leap, stalk its prey and leaves a deadly bite.
Suggestion for thesis: The cottonmouth/water moccasin is a unique creature.
Suggestion for main idea: The cottonmouth/water moccasin is very interesting.
Suggestion for 3 details: They eat fish or small animals.
Suggestion to restate paragraphs: The cottonmouth/water moccasin has special physical
characteristics and behavior to help it survive.
You need to make your paragraphs a little longer.
Student G:
Nice word choice.
Scientific voice.
Good lead.
Suggestion for restate paragraphs: All of its physical characteristics and behavior help it survive
in its habitat.
Student H:
Good word choice.
Very descriptive.
Good length.
73
Suggestion for supporting: Put the last 2 details when it talks about babies.
Suggestion for main idea: Dont use fascinating again.
Suggestion for 3 details: Try to add 1 more.
Suggestion for restate paragraphs: I loved learning about hares physical characteristics,
behavior, and habitat.
You used fascinating and a lot of other f words.
Student I:
The lead.
Coverage of all squirrells.
Last paragraph.
Suggestion for thesis: Lets find out about the squirrels features and more.
Suggestion for restate paragraphs: Its features and behaviors help it survive in its habitat.
Appendix K: Sample Peer Feedback Responses: Multimodal Digital Method
*note these are not necessarily the same students as above. The sample was chosen at random to provide
an example of the various feedback left.
Student A:
I really liked your lead and you had a lot of information in the lead and thesis and I liked that
part but something that you got wrong was the habitat part. It was supposed to be a bigger
paragraph.
I liked everything that you wrote but right here (circles it) you just forgot to put in a comma.
I liked everything but you need to work on the habitat part. And maybe add more surprising
sentences. For example, the great horned owls beak is so strong that it can smash through.
Student B:
74
I noticed you used a lot of vocabulary words (reads example). I also noticed you are using very
long and descriptive words like hemisphere and cacti. The third thing I really noticed is I loved
when you said Warning, do not mess with rattlesnakes.
I would stick with those three glows, they were good, keep that in your next writing.
You know what I liked about that (underlines paragraph) you are not writing about your writing
and you are explaining.
This was a really smart idea, I like this idea.
I actually think you did restate your thesis. It is a really, really good thesis.
I knew what the paper told about. You are a very talented and smart writer. You have a lot of
skill with this.
I dont think I found a powerful ending statement. Maybe you could add a powerful and ending
statement.
My final thoughts on your writing. I was actually very impressed. You are very talented.
Student C:
The three glows of the paper are enough paragraphs, good science voice and many good things
of writing.
There isnt really a lead in your physical characteristics but there is a main idea.
Your main idea is (reads it), your supporting details are (reads them), and you restated it at the
end (reads it).
It has a good ending.
In my video I forgot to say that the behavior main idea hooked me and you had three supporting
details.
I like how you wrote (reads) in your conclusion. You dont have to put thank you and have a
wonderful day.
75
Student D:
I dont know what Mrs. S would say but its not correct grammar. Just change that and it will be
okay.
That is not exactly a lead, you could probably change it to: do you know what the amazing
animal that I know is?
You have three details, good job.
I like how you restated your thesis.
Student E:
What I really like is that you have really good word choice. Like I like where you said the bald
eagle is a crazy looking creature.
I also like all of the bold words and sentences. They are just cool.
You also have very good paragraphs. They are just the right size and good indenting and good
punctuation.
I think that your lead is more of a main idea. I would work on changing it to more like: this bird
is a fascinating creature. Then your thesis could be so lets discover the bald eagle.
I could tell what the paper would be about and it really hooks me.
Im not really sure if your details are in a logical order. I dont think it is.
I dont know if this (circles it) is a main idea sentence. I think this is actually a detail.
Student F:
I read your paper. It was really good. I really liked your word choice and said it had unique
behaviors. I really liked your bold opinion at the end to bring it together.
I can definitely tell what the lead is (reads it). It makes me want to know more about that so that
really hooked me.

76
I think your physical characteristics main idea is (reads it). I feel like this is writing about your
writing but I dont know, Im not the smartest person in the world.
Student G:
This lead is very good and I like it. I can tell what your story is going to be about.
You have way more than three supporting details. They are in logical order. I like that.
Your main idea is actually a detail and you have three supporting details.
Your powerful ending statement is (reads it). I really like that.
Student H:
You did a really good job of hooking your reader with your lead.
You have really good word choice like when you say swift, wonderful place, extinction.
Some of the things you can work on is putting this detail (reads it) and moving it to behavior.
You kind of wrote about your writing (reads it).
I liked how you said (reads it and underlines).
For supporting details you have good ones in the first two, but in the third paragraph maybe you
need more.
I can tell what your main idea is about and you restated it at the end.
To be honest with you didnt restate your main idea.
Your lead thesis was good but your ending one not so much.
Student I:
You should split your lead and main idea thesis. It hooks me but it doesnt make sense as one
sentence.
So for this sentence (reads it), it doesnt make sense here because you already said this at the
beginning of the paragraph.
Student J:
77
You didnt begin with a lead or a thesis.
You have lots of facts which is good but you didnt end with anything. You need a main idea
for your physical characteristics paragraphs.
For your behavior paragraph your opening (reads it) is writing about your writing. You could
change that.
You also didnt end with anything to restate the whole three paragraphs. Like you could say
something like (gives example).
Student K:
Your lead seriously pulled me in and is the best thing ever.
On your fifth paragraph when you talked about the eagle scout and what he said, that was a
really good idea and really cool.
You are really good about your endings (reads example).
In every single thing you tell me exactly what the main idea is.
You have three supporting details and they are all pretty good.
Your main idea is not restated in this paragraph.
I like this vocabulary (gives example).
In this little part I think you are sort of talking about behavior but other than that it is pretty
good, but you still need to restate at the end of the paragraphs.
I forgot to tell you in the video I liked that you said (reads it), it was really cool how you
explained it.
Student L:
You didnt put a lead or a thesis for every single paragraph so Id like you to work on that.
I liked how you organized all the facts but you are writing about your writing in some parts of it,
so Id like you to work on that too.

78
I would like you to change the last paragraph sentence and here is a suggestion (gives one).
Student M:
Everything is really good. You have at least 3 facts on everything.
You didnt really put the last sentence of the habitat.
You might need to move some stuff (gives examples) and you didnt end with the main idea on
the behavior.
You did pretty good on the ending.
The fact that there were so many facts was amazing.
Maybe work on making sure that the facts are in the right place.
I forgot to put the 3 glows. I liked that you had many facts, all of the facts were really
fascinating and the ending is really good

Capstoneproject

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Capstoneproject

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Running Head: TECH IMPACT ON PEER FEEDBACK

Exploring Technology Impact on Peer Feedback

North Carolina State University

useful and specific feedback.

enhance the writing?

views of peer feedback and struggle to provide or incorporate the feedback.

To be effective, students need clear guidelines, modeling and opportunities to engage in

knowledge, instructional practice, and technology in such a way as to influence academic

help develop the writing and further the learning.

the use of additional technological tools.

Nicolaidou (2013) goes further to explore if e-portfolios can be an effective pedagogical

communicate and provide feedback through the e-portfolio.

In summary, a review of the literature indicates that peer feedback is an important

both students and teachers.

Purpose and Research Questions

during the revision component of the writing process?

feedback impact fourth grader perception of the peer feedback process?

reading class to examine the effects in relation to the research questions.

Setting and Participants

American Indian/Alaskan, and 0.002% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander.

assessed on (see Appendix A).

Stringers (2016) suggestions.

Students handwrote his/her feedback and suggestions as well as provided verbal

recommendations for improving the peer feedback process.

can gain access into Mrs. S Reading Seesaw class portfolio.

concentrate on their own feedback.

Data Collection Strategies

peer feedback process for students.

Table 2: Student Attitude Survey and Questionnaire

feedback via the different tools.

similarities or differences in types and frequency of feedback as well as student response.

Table 3: Classroom Peer Feedback Observation Log

Table 4: Teacher Feedback Survey and Questionnaire

Table 5: Focus Group Questions

Plan for Increasing Validity

study and participants are meant as a means of ensuring this validity.

Results and Discussion

transcribed and analyzed for themes and important outliers or elements.

on depth and frequency of feedback during the revision process.

Table 6: Type and Frequency Feedback: Traditional Paper

Table 7: Type and Frequency Feedback: Multimodal (Seesaw/Digital)

be further explored and discussed below.

about their opinion, positive feedback, or compliments of the piece--either specifically or

transcriptions) students said things like:

was a really good idea and really cool.

say something like (gives example).

parts of it, so Id like you to work on that too.

so that really hooked me.

On paper vague statements and specific compliments totaled 54 and 27 respectively.

must be further explored.

as offering suggestions for how it could make more sense to them.

feedback process using the peer feedback form.

Table 8.1: Teacher Feedback Response: Part 1

Table 8.2: Teacher Feedback Response: Part 2

as well as have an increased understanding of the peer feedback process.

Table 9: Peer Feedback Response: Traditional Paper

Table 10: Peer Feedback Response: Multimodal Feedback

they could give (either for the positive or negative).

learning how to provide feedback.

Table 11: Peer Feedback Open Response Themes: Traditional

Table 12: Peer Feedback Open Response Themes: Digital

worried about hurting other students feelings.

disagreed that peer feedback was not important.