‘A Different Voice’ in Peer Feedback: Gender Specificity in Students’ Willingness to Provide Peer Feedback

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The parametric test can not be performed on sample 57, if the assumption of the normal distribution is not met (tested). Moreover, in this paper linear regression is performed without testing not only linearity but autocorrelation, and colinearity...

Author Response

The answer is in the attached file. Thank you very much for the revision!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript deals with a very important topic, that is peer feedback which is one of the crucial instructional activities in all level of education. The study investigates gender discrepancies in students’ willingness to provide feedback to their peers. The results did not reveal gender differences in comfort in providing feedback and willingness to provide peer feedback. The authors have done valuable work in this study in terms of sound and novel research hypotheses as well interesting analysis of the and promising findings. However, the introduction and theoretical framework of this paper would certainly benefit with a more comprehensive dealing with related literature. This would also bring much more theoretical insights to the paper and its added value for the field. It is surprising that this paper ignores a wealth of relevant literature in relation to their construct especially peer feedback issues and challenges. Furthermore, some limitations should also be given more attention in the manuscript. Despite sound research hypotheses, methodology, and interesting results, the manuscript needs a major revision before publication. Therefore I advise for major revision and I will be happy to review the revised manuscript as well. I have provided a list of comments below to help authors turn their paper in a manuscript that is worthy of publication.

I am happy to see that the authors have adequately written an abstract that follows a logical order with the need for the study, purpose, methodology and the results. However, I would add the main conclusion or practical implication of the study in the abstract.

I like the structure of the manuscript and how the authors have come up with the research hypotheses. However, I would like to see some challenges of peer feedback explained more elaboratively in the theoretical framework before they introduce their approach for solving these challenges.

The major problem of this manuscript is the shortage of relevant and UpToDate literature on peer feedback. The authors need to seriously read recent and relevant citations in this field and enrich their manuscript from a theoretical point of view. Some scholars like Saeed Latifi, Anahuac Valero Haro and Kazem Banihashem, and Harm Biemans and their colleagues have done valuable works in the fields of peer feedback that can help improve the theoretical foundation of this study. This aspect should be elaborated more and relevant works have to be mentioned in the Introduction and theoretical section of the manuscript.

Please include more background information on the characteristics of the participants. What are their backgrounds etc.?

Please explain why the number of females and males are different and thus acknowledge that as one of the limitations of the study.

Nice to see that the ethical aspects of the study has been taken care of with approval from the ethical committee of your institute.

Analysis of the data and also presentation of results sound great.

Maybe use only two decimals when you report the numbers.

Tables are also fine and informative but maybe highlight the important findings in the Table?

The discussion section is presented sufficiently in relation with each of the questions. The depth and the width of the discussion are adequate but can even be better when incorporating the new references.

Not only gender but also students’ epistemic beliefs could influence the way in which students engage in peer feedback activities (see https://0-www-tandfonline-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1080/14703297.2022.2092188). This needs elaboration and acknowledgement. Especially epistemic beliefs refer to extent in which students are willing to engage in peer feedback activities and argumentation (see https://0-www-tandfonline-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/doi/10.1080/14703297.2018.1431143). Please at least acknowledge these issues for further research.

See also other important relevant literature:

https://0-www-sciencedirect-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/science/article/pii/S1747938X22000586

https://0-link-springer-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/article/10.1007/s10639-023-11683-y

https://0-www-tandfonline-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1080/10494820.2022.2034887

https://0-www-tandfonline-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1080/14703297.2016.1208112

https://0-www-erudit-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/en/journals/irrodl/1900-v1-n1-irrodl05024/1066232ar/abstract/

https://0-www-tandfonline-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1080/14703297.2022.2092188

https://0-www-tandfonline-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1080/10494820.2022.2093914

https://0-www-tandfonline-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/doi/full/10.1080/14703297.2021.1961097

Limitation in terms of sample size and uneven balance of participants in terms of their gender should be acknowledged at the end.

Based on the arguments listed in my comments, I feel that despite its great potential, the manuscript is not yet ready to be published. When they are able to incorporate my suggestions I have given, they would be able to turn this study into a manuscript that is worthy of publication.

Author Response

The answer is in the attached file. Thank you very much for the revision!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an important area of investigation. As indicated in the paper, gender biases and discrepancies continue to exist, and it is critical for educators of all levels to strive for parity.  The paper focuses on a traditional binary definition of gender i.e. men/women or male/female. It is customary in modern work when gender is reported to focus more on self-identified gender. This is a weakness in the paper that should be addressed before publication.   The focus could remain male/female, however, non-binary should be addressed in the introduction and the rationale for the approach explored.

Could benefit from some references related to self-identified gender.

Peer review and feedback are also widespread in education, so how different genders engage with the approach is also vital for further research.

The work addressed six hypotheses. This feels like too many to do justice to in a 12-page paper. Could some of these be merged in some way?

The sample is relatively small, 57 students at one college, split between about 1/4 men and 3/4 women. The relatively small sample may have contributed to the lack of statistically significant differences.

The research tool is designed using previously proven metrics..

In terms of the data analysis, how the multiple comparison problem is addressed should have been included.

Another weakness is the limitations of the work are not formally explored. This should be addressed.

The last paragraph of the conclusions could benefit from being softened as these outcomes appear more substantial than the data analysis supports. For example, the last two sentences of the conclusion need rephrasing. These are opinions of the authors rather than based upon the literature, or the work completed and need rephrasing.

Overall, the work has merit, but it is vital that: self-identified gender is considered in the introduction; There is consideration of rationalising the hypothesises; limitations are documented; and the conclusions are softened. 

Author Response

The answer is in the attached file. Thank you very much for the revision!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Revised revision is done according to my comments (general).

Author Response

Thank you for your review.

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for allowing me to review this manuscript again. While I acknowledge that the manuscript has improved compared to the previous version, I must emphasize that the most significant issue with the manuscript remains unresolved. In my previous review, I pointed out that the study does not engage with the robust literature in the field, which creates a challenge for both the theoretical contribution of the study and its generalizability.

It is apparent that while several new references were added, some of them do not appear to be the most relevant ones to the paper. This has made the reference list excessively large which should be significantly reduced by removing the unnecessary ones. For instance, there are instances where multiple references are used to support a single, well-known claim, which could be avoided. For instance, let's consider this sentence of the paper, which includes six references: "The involvement of social interactions in peer feedback influences its outcomes in complex ways [Boud, 1995; van Gennip et al., 2009; Panadero, 2016; Authors 2019; Panadero et al., 2023; Yan & Tang, 2023]". Or look at this sentence with more than 8 references: “ Conversely, receiving PFB implies being able to stand the critique of peers [Carson & Nelson, 1994; Cheng & Warren, 1997; Paquet & Des Marchais, 1998; Brindley & Scoffield, 1998; Smith, Cooper, & Lancaster, 2002; Smith et al., 2002; Wen & Tsai, 2006; van Gennip, Segers, & Tillema, 2009]”. It is important to question the necessity of including all these references for such broad statements making the need for references in this case seemingly unnecessary. For many other claims, maybe two or maximum three references would be enough. You do not need a long list of references to support a particular claim.

I recommend that the authors carefully review their references and eliminate any unnecessary ones, focusing only on the most relevant and crucial sources. In my first round of review, I mentioned a couple of references that the authors seemingly ignored, and instead, they included references that are irrelevant to the paper. For example, the title and the content of the paper focuses on the differences of the males and females regarding peer feedback. I wonder how these two recommended citations are not relevant for this study?  

1-    The intersection of epistemic beliefs and gender in argumentation performance. Innovations in Education and Teaching International. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1080/14703297.2023.2198995

2-    Students’ online argumentative peer feedback, essay writing, and content learning: Does gender matter?. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(6), 698-712. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1080/10494820.2018.1543200.

Based on these concerns, I recommend authors thoroughly revise their work to address the mentioned issues. It is crucial for the authors to carefully consider the feedback provided in the previous rounds of review. In my first round of review, I mentioned a couple of relevant references that the authors seemingly ignored, and instead, they included references that are irrelevant to the paper.

I hope the revised version meets the journal requirements, and I wish you the best of luck with your submission.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf