Mobile Device-Assisted Peer Review in High School Poetry Analysis: The Role of Revision Intensity

Background/purpose. This study investigates how peer feedback translates into actual improvements in high school poetry analysis. It aims to connect feedback processes, feedback network structures, and final product quality by integrating process mining, social network analysis (SNA), and outcome modeling.

Materials/methods. Thirty-four students (N = 34) from a high school in Semarang participated in two 90-minute sessions following the sequence: briefing – peer assessment – revision – presentation. Process mining (Optimal Matching and Partitioning Around Medoids) was used to identify workflow archetypes, while SNA examined how feedback was distributed across students. Feedback quantity and quality were linked to final task scores using ANCOVA and linear mixed models, and path analysis was used to test whether revision behavior mediated the effect of feedback on product quality.

Results. Process mining revealed three workflow archetypes: Presentation-Leap, Linear-Fast, and Iterative-Revision. SNA indicated a sparse but moderately modular feedback network (density = 0.070; modularity = 0.448; Gini = 0.437; reciprocity = 7.7%). ANCOVA/LMM results showed that revision intensity was the strongest predictor of final quality, followed by weighted incoming feedback, whereas betweenness centrality contributed less. Path analysis confirmed that the effect of feedback on final quality was partially mediated by revision behavior.

Conclusions. Meaningful revisions serve as a key mechanism linking peer feedback to improved performance in poetry analysis. Teachers are advised to incorporate mandatory revision checkpoints and to distribute feedback opportunities more equitably across students. The study is limited by its small sample size, single-school context, and non-random design; future research should employ multi-site or randomized designs and explore long-term learning outcomes to strengthen generalizability.

Keywords: Peer assessment, social network analysis, learning analytics, classroom orchestration, poetry analysis

References

Ajjawi, R., Kent, F., Broadbent, J., Tai, J. H. M., Bearman, M., & Boud, D. (2022). Feedback that works: a realist review of feedback interventions for written tasks. Studies in Higher Education, 47(7), 1343–1356. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2021.1894115

Antonacci, G., Lennox, L., Barlow, J., Evans, L., & Reed, J. (2021). Process mapping in healthcare: a systematic review. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1), 342. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06254-1

Armanios, D. E., Gandy, C., & Orfanoudaki, A. (2025). Bridging Gaps: Equity in Infrastructure Decisions. Available at SSRN 5163140.

Baker, R. S., Martin, T., & Rossi, L. M. (2016). Educational Data Mining and Learning Analytics. The Handbook of Cognition and Assessment, 379–396. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118956588.ch16

Bearman, M., Tai, J., Dawson, P., Boud, D., & Ajjawi, R. (2024). Developing evaluative judgement for a time of generative artificial intelligence. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 49(6), 893–905. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2335321

Bensimon, E. M., Cowd, A. C., & Witham, K. (2016). Five principles for creating equity by design. Diversity and Democracy, The Equity Imperative, 19(1), 1–7. https://www.aacu.org/diversitydemocracy/2016/winter/bensimon

Bogarín, A., Cerezo, R., & Romero, C. (2018). A survey on educational process mining. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 8(1), e1230. https://doi.org/10.1002/widm.1230

Brehaut, J. C., Colquhoun, H. L., Eva, K. W., Carroll, K., Sales, A., Michie, S., Ivers, N., & Grimshaw, J. M. (2016). Practice feedback interventions: 15 suggestions for optimizing effectiveness. Annals of Internal Medicine, 164(6), 435–441. https://doi.org/10.7326/M15-2248

Double, K. S., McGrane, J. A., & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2020). The Impact of Peer Assessment on Academic Performance: A Meta-analysis of Control Group Studies. Educational Psychology Review, 32(2), 481–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3

Er, E., Dimitriadis, Y., & Gašević, D. (2021). A collaborative learning approach to dialogic peer feedback: a theoretical framework. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(4), 586–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1786497

Eräranta, S., & Mladenović, M. N. (2021). Networked dynamics of knowledge integration in strategic spatial planning processes: a social network approach. Regional Studies, 55(5), 870–882. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2020.1739637

Feng, G., Fan, M., & Ao, C. (2022). Exploration and Visualization of Learning Behavior Patterns From the Perspective of Educational Process Mining. IEEE Access, 10, 65271–65283. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3184111

Gandy, C. A., Armanios, D. E., & Samaras, C. (2023). Social Equity of Bridge Management. Journal of Management in Engineering, 39(5), 4023027. https://doi.org/10.1061/jmenea.meeng-5265

Gao, Y., Schunn, C. D. D., & Yu, Q. (2019). The alignment of written peer feedback with draft problems and its impact on revision in peer assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(2), 294–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1499075

Greenwood, D. A., Gee, P. M., Fatkin, K. J., & Peeples, M. (2017). A Systematic Review of Reviews Evaluating Technology-Enabled Diabetes Self-Management Education and Support. Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 11(5), 1015–1027. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296817713506

Henderson, M., Phillips, M., Ryan, T., Boud, D., Dawson, P., Molloy, E., & Mahoney, P. (2019). Conditions that enable effective feedback. Higher Education Research and Development, 38(7), 1401–1416. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2019.1657807

Kiparsky, P. (2019). The role of linguistics in a theory of poetry. In Essays in Modern Stylistics (Vol. 11, pp. 9–23). Routledge.

Landa-Avila, I. C., Escobar-Tello, C., Jun, G. T., & Cain, R. (2022). Multiple outcome interactions in healthcare systems: a participatory outcome mapping approach. Ergonomics, 65(3), 362–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2021.1961018

Lee, C. I., Yang, Y. F., & Mai, S. Y. (2016). The impact of a scaffolded assessment intervention on students’ academic achievement in web-based peer assessment activities. International Journal of Distance Education Technologies, 14(4), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJDET.2016100104

Lee, Y. F., Lin, C. J., Hwang, G. J., Fu, Q. K., & Tseng, W. H. (2023). Effects of a mobile-based progressive peer-feedback scaffolding strategy on students’ creative thinking performance, metacognitive awareness, and learning attitude. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(5), 2986–3002. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2021.1916763

Li, W., & Zhang, F. (2021). Tracing the Path Toward Self-Regulated Revision: An Interplay of Instructor Feedback, Peer Feedback, and Revision Goals. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 612088. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.612088

Lim, S., Tucker, C. S., Jablokow, K., & Pursel, B. (2018). A semantic network model for measuring engagement and performance in online learning platforms. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 26(5), 1481–1492. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22033

McDonald, M. A., Noble, M.-A., Harris, B., Cortés, V., & Jeffery, K. (2024). Fostering A Teaching And Learning Opportunity: Toward Equity In Student Feedback Of Teaching. Papers on Postsecondary Learning and Teaching, 7, 113–129. https://doi.org/10.55016/ojs/pplt.v7y2024.77561

Ng, W. S., & Yu, G. (2023). The Impacts of Dialogic Interaction to Engage Students in Peer Assessment. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 32(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00633-2

Oliveri, M. E., Nastal, J., & Slomp, D. (2020). Reflections on equity‐centered design. ETS Research Report Series, 2020(1), 1–11.

Reinholz, D. (2016). The assessment cycle: a model for learning through peer assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(2), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1008982

Ren, S., Hu, J., Tang, G., & Chadee, D. (2023). Digital connectivity for work after hours: Its curvilinear relationship with employee job performance. Personnel Psychology, 76(3), 731–757. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12497

Stobbe, E., Forlim, C. G., & Kühn, S. (2024). Impact of exposure to natural versus urban soundscapes on brain functional connectivity, BOLD entropy and behavior. Environmental Research, 244, 117788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2023.117788

Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Panadero, E. (2018). Developing evaluative judgement: enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work. Higher Education, 76(3), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0220-3

Tan, F. D. H., Whipp, P. R., Gagné, M., & Van Quaquebeke, N. (2019). Students’ perceptions of teachers’ two-way feedback interactions and their impact on learning. Social Psychology of Education, 22(1), 169–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-018-9473-7

Welch, C., & Piekkari, R. (2017). How should we (not) judge the ‘quality’ of qualitative research? A re-assessment of current evaluative criteria in International Business. Journal of World Business, 52(5), 714–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2017.05.007

Williams, E. A., Zwolak, J. P., Dou, R., & Brewe, E. (2019). Linking engagement and performance: The social network analysis perspective. Physical Review Physics Education Research, 15(2), 20150. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.020150

Wood, J. (2022). Making peer feedback work: the contribution of technology-mediated dialogic peer feedback to feedback uptake and literacy. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 47(3), 327–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1914544

Yeh, J. (2022). Revising poetry. In Creative Writing (pp. 312–329). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003189169-19

Zhang, Y., Pi, Z., Chen, L., Zhang, X., & Yang, J. (2021). Online peer assessment improves learners’ creativity: not only do learners’ roles as assessor or assessee matter, but so does their behavioral sequence. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 42, 100950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100950

Announcement

EDUPIJ Citation Metrics

EDUPIJ News!