View in EDS

The Role of Platform Design in Online Peer Feedback: A Comparison of Two Digital Environments

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Role of Platform Design in Online Peer Feedback: A Comparison of Two Digital Environments
Language: English
Authors: M. V. Jongsma (ORCID 0000-0002-9590-5245), M. Meeter (ORCID 0000-0002-5112-6717), J. E. van Muijlwijk-Koezen (ORCID 0000-0003-3877-0425), D. J. Scholten (ORCID 0000-0001-6822-9950)
Source: Education and Information Technologies. 2025 30(14):20797-20820.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 24
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Educational Technology, Computer Mediated Communication, Feedback (Response), Peer Evaluation, Design, Electronic Learning, Student Attitudes, Word Processing, Electronic Mail, Undergraduate Students, Pharmaceutical Education, Educational Quality, Computer Software
DOI: 10.1007/s10639-025-13598-2
ISSN: 1360-2357
1573-7608
Abstract: With the emergence of new technologies, various methods for providing online peer feedback have become available. While the effects of online peer feedback on student perceptions and learning are often compared to those of offline peer feedback, there is a lack of research comparing different online feedback environments. This study focuses on how the structure of an online peer feedback platform influences the feedback given, student perceptions of it, and learning outcomes. Using an experimental crossover design with mixed methods, we compared two online peer feedback environments: a traditional approach utilizing Word and email, and a specialized online tool designed for feedback activities. Thirty-eight undergraduate students in pharmaceutical sciences were divided into two groups, each participating in two peer feedback activities--one using the online feedback tool and the other using the traditional approach. Results show that the type of feedback given varied significantly depending on the platform used. The structured online tool prompted more praise and local-level comments, while the traditional approach facilitated more revision-oriented and global-level feedback. However, the results did not support an effect of the platforms on student learning outcomes as assessed by teacher grades for the assignments. Students overwhelmingly preferred the structured online tool for its ease of use. These findings suggest that platform design can significantly shape the quality of peer feedback and student experiences. Our study emphasizes the significance of selecting the appropriate platform and software settings to align with specific feedback objectives, ultimately aiming to enhance both student engagement and the quality of feedback.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1484056
Database: ERIC
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1484056
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Role of Platform Design in Online Peer Feedback: A Comparison of Two Digital Environments
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22M%2E+V%2E+Jongsma%22">M. V. Jongsma</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9590-5245">0000-0002-9590-5245</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22M%2E+Meeter%22">M. Meeter</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5112-6717">0000-0002-5112-6717</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22J%2E+E%2E+van+Muijlwijk-Koezen%22">J. E. van Muijlwijk-Koezen</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3877-0425">0000-0003-3877-0425</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22D%2E+J%2E+Scholten%22">D. J. Scholten</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6822-9950">0000-0001-6822-9950</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Education+and+Information+Technologies%22"><i>Education and Information Technologies</i></searchLink>. 2025 30(14):20797-20820.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 24
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Technology%22">Educational Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Mediated+Communication%22">Computer Mediated Communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Feedback+%28Response%29%22">Feedback (Response)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Evaluation%22">Peer Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Design%22">Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Electronic+Learning%22">Electronic Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Word+Processing%22">Word Processing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Electronic+Mail%22">Electronic Mail</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Pharmaceutical+Education%22">Pharmaceutical Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Quality%22">Educational Quality</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Software%22">Computer Software</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10639-025-13598-2
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1360-2357<br />1573-7608
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: With the emergence of new technologies, various methods for providing online peer feedback have become available. While the effects of online peer feedback on student perceptions and learning are often compared to those of offline peer feedback, there is a lack of research comparing different online feedback environments. This study focuses on how the structure of an online peer feedback platform influences the feedback given, student perceptions of it, and learning outcomes. Using an experimental crossover design with mixed methods, we compared two online peer feedback environments: a traditional approach utilizing Word and email, and a specialized online tool designed for feedback activities. Thirty-eight undergraduate students in pharmaceutical sciences were divided into two groups, each participating in two peer feedback activities--one using the online feedback tool and the other using the traditional approach. Results show that the type of feedback given varied significantly depending on the platform used. The structured online tool prompted more praise and local-level comments, while the traditional approach facilitated more revision-oriented and global-level feedback. However, the results did not support an effect of the platforms on student learning outcomes as assessed by teacher grades for the assignments. Students overwhelmingly preferred the structured online tool for its ease of use. These findings suggest that platform design can significantly shape the quality of peer feedback and student experiences. Our study emphasizes the significance of selecting the appropriate platform and software settings to align with specific feedback objectives, ultimately aiming to enhance both student engagement and the quality of feedback.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1484056
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1484056
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10639-025-13598-2
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 24
        StartPage: 20797
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Educational Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Mediated Communication
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Feedback (Response)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Electronic Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Word Processing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Electronic Mail
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Pharmaceutical Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Quality
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Software
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Role of Platform Design in Online Peer Feedback: A Comparison of Two Digital Environments
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: M. V. Jongsma
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: M. Meeter
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: J. E. van Muijlwijk-Koezen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: D. J. Scholten
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1360-2357
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-7608
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 30
            – Type: issue
              Value: 14
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Education and Information Technologies
              Type: main
ResultId 1