tie by Peterson & Porter (2014) specifically utlised a“S wishes 1 Star"approach (p. 249), |< ‘encouraging the use of verbal discussion inthe form of purposeful constuctve and | positive statements that were. 60% content-based and 40% convention based. Findings) = from this study displayed that this form of feedback delivery led to revisions that [= improved writing, and was rarely ignored by students (Peterson & Portier, 2014). A ¢ limitation ofthe studies by Boon (2014), Hawe & Dixon (2014), Peterson & Portier (2014) and Boon (2013) isthe small sample size used, leading to reulls thal are deprived of extemal validity and statistical power. Additonal, no studies directly compared writen ‘and verbal feedback. This is required 1 provide guide educators about what method ‘enables wring o be improved more sufficiently during peer feedback Ethical approval was gained in all studies, and a thematic analysis was used to analyse ‘all data (Boon, 2014; Hawe & Dixon, 2014; Peterson & Porter, 2014; Boon, 2013). The present research focused on years 1, 5 and 6, however, did not address the middle primary stage (Boon, 2014; Hawe & Dixon, 2014; Peterson & Portier, 2014; Boon, 2013). “Methods of collecting data comprised primarily of work samples, aucio-recordings, ‘observational feld notes, informal interviews with the teacher and students, and mind ‘maps that recorded student thoughts prior to and after the intervention (Boon, 2014; Hawe & Dixon, 2014; Peterson & Portier, 2014; Boon, 2013). All studies were qualitative ‘and three specified that action research methodology was used. However, no studies Lutlised a contro! during the intervention (Boon, 2014; Hawe & Dixon, 2014; Peterson & Portier, 2014; Boon, 2013). Convenience sampling was used in studies by Boon (2014) ‘and Boon (2013), whereas the other studies ullised a whole class sample (Hawe & Dixon, 2014; Peterson & Portier, 2014). Only Peterson & Portier (2014) specified the ‘number of visits that occurred during the study; thirteen visits over eight months. Content‘Span Moret ‘Suances ‘and conventions, including word and sentence level data, were specified when viewing Jmprovements in writing in studies by Boon (2014) and Peterson & Porter (2014). of rerearch _ improvement in writing when students are well-educated through instruction and ‘modeling of peer feedback, uilising goals and success criteria, and using appropriate modes of delivery. However, ts stil unknown how an example ofa specific success, crtera that is jointly constructed by the teacher and students improves peer feedback and consequently improves uring at oth content and conventons levels during stage |." 2, Therefore, grounded on the review of the literature, the primary research question is /.. “How does a jointly constructed success criteria for peer feedback improve wring at content and convention levels?” i 0