Education and Information Technologies

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10312-2

Collaborative writing at work: Peer feedback

in a blended learning environment

Teresa López-Pellisa 1 & Neus Rotger 2 & Fernando Rodríguez-Gallego 1

Received: 14 July 2020 / Accepted: 20 August 2020/

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
This exploratory study aims to analyse the nature of peer feedback during a collabo-
rative writing assignment, and to identify the possible effects of feedback on the
revision of a text written by university students in a blended learning environment.
Under analysis are two different graduate courses in academic writing, during which,
over a period of a semester, the students (n = 85) were divided into 25 work groups to
carry out a co-evaluation assignment with the support of a technology platform. The
results obtained indicate that, when collaborative writing includes peer feedback,
instead of unidirectional corrections from the teacher, the students respond more
reflectively and constructively, they discuss the content they are working with, and,
as a result, they make significant changes in their own writing.

Keywords Collaborative writing . Reflective practices . Peer feedback, blended learning

environment . Assessment of learning

1 Introduction

Writing effectively and accurately is one of the basic learning skills of the twenty-first
century that academia must support. In recent years, the introduction of new informa-
tion and communication technologies in higher education has created new opportuni-
ties for collaborative learning and knowledge (Dysthe et al. 2010; Hernández Rojas
et al. 2014), to which we must add the increasing presence of the digital written
communication that brings us together on a daily basis (forums, chats, blogs, wikis,
social media, etc.). As Herder et al. (2018), Klein (2014), Nykopp et al. (2014) and van
Steendam (2016) have shown, collaborative writing not only promotes the

* Fernando Rodríguez-Gallego
f.rodriguez–gallego@uib.cat

1
Universitat de les Illes Balears, Palma de Mallorca, Spain
2
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain
 Education and Information Technologies

development of individual writing proficiency but also fosters critical and conceptual
thinking as well as reflection on writing and regulation processes. Hence the need to
stimulate joint writing tasks, where interaction between students has proven especially
useful for writing as a formative process, i.e. a task requiring a high level of cognitive
competence (Bangert-Drowns et al. 2004).
Academic writing continues to be a challenge in our universities, where the need to
develop writing proficiency is not always accompanied by direct and continu-
ous theoretical and pedagogical support (Carlino 2008; Lonka 2003). The need
to support student writing is receiving increasing attention in educational
research. Yet, it tends to focus more on formative feedback between students
and the teacher (Álvarez et al. 2012; Crook et al. 2006; Devere 2008; Espasa
and Meneses 2010; Guasch et al. 2010; Shute 2008; Wolsey 2008) and less on peer
feedback and collaborative learning, although these have proved to be key for the
acquisition of writing skills, especially in higher education (Bradley and Thouësny
2017; Huisman et al. 2019; Laal and Ghodsi 2012).
Combining the use of online educational tools for interaction between peers with
traditional place-based classroom methods, this exploratory study aims to analyse the
nature of peer feedback during a collaborative writing assignment, and to
identify the possible effects this type of feedback has on the acquisition of
writing skills in higher education. The analysis follows emerging e-feedback
practices in the research field of technology-enhanced learning (Crook et al.
2006) and centres on the virtual aspect, especially the production of e-feedback
among peers through discussion forums.

2 Background

In the context of hybrid or blended learning in higher education (Rogers 2001), studies
demonstrate that the use of virtual classrooms based on asynchronous work forums can
foster creativity in academic writing exercises (Bustos Sánchez 2004; Hernández Rojas
and Romero 2011; Hernández Rojas et al. 2014; Turpo Gebera 2010). The exercises are
based on multidirectional writing, a modality that invites students to carry out activities
as writers, readers and evaluators of the work of their classmates. By building this
multidirectional learning environment to help students write from an indirect perspec-
tive (Sánchez 2010), we can transform the writing process, raising awareness of the
writing skills that students need to apply within the community to which they belong; in
this case, online learning platforms.
Multidirectional learning environments combine different forms and methods of
collaborative writing amongst students (Bustos Sánchez 2009; Deveci 2018; Lindblom-
Ylänne and Pihlajamäki 2003). In order to foster a multi-productive setting, in which
the writing process benefits from different types of production, this article focuses on
three specific modes of collaboration: (1) joint production, in which a group works
simultaneously on the same task for a period of time to obtain a shared product; (2)
sequenced production, in which one group member begins an activity, the next step of
which will be carried out by the next group member, and so on; and (3) mirror
production, in which all the different members of the group work individually in
parallel, collaborating through peer review and evaluation.
Education and Information Technologies

Evaluation is a key element in all collaborative dynamics, feedback being one of the
most powerful influences on writing skills acquisition in a virtual environment (Dysthe
et al. 2010; Guasch et al. 2013; Hattie and Timperley 2007). Not all types of feedback,
however, are equally effective, and particular learning contexts, circumstances, and
time frames need to be taken into account. The nature of the feedback-giver (whether
teacher or peer), the time at which feedback is provided in a writing activity and, most
especially, the different types of feedback that the student receives has an impact on the
quality of collaborative writing. As Guasch et al. (2019) have recently shown, the type
of feedback, be it corrective, epistemic, questioning, or suggestive, contributes differ-
ently to the ways in which students use and implement it in online collaborative
writing. The more epistemic and suggestive the feedback is, the more it promotes the
inclusion of complex arguments in academic productions, and the more it engages
students in cognitive and metacognitive processes.
Our article will address this issue based on data obtained through different types of
feedback: (1) peer evaluation, via a teaching and learning process based on mirror
production, students being responsible for their own regulation process; (2) feedback
based on the evaluation rubric, specific for each activity and its related writing compe-
tencies and objectives, which allows students to self-evaluate and offers them guidelines
to evaluate their peers; and (3) open feedback, designed to stimulate reflexivity, a type of
feedback that requires students to argue the results of their evaluation based on comments
and suggestions for improvement. In this respect, the importance of both effective and
affective feedback advises face-to-face work in the classroom, with a special focus on how
to give, receive, and use feedback by others in a productive and positive manner.

3 Methodology

3.1 Context

This article stems from a teaching innovation project led by Teresa López-Pellisa and
developed by the authors at the Universitat de les Illes Balears with the collaboration of
the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya. The project involved students from two different
subjects (Oral and written expression techniques, and Spanish language.
Communication strategies), taught in two different degree courses (Spanish Language
and Literature, and Primary Education) at two faculties (Humanities and Education) of
that university. The project took place during the first semester of the 2018/2019
academic year, in the period between September and January, with the participation of
a total of 85 students and three teachers (two from the UIB and one from the UOC). The
students worked together in 25 small groups of 3 to 5 people. Each group received the
name of a significant female writer and pedagogue and worked together in order to
accomplish different writing tasks and give feedback to other members.
The objective of Oral and written expression techniques and Spanish language.
Communication strategies is to develop oral and written communication skills that help
students to engage successfully in professional activity related to teaching, research and
the management of communication and culture. The objective of the project was to
improve the methodology for acquiring these competences, based on the motivation of
the students, with activities that promote the use of collaborative multimedia group
 Education and Information Technologies

work (Peña et al. 2010), and the possibility of performing tasks asynchronously via an
online platform, thus avoiding the difficulties of face-to-face group work.

3.2 Data

In order to develop this innovation project, we adapted the university’s digital platform
to the specific needs of our collaborative writing tasks, making different file
and communication spaces available for each work group and providing a new
set of forums and wiki writing tools (Mauri et al. 2011). We used the adapted
platform to programme a series of small writing tasks that were geared to
learning how to write an academic review of a literary text. With this final
goal in mind, we proposed collaborative academic and creative writing e-
activities based on the reading of short literary texts, and we invited the groups
to apply different dynamics for collaboration (Table 1).
The first writing task consisted of creating a social media profile of the female writer
and pedagogue assigned to each group. The goal of this activity was to initiate
collaboration between the different members of the group while allowing the
participants to familiarize themselves with the digital platform and the different
digital tools available to them. The task was based on joint production (the
members of a group work simultaneously on the same task for a period of time
to obtain a shared product), and peer feedback from the other groups was also
welcomed. Each group was asked to comment on the different profiles with
constructive criticism and specific suggestions for improvement. In the class-
room, we held face-to-face discussions about the social media profiles created
by each group, and participants could share the difficulties they had encoun-
tered during this first collaborative activity.
The second writing task proposed the analysis, also via collaboration between the
members of the group, of a literary review published in an academic context or in the
general press. Previously, in a face-to-face classroom session, we had read and
discussed several literary reviews in order to examine the different components and
narrative structure of the genre (Cassany and Morales 2009; Castelló 2009). Through
the digital platform, each group was asked to comment on a given review, so that they
could identify and analyse all the relevant elements of a text of this nature, and go on to
use this authorized model in their own writing. In addition, all groups were asked to
include a comment about their peers’ analysis of the reviews, so that everyone could
read about and evaluate other models of teamwork and different ways of approaching
textual analysis.

Table 1 Data summary

Faculty Course Subjects Participants Groups Tasks Peer

Feedback

Humanities Spanish Language Oral and written 31 12 4 9

and Literature expression techniques
Education Primary Education Spanish language. 54 13 4 9
Communication strategies
Education and Information Technologies

Once the fundamental components of a literary review were clear, we proposed a

third writing task consisting of asking students to write their own review. The literary
text chosen for this task was the Spanish translation of Manuel Rivas’ “Butterfly’s
Tongue” (original Galician title: “A lingua das bolboretas”), a short story that had
previously been discussed in the classroom. The goal of this task, carried out entirely
through the digital platform, was to jointly produce a literary review. Each group also
had to read and evaluate the review written by another group, taking into account the
parameters set out in an evaluation rubric designed for the occasion (Rotger et al. 2020).
The fourth writing task proposed a review written individually, in this case about
“WeKids”, by Laura Gallego. We also asked each student to evaluate the review of a
classmate individually, again with the support of an evaluation rubric designed for the
occasion (Rotger et al. 2020). This fourth and last writing task connects with
two aspects already present in the previous one: writing a review of a given
literary text and evaluating a review of the same text written by a classmate. In
this case, however, both tasks are carried out individually, and the teacher also
intervenes in the evaluation process, so that students receive twice the feedback.
Through this activity we aimed to implement mirror production, for all students
carried out the same writing task in parallel and they all commented on the
work of their classmates, feedback that could be compared and contrasted with
that given by the teacher (Table 2).
To promote collaborative work through interactivity and interdependence, we pro-
posed the use of different communication and learning tools. We established an instant
messaging system, to deal with students’ queries; a file delivery system to share
multimedia files with the rest of the group; a system of alerts to facilitate teacher-
student communication; a forum for the members of each working group to exchange
ideas; and a chat, for real-time communication between students and teachers. The
objective was to share responsibility, give and receive support, accept different opin-
ions, compare ideas and establish social ties for learning in a virtual environment. For
the reviews and evaluations of the different writing tasks, we created online workshops,
so that students from different courses (and faculties) could interact with each other,
sharing knowledge and supporting each other through the different writing tasks.
In order to guarantee horizontal relationships and equitable participation in all
working groups (Nokes-Malach et al. 2015), the three teachers participating in the
project closely followed the interactions on the digital platform, so participants felt
confident about expressing themselves freely and contributing their opinions on an
equal footing.

Table 2 Overview of the four writing tasks

Written products Main activity Methodology

1. Social media profile Creating an imaginary profile based on the Joint production
biography of a significant female writer or pedagogue
2. Critical commentary Analysing the nature and structure of a Sequenced production
published literary review
3. Collaborative review Writing a review of a given literary text Joint production
4. Individual review Writing a review of a given literary text Mirror production
 Education and Information Technologies

3.3 Analysis

Our study was primarily motivated by two research questions: (1) What are the
features of collaborative writing in a blended learning environment?; and (2)
What effect does peer feedback have on the revision of a text within the frame-
work of a collaborative writing task in a virtual environment? In order to address
these questions we focused our efforts on two objectives: (1) to develop a blended
learning environment to facilitate collaborative writing tasks through joint, se-
quenced and mirror production; and (2) to observe peer feedback and analyse the
extent to which virtual exchanges in forums and wiki writing spaces can lead to
more proficient writing and greater reflexivity.
To evaluate and analyse the results of the project, we proceeded as follows.
First, we carried out an evaluation survey of the blended learning experience to
explore the participants’ perception of aspects of pedagogical design, innovation
and acquired writing proficiency (López-Pellisa et al. 2020a). Out of a total of 85
participants in the project, 74 responded to the survey, 40.6% of whom were from
the Faculty of Humanities (studying Spanish Language and Literature), and 59.5%
from the Faculty of Education (studying Primary Education). Within this sample
there were 85.1% women and 14.9% men; 85.1% were first-year students; and
95.9% of the participants were aged between 18 and 25 years. Second, we
conducted qualitative interviews with the 25 work groups, recordings of which
are available in an open access (López-Pellisa et al. 2020b). Finally, we held a
face-to-face session with all participants to evaluate the whole experience and
close the project.

4 Findings

All the collaborative writing tasks received peer feedback from the different work
groups. In this section we analyse the main results obtained in the project in four
themed sections: 4.1. Reflecting on collaborative work; 4.2. Evaluating the peer review
process; 4.3. The content and functions of peer feedback; and 4.4. Peer feedback versus
teacher’s feedback.

4.1 Reflecting on Collaborative Work

It is interesting to note that, although 58.1% of the respondents to our survey

had previously participated in a collaborative writing project, most of them
highlighted the problems they had in planning and organizing the group work:
how some tasks were not distributed equally and how they tended to fall on the
same people. In this regard, we note that participants on the Primary Education
course performed with greater ease than the groups on the Spanish Language
and Literature course, probably because in Primary Education there is a stron-
ger culture of collaborative work.
Despite the initial organizational difficulties, it should be noted that only 4.1% of our
respondents stated that, after working collaboratively, their reading comprehension had
not improved at all, while 37.8% considered that their skills have increased
Education and Information Technologies

Fig. 1 The collaborative writing work and the interaction with my peers allowed me to understand the literary
work analysed and assimilate the complementary material better than if I had done it alone. Answers: 1 (I
strongly disagree) - 5 (I totally agree)

significantly, and 21.6% believed that they had increased a great deal. It can be said,
therefore, that the level of general satisfaction with collaborative work is very high (see
Fig. 1).1
Regarding the acquisition of writing proficiency through collaboration, it is inter-
esting to note that more than half of the students surveyed were satisfied with the
results; specifically with regard to synthesis and clarity in the presentation of ideas
(Fig. 2); argumentation (Fig. 3); appropriateness and lexical precision and richness
(Fig. 4); structure (Fig. 5); cohesion (Fig. 6); and formal presentation (Fig. 7). It should
be borne in mind, however, that the number of students whose level of satisfaction with
the results is low (1 to 2 points) increases in the case of reading comprehension,
perhaps due to the somewhat more individual nature of the writing process. For the
most part, however, students considered that teamwork, interaction with their peers,
and collaborative writing had allowed them to develop a series of skills, both passive
and active, more effectively than if they had done the writing tasks alone.

4.2 Evaluating the Peer Review Process

Of the respondents, 36.5% considered that the corrections and evaluation of their peers
had significantly improved their learning capacity when reviewing and writing the texts
individually, and 28.4% considered that the assessment activities were of exceptional
value in helping them to identify the problems they had with their writing. Only 14.9%
believed that peer evaluation had not improved their writing skills. In this case, it
should be noted that the percentage of satisfied students is greater than with previous
questions, reaching 65%. Thus, it appears that students viewed peer evaluation as a
particularly positive aspect of the project (see Fig. 8).
Accustomed perhaps to more passive and traditional forms of learning, based
exclusively on student-teacher interaction, students see peer review as one of the most
important aspects of the project, since it allows them to be more critical of their own
way of working. A high degree of satisfaction is also observed in the following two
questions of the survey, where the positive trend is accentuated, coming close to 80%
(see Figs. 9 and 10).

1
All figures are drawn from the survey conducted during the project. They can be consulted in full, in
Spanish, in López-Pellisa et al. 2020b. The translations into English are our own.
 Education and Information Technologies

Fig. 2 Collaborative writing work and interaction with my peers helped me synthesize my ideas and express
them more clearly than if I had done it alone

Mirror production is, as we can observe, one of the most valued aspects of the
project. Seventy-four point 3 % of the participants considered that it was very positive
to read, analyse and evaluate the work of their classmates, for it helped them to pay
attention to specific aspects of the writing process that they could later apply in their
own writing and during the revision of their own texts. We can conclude, therefore, that
mirror production writing tasks like the ones proposed in this project are productive and
perceived as such by the students. Only 9.5% considered that their writing skills had
not substantially improved through this collaborative assessment and writing experi-
ence. This negative response could be explained by the negative experience some
students had when working in a group and organizing work with others.
In this section on peer feedback, we would also highlight the outstanding degree of
satisfaction with the rubrics, which we have also been able to observe in interviews
with the groups: 63.5% showed a maximum degree of satisfaction with using the
rubrics and emphasized that the rubric allowed them to have a useful model both to
correct their classmates’ work and to work individually; 21.6% thought rubrics were
very useful; 10.8% considered them useful, and only 2.7% and 1.4% believed the
rubrics to be of little or no use (see Fig. 11).

4.3 The Content and Functions of Peer Feedback

The content and functions of peer feedback differed depending on the nature of the writing
activity. Yet, all feedback comments among students display a rich amount of information
and level of reflexivity. More specifically, we found that the reflective utterances in our

Fig. 3 Collaborative writing work and interaction with my peers helped me to follow a coherent line of
argument, sustained throughout the text, better than if I had done it alone
Education and Information Technologies

Fig. 4 Collaborative writing work and interaction with my peers helped me to assimilate the importance of
adjusting to different registers and using specific and appropriate vocabulary better than if I had done it alone

data focus on two main aspects of the writing process. When students generate ideas,
comments on the proposals of their peers address matters of appropriateness, suitability
and relevance, whereas during and after writing, the comments tend to address aspects of
correctness. The participants thus accomplish different purposes, which we will discuss in
three themed sections: 4.3.1. Reflecting on appropriateness (5 examples), 4.3.2.
Analysing structure (8 examples), and 4.3.3. Formal correctness (4 examples).

4.3.1 Reflecting on Appropriateness

Example 1:
The review of “Butterfly’s Tongue” prepared by the Concepción Arenal group is
correct because the subject is stated in a clear, synthetic way and from the first moment
their position is clear.2
La reseña elaborada por el grupo que recibe el nombre de Concepción Arenal acerca
de “La lengua de las mariposas” es correcta porque en lo que respecta al tema es
expuesto de manera clara, sintética y desde el primer momento su postura queda clara.
Example 2:
I consider that Lisa Marie’s review of the “WeKids” story does not focus exactly on
the issues presented. I think that the reviewer has produced a summary of the story,
without looking at it in greater depth, synthesizing a topic and speaking clearly about it.
Considero que la reseña elaborada por Lisa Marie acerca del relato “WeKids” no se
centra con exactitud a los temas expuestos. Opino que ha hecho un resumen del relato,
sin profundizar y sintetizar en un tema y hablar claro sobre él.
Example 3:
Explains the main theme quite accurately, but there is an excessive use of examples
and quotes that makes reading the review less enjoyable.
Explica con bastante exactitud el tema principal, pero podemos observar un excesivo
uso de ejemplos y citas que hacen la lectura de la reseña menos amena.
Example 4:
Then we find an extensive summary of the narrative, where they only tell us the
storyline, without focusing on any interesting point of view.

2
All examples are drawn from the qualitative interviews conducted during the project. They can be consulted
in full, in Spanish, in López-Pellisa et al. (2020a). The translations into English are our own.
 Education and Information Technologies

Fig. 5 Collaborative writing work and interaction with my peers helped me to assimilate the importance of
adequately structuring the text (i.e. types of introduction, conclusion, length of paragraphs, etc.) better than if I
had done it alone

Después encontramos un extenso resumen de la narración donde únicamente nos

cuentan el hilo argumental, sin enfocarlo en ningún punto de vista interesante.
Example 5:
Regarding the analysis, synthesis and critical thinking in the review, I would say that
in general it presents a correct commentary on the “WeKids” story, demonstrating that
its content has been properly understood.
Por lo que hace referencia al análisis, síntesis y pensamiento crítico de la reseña
presentada debo destacar que por lo general se elabora un comentario correcto del
relato “WeKids”, demostrando que se ha comprendido adecuadamente el
contenido de este.

4.3.2 Analysing Structure

Example 1:
As positive aspects we can observe a correct structure, since the paragraphs are clear,
thanks to the use of correct line spacing, and it also respects the length specified.
Como aspectos positivos podemos observar una correcta estructura, ya que los
párrafos están claros, gracias a la utilización de un interlineado correcto y además se
rige a la extensión establecida.
Example 2:
The structure of the review is correct but, in our opinion, it is very schematic. The
paragraphs are explicitly divided and this is a resource that kills any literary magic. On
the other hand, there are no significant persuasive elements either.

Fig. 6 Collaborative writing work and interaction with my peers helped me to assimilate the importance of
using connectors to enhance textual cohesion and organize ideas more clearly than if I had done it alone
Education and Information Technologies

Fig. 7 Collaborative writing work and interaction with my peers helped me to assimilate the importance of
paying attention to the formal matters involved in presenting a text better than if I had done it alone

La estructura de la reseña es correcta pero, en nuestra opinión, es muy esquemática.

Los párrafos están divididos explícitamente y es un recurso que acaba con cualquier
magia literaria. Por otro lado, tampoco utiliza ningún método persuasivo destacable.
Example 3:
The structure of the review is a bit confusing. The introduction already talks about
the end of the story, and there is an imbalance between the length of the paragraphs. For
example the third, which corresponds to a part of the summary, is too long.
La estructura de la reseña es un poco confusa, en la introducción ya se habla del final
del relato, y hay desequilibrio entre la extensión de los párrafos, por ejemplo el tercero,
que corresponde a una parte del resumen, es demasiado extenso.
Example 4:
The line of argument generally follows the guidelines indicated when writing a
review, starting with an introduction, an expository summary, a critical commentary
and a final conclusion.
La línea argumental que ha seguido se ciñe por lo general a las pautas indicadas a la
hora de realizar una reseña, empezando por una introducción, un resumen expositivo,
un comentario crítico y una conclusión final.
Example 5:
The ideas tend to follow a clear order during most of the review.
Las ideas tienden a seguir un orden claro durante la mayor parte de la reseña.
Example 6:
As positive aspects, we can observe a correct structure, since the paragraphs
are clear.

Fig. 8 Peer feedback helped me to identify the aspects that I need to improve. Answers: 1 (I strongly disagree)
- 5 (I totally agree)
 Education and Information Technologies

Fig. 9 Reading the work of my classmates had a very positive effect on my own learning, as it served as a
model for me to follow

Como aspectos positivos podemos observar una correcta estructura, ya que los
párrafos están claros.
Example 7:
Moreover, the critical comment is cohesive and the ideas are presented in an
orderly way.
Por otro lado el comentario crítico cuenta con una buena cohesión y además las
ideas son mencionadas de manera ordenada.
Example 8:
The ideas of the text are very well distributed and diverse.
Por lo que respecta a las ideas del texto están muy bien distribuidas y diversas.

4.3.3 On Formal Correctness

Example 1:
As for formal aspects, it has a title, but there is an error because when
quoting, the names of the stories are in quotation marks and not in italics. We
can also see that the numbering of the pages is missing. Other visible flaws are
the use of double spaces after punctuation marks, unnecessary full stops and
missing full stops.
En cuanto a aspectos formales dispone de un título, pero hay un error debido a que a
la hora de citar, los cuentos van entre comillas y no en cursiva. También podemos
observar que falta la numeración de las páginas. Otros fallos visibles son la utilización
de doble espaciado después de signos de puntuación, puntos innecesarios y falta de
ellos.

Fig. 10 Analysing and evaluating the work of my classmates helped me to develop the writing skills that I
myself had to put into practice in the exercises
Education and Information Technologies

Fig. 11 The evaluation rubrics helped me to evaluate my own work and that of my classmates

Example 2:
The written text adapts to the communicative situation but we can see some spelling
mistakes, which I personally think are due to not going over the text. There are some
careless slips such as “wikids”, missing accents, and spaces where there shouldn’t be.
El texto escrito se adapta a la situación comunicativa pero podemos ver algunas
faltas de ortografía, debido personalmente a no repasarla ya que considero que
son algunos despistes como por ejemplo “wikids”, faltas de acentos, y espacios
donde no tocan.
Example 3:
The first paragraph needs to be indented.
En el primer párrafo falta la sangría.
Example 4:
The date and the name of the subject do not appear. The name of the novel should
come first, which has been done correctly, with the name of the subject underneath and
your name.
Se puede observar que no aparece la fecha ni el nombre de la asignatura. También
cabe decir que la referencia de la novela como bien ha hecho, tendría que ir lo primero
de todo, con el nombre de la asignatura debajo y su nombre.

4.4 Peer Feedback Versus Teacher’s Feedback

The evaluation of the reviews written collaboratively by the working groups produced
very diverse results. In the numerical grades awarded by the teachers, 12 of the 25 work
groups failed in this first exercise; only 3 work groups obtained a B (7–8), and 10 work
groups obtained a C+ (5–6). This collaborative writing task was also evaluated by the
other working groups (see Table 3). It is telling that only one group failed the review by
their peers. In the classroom we worked with the different grades given to the groups by
the teachers and by their peers, to understand the elements they took into account for
the evaluation. All the reviews received an evaluation based on the rubric we provided,
a numerical evaluation (from 1 to 10) by their peers and teachers, and a feedback
comment.
Regarding task 4, all the individual reviews were given a numerical evaluation from
1 to 10 by the teacher and also by the students; see Table 4.
In the evaluation of the individual review, we again observe a general tendency
among students not to fail their peers, while they also tend to be less generous with their
grading than teachers. Their grades are not very disparate (they are all between 5 and
 Education and Information Technologies

Table 3 Grades task 3:

Grade Groups receiving this Groups receiving this
collaborative review grade from the teacher grade from their peers

4 3 1
4.25 2 –
4.5 3 –
4.75 4 –
5 2 2
6 6 5
6.5 2 –
7 – 7
7.75 1 –
8 – 6
8.25 1 –
8.75 1 –
9 – 1
Unrated – 3

9), and are concentrated in the non-committal area of 6, 7 and 8. Teachers, on the other
hand, score with a wider range from 1 up to 10, and they fail 23 students. However,
there are usually no more than two points of difference between the grade awarded by
the teacher and that given by the students’ peers, although there are striking exceptions,
such as that of a student who was rated 1 by the teacher and 8 by one of their peers.

5 Discussion and Conclusion

This study explored the nature of peer feedback during a collaborative writing assign-
ment in a blended learning environment. The evidence found in the reviewed literature
is that collaboration amongst peers is key in the development of writing proficiency,

Table 4 Grades task 4: individu-

Grade Groups receiving Groups receiving
al review this qualification this qualification from
from the teacher their peers

1 1 –
3 1 –
4 21 –
5 15 10
6 18 22
7 9 16
8 9 19
9 6 7
10 3 –
Unrated – 9
Education and Information Technologies

and that peer feedback—also a form of collaboration—helps students to improve their

writing. By taking an empirical focus, our research attempts to advance beyond
discussion and prescription in regard to collaboration in a blended learning environ-
ment, and to show how collaborative work amongst peers not only leads to better
grades in academic writing courses, but to a positive association between collaboration
and student satisfaction and performance.
The results obtained in this study indicate that, when collaborative writing includes
peer feedback, instead of unidirectional corrections from the teacher, the students
respond more reflectively and constructively, they discuss the content they are working
with, and, as a result, they make significant changes in their own writing. Percentages
close to or greater than 60% suggest that the collaborative writing tasks proposed and
the peer assessment have served to increase students’ competence in both reading
comprehension and written proficiency. A similar percentage values the peer evaluation
process positively, with respect to both giving and receiving the assessments of
peers, and there is an even higher level of satisfaction regarding the use of the
evaluation rubrics. Qualitative interviews with each work group confirm and
reinforce the positive results obtained in the survey. During the face-to-face
interviews, students praised the project for its usefulness, especially the way in
which it encouraged them to reflect on specific aspects where they could
improve their writing skills and the support received from their peers when
they were putting these ideas into practice.
Turning to the question of whether participants have come to write better, the answer
has tended to be positive, and the progression throughout the four writing tasks shows a
higher awareness and significant improvement in structure, cohesion, vocabulary, and
formal correctness (spelling and formal presentation). In general, students consider that
having been reviewed by their peers, or having reviewed the work of their peers, has
forced them to pay attention to their writing and has given them space to reflect on the
writing process and work on revising their texts. There was criticism of the lack of
feedback by peers in some cases (three groups failed to evaluate task 3 and 9
students failed to review task 4 [see Tables 3 and 4 above]) and of the poor
assessment by peers in some cases. Regarding this issue, students point to the
value of the proposed rubrics, which have given them structure and guidance,
both when assessing the work of their peers and when evaluating their own.
Only one student out of 85 complained about the rubrics, which he considered
too long, and even cumbersome. In general, students have valued the experi-
ence of group work and collaborative writing as very positive, particularly
among the Primary Education groups. Only a few students from the Spanish
Language and Literature course were somewhat reluctant to collaborate and
some showed a preference for working alone.
After analysing the process and the results of the activities, as well as the quantitative
and qualitative responses of the participants in the project, we can conclude that the
experience of collaborative writing in a blended learning environment promotes greater
effectiveness in acquiring academic writing skills, and that this is highly valued by
students. For our participants, accustomed to communicating through different digital
tools and platforms, the virtual interaction with other students through our digital
platform proved to be an important motivational element, contributing to more effective
acquisition of the skills involved.
 Education and Information Technologies

Regarding the creation and strengthening of collaborative ties among students from
different subjects, degree courses, and faculties at the UIB, the project has shown the
value of peer collaboration in sharing learning processes, as well as the importance of
the acquisition of oral and written skills for any context or academic environment. We
believe that this objective has been successfully achieved, since most of the students
looked forward to being in contact with students from other degree courses and
faculties, reading their work and learning about other forms of analysis and writing
processes. We have detected that group and collaborative work involves greater effort,
but in general terms participants consider that they have learned more from this
experience, observing and evaluating their classmates’ work, than from individual
work. The best learning results have been obtained from mirror production work.
The students were particularly satisfied to have been active agents in the evaluation
process, which they believe has made them improve their own writing. Work based on
rubrics was particularly positively valued.
The writing competences worked on, in both the Education and Humanities facul-
ties, included ‘The ability to adequately prepare texts of different types’, ‘The ability to
critically evaluate the style of a text and to formulate alternative proposals’, ‘The ability
to work as a team and learn from the work of others’, and ‘The ability to put knowledge
into practice’. We conclude that these competences can be substantially improved
through activities that promote blended learning, combining face-to-face and virtual
teaching, and collaboration between students, as they increase the students’ motivation
and encourage critical reflection on their individual writing.
Finally, we point out some of the limitations of our work from which we identify
future research lines. On the one hand, we acknowledge the fact that the scope of our
study is limited to a group of students situated in an specific academic context and time;
and although it combines participants from different grades and faculties, it involves
students in the areas of Education and Spanish language and literature exclusively.
Future research could be expanded to other academic contexts, within and beyond the
humanities, and to other languages. On the other hand, taking into account the recent
work on collaborative writing in higher education (Deveci 2018; van Steendam 2016)
and on the effects that peer feedback has on it (Bradley and Thouësny 2017; Guasch
et al. 2019; Huisman et al. 2019), other aspects could be analysed, such as the impact of
collaboration on the acquisition of other competences (from time management and
teamwork to critical thinking), or the examination of ethical issues that arise in the
practice of collaborative writing, such as academic integrity or gender equality.

Funding information This work was supported by the Institute for Educational Research and Innovation
(IRIE) of the Universitat de les Illes Balears (Spain) through a teaching innovation project (PID 181960) led
by Teresa López-Pellisa.

References

Álvarez, I., Espasa, A., & Guasch, T. (2012). The value of feedback in improving collaborative writing
assignments in an online learning environment. Studies in Higher Education, 37(4), 387–400. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03075079.2010.510182.
Bangert-Drowns, R., Hurley, M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of school-based writing to-learn
interventions on academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 29–58.
Education and Information Technologies

Bradley, L., & Thouësny, S. (2017). Students’ collaborative peer reviewing in an online writing environment.
Themes in Science and Technology Education, 10(2), 69–83.
Bustos Sánchez, A. (2004). Un modelo para blended-learning aplicado a la formación en el trabajo.
Compartimos prácticas - ¿compartimos saberes? RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a
Distancia, 7(1–2), 113–132.
Bustos Sánchez, A. (2009). Escritura colaborativa en línea. Un estudio preliminar para el estudio orientado al
análisis del proceso de co-autoría. RIED. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación a Distancia, 12(2), 33–
55.
Carlino, P. (2008). Leer y escribir en la universidad, una nueva cultura. ¿Por qué es necesaria la alfabetización
académica? In E. Narváez & D. Cadena (Eds.), Los desafíos de la lectura y la escritura en la educación
superior: caminos posibles (pp. 159–194). Cali: Universidad Autónoma de Occidente.
Cassany, D., & Morales, Ó. (2009). Leer y escribir en la universidad: los géneros científicos. In D. Cassany
(Comp.), Para ser letrados. Voces y miradas sobre la lectura (pp. 109–128). Barcelona: Paidós.
Castelló, M. (2009). Aprender a escribir textos académicos: ¿copistas, escribas, compiladores o escritores? In
J. I. Pozo, & M. Pérez (Coords.), Psicología del aprendizaje universitario: la formación de competencias
(pp. 120–133). Madrid: Morata.
Crook, C. K., Gross, H., & Dymott, R. (2006). Assessment relationships in higher education: The tension of
process and practice. British Educational Research Journal, 32, 95–114.
Deveci, T. (2018). Student perceptions on collaborative writing in a project-based course. Universal Journal of
Educational Research, 6(4), 721–732. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2018.060415.
Devere, T. (2008). Efficacy of instructor feedback on written work in an online program. International Journal
on E-Learning, 7(2), 311–329.
Dysthe, O., Lillejord, S., Vines, A., & Wasson, B. (2010). Productive e-feedback in higher education. Two
models and some critical issues. In A. Ludvigsen, I. Rasmussen, & R. Säljö (Eds.), Learning across sites:
New tools, infrastructures and practices (pp. 243–259). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Espasa, A., & Meneses, J. (2010). Analysing feedback processes in an online teaching and learning
environment: An exploratory study. Higher Education, 59(3), 277–292.
Guasch, T., Espasa, A., & Álvarez, I. (2010). Formative e-feedback in collaborative writing assignments: The
effect of the process and time. eLC Research Paper Series, 1, 49–59.
Guasch, T., Espasa, A., Álvarez, I., & Kirschner, P. A. (2013). Effects of feedback on collaborative writing in
an online learning environment. Distance Education, 34(3), 324–338. https://doi.org/10.1080
/01587919.2013.835772.
Guasch, T., Espasa, A., & Martínez-Melo, M. (2019). The art of questioning in online learning environments:
The potentialities of feedback in writing. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 111–123.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1479373.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487.
Herder, A., Berenst, J., de Glopper, K., & Koole, T. (2018). Reflective practices in collaborative writing of
primary school students. International Journal of Educational Research, 90, 160–174.
Hernández Rojas, G., & Romero, V. (2011). El b-learning en contextos educativos universitarios:
posibilidades de uso. In F. Díaz Barriga, G. Hernández, & M. A. Rigo (Eds.), Experiencias educativas
con recursos digitales (pp. 95–119). Ciudad de México: Facultad de Psicología-UNAM.
Hernández Rojas, G., Sánchez González, P., Rodríguez Varela, E. I., Caballero Becerril, R. S., & Martínez
Martínez, M. (2014). Un entorno b-learning para la promoción de la escritura académica de estudiantes
universitarios. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, 19(61), 349–375.
Huisman, B., Saab, N., van den Broek, P., & van Driel, J. (2019). The impact of formative peer feedback on
higher education students’ academic writing: A meta-analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 44(6), 863–880. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896.
Klein, P. D. (2014). Knowledge construction in collaborative science writing: Strategic simplicity, distributed
complexity, and explanatory sophistication. In G. E. Rijlaarsdam, P. D. Klein, P. Boscolo, L. C.
Kirkpatrick, & C. E. Gelati (Eds.), Studies in writing, writing as a learning activity (Vol. 28, pp. 300–
326). Leiden: Brill.
Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2012). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 31, 486–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.12.091.
Lindblom-Ylänne, S., & Pihlajamäki, H. (2003). Can a collaborative network environment enhance essay-
writing processes? British Journal of Educational Technology, 34(1), 17–30. https://doi.org/10.1111
/1467-8535.d01-3.
 Education and Information Technologies

Lonka, K. (2003). Helping doctoral students to finish their theses. In L. Björk, G. Bräuer, L. Rienecker, G.
Ruhmann, & P. Stray Jorgensen (Eds.), Teaching academic writing across Europe. Dordrecht: Kluwer
University Press.
López-Pellisa, T., Rodríguez-Gallego, F. & Rotger, N. (2020a). Interviews: Collaborative Writing at Work:
Peer Feedback in a Blended Learning Environment. Mendeley Data, V1, https://doi.org/10.17632/ygktp8
g3g9.1.
López-Pellisa, T., Rotger, N. & Rodríguez-Gallego, F. (2020b). Apéndice A: Cuestionario del proyecto de
escritura colaborativa. Mendeley Data, V1, https://doi.org/10.17632/xttwsktvcv.1.
Mauri, T., Colomina, R., Clara, M., & Ginesta, A. (2011). Ayudas al aprendizaje en tareas de escritura
colaborativa con Moodle. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 9(3), 1103–1128.
Nokes-Malach, T. J., Richey, J. E., & Gadgil, S. (2015). When is it better to learn together? Insights from
research on collaborative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 645–656. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10648-015-9312-8.
Nykopp, M., Marttunen, M., & Laurinen, L. (2014). University students’ knowledge construction during face
to face collaborative writing. In P. Klein, P. Boscolo, L. Kirkpatrick, & C. Gelati (Eds.), Writing as a
learning activity (pp. 277–299). Leiden: Brill Studies in Writing.
Peña, K., Pérez, M., & Rondón, E. (2010). Redes sociales en Internet: reflexiones sobre sus posibilidades para
el aprendizaje cooperativo y colaborativo. Revista de Teoría y Didáctica de las Ciencias Sociales, 16,
173–205.
Rogers, P. L. (2001). Traditions to transformations: The forced evolution of higher education. AACE Journal,
9(1), 47–60.
Rotger, N., López-Pellisa, T. & Rodríguez-Gallego, F. (2020). Evaluation Rubric: Collaborative Writing at
Work: Peer Feedback in a Blended Learning Environment. Mendeley Data, V3, https://doi.org/10.17632
/rz5m25gbvk.3.
Sánchez, E. (Coord.). (2010). La lectura en el aula. Barcelona: Graó.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153–189.
Turpo Gebera, O. W. (2010). Contexto y desarrollo de la modalidad educativa blended learning en el sistema
educativo iberoamericano. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, 15(45), 345–370.
van Steendam, E. (2016). Editorial: Forms of collaboration in writing. Journal of Writing Research, 8(2), 183–
204. https://doi.org/10.17239/jowr-2016.08.02.01.
Wolsey, T. (2008). Efficacy of instructor feedback on written work in an online program. International
Journal on E-learning, 7(2), 311–329.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.