“It makes me feel better… just because they said I had a solid argument:” characterization of student interaction with peer feedback

Peer review activities have been shown to be beneficial for chemistry students and can promote both their conceptual and science practice competencies. Previous work has focused on identifying what peer review features prompt students to revise their work, where a higher degree of revision is typically correlated with more learning benefits for the student. More recently this research has begun to identify what characteristics of the feedback recipient influence this feedback uptake. However, in order to best implement these types of activities into the classroom, we must understand how these characteristics and features influence students’ engagement with peer feedback. In this study, we utilized semi-structured interviews to simulate a peer review activity for general chemistry II students. During these interviews, we asked students to respond to a series of hypothetical peer review comments, reflect on how their confidence changed, and explain whether they would like to revise their work. Using a phenomenographic approach, we identified three distinct framings that the students adopted based on their confidence about their initial drafts. Students who experienced low confidence viewed the peer review activity as offering them a mechanism to manage their uncertainty. Meanwhile, students who felt confident about their initial draft either looked to the peer review to offer confirmation that they had gotten the correct answer, or looked for feedback on how to improve their work. These frames shaped the way the students interpreted the feedback message, which ultimately directed their revision choices. This work offers valuable insights for instructors about how to best frame peer review activities to support student learning.