{
  "schema_version": 1,
  "id": "structured-peer-feedback-provision-2025",
  "canonical_url": "https://brali-lifeos.github.io/evidence/structured-peer-feedback-provision-2025/",
  "json_url": "https://brali-lifeos.github.io/evidence/structured-peer-feedback-provision-2025/index.json",
  "decision": "support-existing",
  "decision_label": "Supports existing guidance",
  "reviewed_at": "2026-08-31",
  "reviewed_by": "Brali Evidence Reviewer",
  "source": {
    "title": "Enhancing the Peer-Feedback Process Through Instructional Support: A Meta-Analysis",
    "url": "https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-025-10017-3",
    "type": "meta-analysis",
    "doi": "10.1007/s10648-025-10017-3",
    "citation_text": "Hornstein J, Keller MV, Greisel M, Dresel M, Kollar I. Educational Psychology Review. 2025;37:42.",
    "study_design": "Meta-analysis of 32 peer-reviewed journal studies with 3,806 learners, comparing peer-feedback with instructional support against peer-feedback without instructional support. Robust variance estimation was used to handle dependent effect sizes, and analyses distinguished support during feedback provision versus reception and content-specific versus generic support.",
    "population": "Learners in the experimental and quasi-experimental educational peer-feedback studies included in the review. Tasks and educational contexts varied across studies.",
    "intervention_or_exposure": "Instructional support around peer feedback, including preparatory activities, rubrics or rating schemes, sentence starters, guiding questions, integrated support and broader content-specific or generic scaffolds, compared with unsupported peer-feedback processes.",
    "outcomes": [
      "Quality of feedback provision",
      "Quality of feedback reception or revision",
      "Subject-matter-related knowledge"
    ]
  },
  "supported_claim": "In the reviewed educational literature, adding instructional support to peer feedback improved the peer-feedback process overall, and support aimed at the person providing feedback was associated with better feedback-provision quality. This supports Brali's existing educational writing protocol in making the review target explicit and giving the peer reviewer a small amount of structure instead of requesting vague general feedback.",
  "unsupported_or_overstated_claims": [
    "One specific rubric, sentence starter, checklist or guiding-question set is proven best.",
    "Instructional support for receiving feedback has been shown ineffective; that evidence base was too small for a stable conclusion.",
    "Structured peer feedback reliably increases subject-matter knowledge in every setting.",
    "The meta-analysis establishes the same effects for professional, technical, marketing or creative writing outside educational contexts.",
    "More detailed reviewer instructions are always better.",
    "Peer feedback is universally superior to instructor, expert, self or automated feedback."
  ],
  "limitations": [
    "Only 32 journal studies met the inclusion criteria, limiting fine-grained moderator analysis.",
    "Only three studies with 14 effect sizes examined feedback-reception support, making conclusions about that phase underpowered and unstable.",
    "The authors had to collapse specific supports such as rubrics, sentence starters and guiding questions into broader categories because each was represented by too few studies.",
    "Study heterogeneity was high, and publication-bias tests were mixed: Egger's test was significant whereas Begg's test was not and the funnel plot was relatively symmetrical.",
    "The meta-analysis concerns educational peer-feedback processes and should not be treated as direct evidence for all professional writing or workplace review contexts.",
    "Coarse outcome categories do not reveal which exact support mechanism is best for a specific writing task."
  ],
  "target_hack_ids": [
    "ask-a-peer-to-proofread"
  ],
  "target_protocol_ids": [
    "brali:ask-a-peer-to-proofread"
  ],
  "risk_flags": [],
  "notes": "Evidence role: support the existing 'match feedback to the revision target' protocol, especially its instruction to tell the reviewer what to inspect. Do not yet add a canonical universal rubric. A future content revision may offer optional lightweight structures such as two or three guiding questions, while keeping the educational-context boundary visible."
}