Do experiences of interactional inequality predict lower depth of future student participation in peer review

Abstract Across disciplines and educational levels, peer feedback has emerged as a broadly useful pedagogical strategy. However, the value of peer feedback depends upon students being willing to provide each other substantial feedback. We develop a novel application of game theory to study whether students’ experiences with interaction inequality in peer feedback predict lower participation in future peer feedback assignments. Two kinds of inequality are explored: inequality in amount and inequality in the helpfulness of received vs. providing feedback. We examine data from students (N = 732) enrolled in the three different courses (varying in discipline and level) using the same online peer review platform. We use advanced multiple regression models to test four theoretically-derived hypotheses regarding the overall effects of experienced inequality, three hypotheses involving contextual moderators of that effect. The results confirmed the hypothesized relationship of experiencing inequality in the number and quality of feedback provided vs. received with the subsequent depth of participation in peer reviewing. The results also generally confirmed the three predicted moderators of the relationship: stronger observed relationships with inequality experiences for weaker students, in later assignments, and in more advanced coursework. This study is unique in applying and extending game theory to computerized peer review and in its approach for studying the relationship of specific prior experiences with future peer review participation. The findings provide new practical insights into what is essential to manage in peer review processes.