Investigating Students’ Knowledge of Revision Strategies and Encouraging Use in an Online Inquiry Science Unit

• In Event: Understanding and Supporting Feedback Uptake: Bridging Research and Practice in Educational Contexts

Abstract

1. Objectives
The primary aims of this study are (1) to identify the types of revision strategies students report knowing and using, (2) to examine the role of classroom-based sharing in expanding students’ strategy repertoires, and (3) to explore whether students plan to adopt new strategies after exposure to peer ideas.

2. Theoretical framework
This study is grounded in the idea that effective feedback is defined not solely by its delivery but by its impact on subsequent student action (Shute, 2008; Winstone et al., 2017). Feedback uptake refers to the process by which students engage with and implement feedback to improve their work (Carless & Boud, 2018). We zoom in on students' understanding of revision strategies as these may serve as mechanisms for feedback uptake. Revision strategies are conceptualized here as knowing aspects one can improve (focus) and knowing how to do it (method). The study also draws on sociocultural learning theories (Vygotsky, 1978), emphasizing that peer interaction makes revision strategies visible and learnable, and sharing such strategies is seen as a form of distributed metacognitive scaffolding.

3. Method
This exploratory study collected data from 288 high school students across four classrooms using an online curriculum (https://wise.berkeley.edu/), which supports multi-week inquiry instruction on the genetics of extinction. Students were prompted twice to reflect on and share revision strategies, and their responses were logged in the environment. In the first activity, students responded to the prompt, “What revision strategies do you use or know of?” In the second, they selected strategies shared by peers and chose two to try in the future.

4. Data analysis
The coding rubric includes three dimensions: 1) Awareness, which evaluates whether students do not express a revision strategy, express an emerging or a specified revision strategy; 2) revision focus (what is improved) and 3) revision method (how it is improved). Categories within each dimension were inductively derived through bottom-up analysis of all responses (Table 1). Preliminary results are based on a single coder. Double coding is ongoing to ensure rigorous quantification of qualitative data.

5. Results
Most students (87%) articulated a specified revision strategy, while only 5% were vague and 7% expressed none. About 18% focused on surface-level and 45% on idea-level aspects (Table 2). While some report low-effort methods (routine), others report using new knowledge (integrative), revising in ways that connect feedback to evolving understanding. Also common were comparative (16%) and consultative (17%) strategies, reflecting more deliberate, analytical engagement (Table 3).
The analysis of which strategies students selected from the peer-sharing activity to try in the future is currently ongoing.

6. Significance
The findings suggest that most students can articulate specific, purposeful revision strategies. This is encouraging, as it reflects students' focus on substantive aspects and the use of tools and resources to guide their improvements, as well as students' recognition of others as sources of insight. The findings also suggest that students already possess the metacognitive vocabulary needed to benefit from structured opportunities for peer sharing and reflection. This can be used to explicitly talk about and teach revision strategies to increase feedback uptake in classrooms.

Authors

• Sarah Bichler, Ludwig Maximilian University Munich

• Katharina Marie Bach, University of Munich

• Marcia Linn, University of California - Berkeley

• Allison Bradford, University of California - Berkeley