Peer review is regularly found to be a powerful and efficient technique for assessment and feedback, but many students are inexperienced and sometimes struggle to provide meaningful feedback. It is considered best practice to provide students with some training on how to be a good reviewer, but few classes can afford to devote much time to such training, and the assumption is that review quality will improve with experience. This study directly examines what kinds of experiences during peer feedback activities improve reviewing quality. In particular, organized by theories of norm-setting and practice-based learning, it examines the relationship of the amount of provided and received feedback on one assignment to improvements in the quality of feedback on the next assignment. Data on peer feedback experiences and behaviors across multiple assignments were taken from students across two introductory level undergraduate courses (N = 360). Multi-regression analyses reveal that the number and length of feedback provided predicted growth in helpfulness rates, and both improvements in domain performance and the reviewer's preference for length explains the effects on review helpfulness. Further, compared with high-performing students, low-performing students show more remarkable growth in helpfulness from providing feedback.