Peer review in the classroom: student perceptions,peer feedback quality and the role of assessment

Abstract

Peer review in the classroom can enhance numerous employability skills such as critical appraisal, writing skills, reflection practices and collaborative experiences. This study takes place over two years and discusses the implementation of a repeating blind peer review cycle across a single semester for final year chemistry students enrolled on a compulsory employability module. The feedback cycle promotes personal reflection through the use of mini-reflective questionnaires. The process was assessed by academic tutors at the resubmission stage and/or the peer feedback stage where the quality of peer feedback was directly assessed. The research investigates the quality of peer feedback, the importance of assessment and student perceptions of what is most useful. Methods include directed content analysis of feedback produced, student opinions and a focus group. Students were capable of offering useable feedback across a range of assessment criteria but tend to focus on the important criteria best aligned to the particular assignment. A range of motivational factors and tactics were noticed but students tended to find reviewing the most beneficial.     

同伴互评机制中学生书面反馈的语类结构分析

文章运用实证的方法对大学英语写作教学中同伴互评的书面反馈内容进行了为期十八周的实证研究。研究结果表明学生的书面反馈可以分为三步即:内容评价、文章修改意见、以及鼓励期望等内容。学生反馈中存在的问题主要表现在误评、漏评等方面。     

The role of anonymity in peer assessment

This quasi-experimental study aimed to examine the impact of anonymity and training (an alternative strategy when anonymity was unattainable) on students’ performance and perceptions in formative peer assessment. The training in this study focused on educating students to understand and appreciate formative peer assessment. A sample of 77 students participated in a peer assessment activity in three conditions: a group with participants’ identities revealed (Identity Group), a group with anonymity provided (Anonymity Group) and a group with identities revealed but training provided (Training Group). Data analysis indicated that both the Anonymity Group and Training Group outperformed the Identity Group on projects. In terms of perceptions, however, the Training Group appreciated the value of peer assessment more and experienced less pressure in the process than the other two groups.     

Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective

Peer review is a reciprocal process whereby students produce feedback reviews on the work of peers and receive feedback reviews from peers on their own work. Prior research has primarily examined the learning benefits that result from the receipt of feedback reviews, with few studies specifically exploring the merits of producing feedback reviews or the learning mechanisms that this activates. Using accounts of their experiences of peer review, this study illuminates students’ perceptions of the different learning benefits resulting from feedback receipt and feedback production, and, importantly, it provides insight into the cognitive processes that are activated when students construct feedback reviews. The findings show that producing feedback reviews engages students in multiple acts of evaluative judgement, both about the work of peers, and, through a reflective process, about their own work; that it involves them in both invoking and applying criteria to explain those judgements; and that it shifts control of feedback processes into students’ hands, a shift that can reduce their need for external feedback. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed. It is argued that the capacity to produce quality feedback is a fundamental graduate skill, and, as such, it should receive much greater attention in higher education curricula.     

A comparison of peer and tutor feedback

We report on a study comparing peer feedback with feedback written by tutors on a large, undergraduate software engineering programming class. Feedback generated by peers is generally held to be of lower quality to feedback from experienced tutors, and this study sought to explore the extent and nature of this difference. We looked at how seriously peers undertook the reviewing task, differences in the level of detail in feedback comments and differences with respect to tone (whether comments were positive, negative or neutral, offered advice or addressed the author personally). Peer feedback was also compared by academic standing, and by gender. We found that, while tutors wrote longer comments than peers and gave more specific feedback, in other important respects (such as offering advice) the differences were not significant.     

In the eye of the beholder: The relationship between perceived peer language skills,provided peer feedback and peer grading in secondary education

Students involved in peer assessment have interpersonal relationships, partly consisting of reciprocal perceptions. In the domain of argumentative writing, little is known about the way peer assessment is affected by the assessor’s perception of the assessee’s language skills. Dutch 10th grade students (N = 176, age = 15–16) provided feedback and grades on two texts, being under the illusion that the texts had been written by two classmates whom the assessors perceived as a peer with either stronger or weaker language skills than their own (within-subjects design). In reality, students assessed similar texts, created by the researchers. Assessors did not provide different feedback to the two types of assessees. Simultaneously, they provided higher grades to peers perceived to have stronger language skills than their own than to peers perceived to have weaker language skills than their own. Future research should capture assessors’ rationale behind the composition of feedback and grades.     

A GEARed peer feedback model and implications for learning facilitation

This study proposes a model to view and analyse college students’ written peer feedback after they assess each other’s formative task assignment and provide comments. The model was developed by: (a) revisiting learning-oriented assessment and feedback theories, (b) reviewing and summarising existing peer feedback analysis approaches as detailed in published empirical studies, and (c) analysing a small set of primary learner peer feedback data. In the proposed GEARed model of peer feedback, each complete piece of comment on one improvable unit may have four cognitive elements, i.e. identification of the Gap between performance and goal, Explanation of the gap, gap-bridging Aspirations, and being Resourceful to reach beyond the current knowledge/skill level. Two social-affective-interactive elements also play a part, i.e. being encouraging to the peer feedback receiver and doubtful toward the provider self. Each feedback comment may contain any or all of these incremental elements rather than being assigned only to one category. It is argued that the absent or unresolved aspects in feedback leave room for the receiver to reflect and may suggest instructional actions for teachers. Finally, different patterns of GEARed component combinations are hypothesised and their implications for learning and teaching are discussed.     

An inventory of peer assessment diversity

Since Topping published his literature review on peer assessment in 1998 Topping, K. 1998. Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68: 249–76. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] [Google Scholar], the number of studies on this subject has doubled, if not tripled. However, along with this expansion, the diversity of peer assessment applications increased equally fast. Based on recent literature, this contribution focuses specifically on the diversity that has come to exist in order to update Topping's typology, adding eight variables, extending eight others with extra sub‐dimensions, and including the implementation factors. Five original variables were absorbed into larger entities, leaving 20 variables which were finally grouped into five clusters. For teachers or advisors, this inventory may be of interest as a source of inspiration or as a checklist of important decisions to make when working with peer evaluation. For researchers, it may be a guide towards covering the full scope of particularities when introducing their peer assessment design. Moreover, the framework developed in this paper might relieve the possible confusion originating from the use of a single term to cover a multitude of sometimes incompatible practices.     

The assessment cycle: a model for learning through peer assessment

This paper advances a model describing how peer assessment supports self-assessment. Although prior research demonstrates that peer assessment promotes self-assessment, the connection between these two activities is underspecified. This model, the assessment cycle, draws from theories of self-assessment to elaborate how learning takes place through peer assessment. The model is applied to three activity structures described in the literature to analyse their potential to support learning by promoting self-assessment. Broadly speaking, the model can be used to understand learning that takes place in a variety of peer assessment activities: marking/grading, analysis, feedback, conferencing and revision. This approach contrasts most studies on peer assessment, which have focused on calibration of instructor and peer grades, rather than learning opportunities.     

Dialogue within peer feedback processes: clarification and negotiation of meaning

Peer feedback carries a number of potential benefits to students, yet how they learn in the process remains under-researched. Building on ideas of feedback as dialogue, this study aims to unpack the respective perceptions of the provider and the receiver of peer feedback in relation to the benefits and challenges of dialogue about academic writing. Data were collected through classroom observations, interviews and journals at a university in southern China. Two key inter-related benefits emerge from the qualitative analysis of students’ perceptions of verbal interaction about written peer feedback. The provider of written comments obtains feedback on their feedback and the receiver has the opportunity to clarify or negotiate meaning with the feedback provider. Contextual challenges include students wanting more guidance about peer feedback and desiring more teacher input to the process. The study adds to the knowledge about the significance of peer dialogue in mutual clarification and negotiation between the provider and the recipient while emphasising ongoing teacher guidance in the process.     

Teaching the writing of psychological reports through formative assessment: peer and teacher review

This paper describes the teaching of psychological report writing at Karolinska Institutet and the efforts to improve it through the introduction of formative assessment applied as peer and teacher review. 48 fourth-year psychology students were required to write a psychological report. Half of the students also participated in a non-mandatory peer review of a first draft. All students handed in a preliminary version of the report, had it reviewed by the teachers and made alterations before handing in a final version. The results showed that both peer review and teacher review were valuable methods in the teaching of psychological report writing.     

Investigating secondary school students’ unmediated peer assessment skills

The purpose of this study was to investigate secondary school students’ unmediated peer assessment skills. Specifically, 36 seventh graders, without receiving any kind of support, were anonymously assigned to reciprocally assess their peers’ science web-portfolios. Additionally, students’ attitudes towards and intentions about the use of unsupported reciprocal peer assessment were examined. Three data sources were used, namely, interviews, screen-video captured data, and the peer assessors’ feedback produced. Findings showed that the students have positive attitudes towards unsupported reciprocal peer assessment and that they intend to implement it again. It was also found that students have the skills, at least the beginnings, needed for the implementation of peer assessment. Specifically, they were found to be able to define and use their own assessment criteria, whose overall validity and reliability, however, were found to be low. Finally, the feedback they produced included grades, positive and negative judgments, as well as suggestions for changes.     

Using and rejecting peer feedback in the science classroom: a study of students’ negotiations on how to use peer feedback when designing experiments

Background: Research on peer assessment has noted ambiguity among students in using peer assessment for improving their work. Previous research has explained this in terms of deficits in the student feedback, or differences in student views of what counts as high-quality work.

Purpose: This study frames peer assessment as a social process in the science classroom. The aim is to explore peer assessment in science education as social practice in order to contribute to an understanding of the affordances and constraints of using peer assessment as a learning tool in science education.

Design and Method: The study was conducted in four lower secondary school classes, school years 8 and 9, in two different schools. An intervention study was designed focussing on the topic of experimental design. It involved the students in a process of peer assessment where they designed experiments individually, and then exchanged their designs, conducted each other’s experiments, provided feedback to each other and revised their original design after discussing the feedback in groups. Data were collected in the form of audio recordings of student discussions and written work.

Results: The results show that, although not all peer feedback resulted in revisions, peer feedback was useful to the students in group interaction when negotiating quality in their work.

Conclusions: To conclude, the potential for using peer assessment in science education should not only be evaluated through the students’ revisions but also in terms of in what ways the feedback constitutes interactional resources for defining quality in student work.     

Assessing postgraduate student perceptions and measures of learning in a peer review feedback process

Peer review feedback, developed to assist students with increasing the quality of group reports and developing peer review skills, was added to a master’s level Climate Change Policy and Planning unit. A pre- and post-survey was conducted to determine whether students found the process a valuable learning opportunity: 87% of students responding to the post-review survey indicated they saw benefit in both developing and receiving peer review feedback. Peer review design minimising the potential for plagiarism resulted in low levels of student concern surrounding plagiarism. Marks allocated by students were valid (consistent with the lecturer) and were generally reliable; however, distribution of marks had a higher variance where group report quality was low. Training on completing the peer review template could result in more reliable feedback. Consistent with the literature, the feedback developed during the peer review process focused on style and presentation preferentially to content. Seven out of eight group reports improved between report submissions, with all groups responding to peer review feedback. Peer review feedback and changes made to group reports indicated students had limited capacity to judge the quality of referencing and critical analysis.     

Increasing the uptake of peer feedback in primary school writing: findings from an action research enquiry

This article reports on how an action research strategy was used to increase children's uptake of feedback during peer assessment in primary school writing. Several different strategies were used in the study that had been successful in increasing students’ uptake of peer feedback in contexts such as higher education. In order to evaluate how successful these actions were, several different data collection methods were drawn upon to triangulate findings including children's work, observations, informal interviews and mind mapping. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data generated. Findings are consistent with those from research in other settings which suggest that pupils make better use of feedback if: it is task-involving and useful; there is sufficient time given for them to act on it and discuss it with their peers; and they are asked to reflect on how it has been used to improve the quality of the assessed work.     

Assessment training effects on student assessment skills and task performance in a technology-facilitated peer assessment

This study examines the impact of an assessment training module on student assessment skills and task performance in a technology-facilitated peer assessment. Seventy-eight undergraduate students participated in the study. The participants completed an assessment training exercise, prior to engaging in peer-assessment activities. During the training, students reviewed learning concepts, discussed marking criteria, graded example projects and compared their evaluations with the instructor’s evaluation. Data were collected in the form of initial and final versions of students’ projects, students’ scoring of example projects before and after the assessment training, and written feedback that students provided on peer projects. Results of data analysis indicate that the assessment training led to a significant decrease in the discrepancy between student ratings and instructor rating of example projects. In addition, the degree of student vs. instructor discrepancy was highly predictive of the quality of feedback that students provided to their peers and the effectiveness of revisions that they made to their own projects upon receiving peer feedback. Smaller discrepancies in ratings were associated with provision of higher quality peer feedback during peer assessment, as well as better revision of initial projects after peer assessment.     

The alignment of written peer feedback with draft problems and its impact on revision in peer assessment

Despite the wide use of peer assessment, questions about the helpfulness of peer feedback are frequently raised. In particular, it is unknown whether, how and to what extent peer feedback can help solve problems in initial texts in complex writing tasks. We investigated this research gap by focusing on the case of writing literature reviews in an academic writing course. The dataset includes two drafts from 21 students, sampled to represent a wide range of document qualities, and 84 anonymous peer reviews, involving 1,289 idea units. Our study revealed that: (1) at both substance and high prose levels, drafts of all quality levels demonstrated more common problems on advanced writing issues (e.g. counter-argument); (2) peer feedback was driven by difficulty of the problem rather than overall draft quality, peer comments were not well aligned with the relative frequency of problems, more comments were given to less difficult problems; (3) peer feedback had a moderate impact on revision, and importantly, receiving multiple comments on the same issue led to more repairs and improvement of draft quality, but consistent with the comments received, authors tended to fix basic problems more often. Implications for practice and research are drawn from these findings.     

Feed-forward assessment,exemplars and peer marking: evidence of efficacy

The paper reports the findings of evaluative research that attempted to rigorously assess the efficacy of a feed-forward, formative assessment intervention. The aim was to improve participants’ conceptions of quality, and hence improve the quality of a complex piece of summative assessment, by asking them to mark exemplars produced by former students. Feed-forward assessment has theoretical support in the literature, but empirical confirmation has been slight. Research findings were encouraging. A statistical model incorporating feed-forward was developed which accounted for a large effect in the improvement of results for the summative item. Importantly, there was improvement across student ability levels. Students, in the main, made accurate judgements about different levels of exemplar quality, although they had some difficulty discerning different pathways to high-quality products. Qualitative analysis indicated improved student conceptions of coherence and integration in the summative piece.     

Grade one peer and teacher feedback on student writing

This article examines a grade one teacher's support for her students’ writing development through formal peer and teacher feedback. The teacher modelled and provided examples of effective feedback and good writing in whole-class and small-group lessons and in her own one-on-one verbal feedback on student writing. She allocated time for the students to participate in formal peer-feedback sessions, in turn giving feedback to the students on the suggestions to one another during these sessions. Students gave more content-oriented than conventions-oriented feedback to each other. They revised the content and writing conventions of their writing in response to 90% of the feedback they received from their peers and teacher.     

Designing and implementing peer formative feedback within online learning environments

With increasing need to achieve appropriate balance between learning support and self-regulation within the context of online learning, formative feedback has been identified as a viable means to achieve meaningful engagement. Specifically, this study sought to establish how peer–peer formative feedback was facilitated in an online course and to what extent this engaged students in meaningful learning experiences. This case study entailed an in-depth investigation into the design and implementation of an online course in a New Zealand university. The studied course was part of a postgraduate programme in continuing (in-service) teacher education. The study adopted a case study methodology with a bias on qualitative techniques. Online observations, analysis of the archived course discourse and interviews were utilised as sources of data. The data from multiple sources were subsequently triangulated to corroborate the evidence. The findings indicate that peer formative feedback promoted active learners’ participation and meaningful engagement. The findings further showed that opportunities for dialogic peer formative feedback promoted learning support and self-regulation.