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.     

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.     

Oral presentations in higher education: a comparison of the impact of peer and teacher feedback

In this paper the authors analyse the competency of a sample of economics and business students in orally presenting academic content, as well as the changes that occurred after receiving feedback. The students’ presentations were videotaped, and a total of 96 were analysed at three stages: pre-test, post-test and follow-up. The participants were divided into two groups. In one, each student received feedback from a peer as part of a peer assessment with rubric activity. In the other, they received feedback from the teacher immediately after their presentation. In the post-test, the peer assessment with rubric students improved by 10% in the valuation of their presentation, while the teacher feedback students only improved by 5%. These results support the idea that undergraduates’ evaluations of their peers can be effective in improving oral presentation skills, especially when they are provided with some support instruments (videos and rubrics). However, the improvements in the peer assessment with rubric group were not maintained in the follow-up re-test. This suggests that a single session of peer assessment with rubric is insufficient to generalise any improvements in the said competency. The implications of these results with regard to the implementation of methods of formative peer assessment in higher education are discussed.     

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.     

Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education

Many reports have identified a perceived lack of quality in regard to assessment feedback in higher education contexts. One research study in 2007 on undergraduate university students found that less than half of the students (46%) collected their formative feedback, suggesting that from their perspective feedback clearly was not fulfilling the role it should. This is a study of 465 graduate students and 101 undergraduate students studying teacher education at a major Australian university. The study investigated what students perceived to be effective, quality feedback based upon their extensive higher education experiences. Students identified preferences in regard to form, detail and timing of assessment feedback. The data were collected by means of pen and paper survey and identified which strategies the students perceived to be the most effective, particularly within the context of large cohort teaching and written assessment formats. Findings agreed with research elsewhere regarding problems with assessment feedback quality and quantity, but students also provided clear indications of how realistic improvements could be made in terms of assessment feedback processes and strategies.     

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.     

Common features of expertise in working life: implications for higher education

ABSTRACT

We need to know what it means to be an expert in working life today. Universities are often accused of neglecting the basic idea that higher education should be relevant to working life, and research on the subject of expertise in today’s workplace is lacking. Thirteen experts from different fields were interviewed and the obtained data were analysed using grounded theory as an analytical approach. The research questions were: (1) How do experts define expertise? (2) What kind of problems persist in their work? and (3) How are ‘routine’ and ‘adaptive’ expertise performed? The results revealed that expertise is more a social and collaborative phenomenon than an individual property. Experts develop new solutions and seek constant learning in their work. They excel at spontaneous problem solving. These findings suggest that, to prepare students to become experts, deliberate learning and practice should be provided within a framework of collaborative problem solving.     

网络环境下同伴反馈与写作焦虑关系的实证研究

本研究探讨网络环境下同伴反馈对写作焦虑的影响。研究采用SPSS统计软件对受试者在实验前后的写作焦虑程度进行对比分析。同时,辅以访谈方式了解学生对该模式的态度。研究结果表明,网络环境下的同伴反馈在一定程度上能缓解学生写作焦虑,大部分学生认可该模式。     

Voices from the East and West: congruence on the primary purpose of tutor feedback in higher education

While feedback in education is important, formative feedback that leads to improvement in students’ learning outcomes and emotional disposition is vital. This argument has been made repeatedly in the Western literature, both by researchers and by students participating in their research in higher education. This paper presents both affective and non-affective improvement as the most frequently occurring theme identified in a mixed-methods study conducted at a National Key University in mainland China, which investigated 232 Chinese students’ experiences and expectations of feedback from their Chinese tutors. This paper, thus, concludes that mainland Chinese university students and Western researchers and students likely agree on the primary function of tutor feedback. The desire for tutor feedback to also or chiefly play a formative role appears not to be a geographically or culturally specific phenomenon.     

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.     

An empirical review of anonymity effects in peer assessment,peer feedback,peer review,peer evaluation and peer grading

Abstract

Peer assessment has proven to have positive learning outcomes. Importantly, peer assessment is a social process and some claim that the use of anonymity might have advantages. However, the findings have not always been in the same direction. Our aims were: (a) to review the effects of using anonymity in peer assessment on performance, peer feedback content, peer grading accuracy, social effects and students’ perspective on peer assessment; and (b) to investigate the effects of four moderating variables (educational level, peer grading, assessment aids, direction of anonymity) in relation to anonymity. A literature search was conducted including five different terms related to peer assessment (e.g., peer feedback) and anonymity. Fourteen studies that used a control group or a within group design were found. The narrative review revealed that anonymous peer assessment seems to provide advantages for students’ perceptions about the learning value of peer assessment, delivering more critical peer feedback, increased self-perceived social effects, a slight tendency for more performance, especially in higher education and with less peer assessment aids. Some conclusions are that: (a) when implementing anonymity in peer assessment the instructional context and goals need to be considered, (b) existent empirical research is still limited, and (c) future research should employ stronger and more complex research designs.     

The development of student feedback literacy: the influences of teacher feedback on peer feedback

Abstract

Although the concept of student feedback literacy has drawn increasing attention in higher education, empirical research on this matter is still in its infancy. In the area of peer feedback, little research has investigated the role of teacher follow-up feedback on peer feedback in the development of student feedback literacy. To address the research gap, a multiple-case study of three Chinese master’s students enrolled in an academic writing course was conducted, drawing on the students’ drafts with peer feedback, teacher written feedback on that peer feedback, semi-structured interviews, retrospective verbal reports, observation field notes and class documents. Three students’ epistemological and practical knowledge about, attitudes towards, and self-efficacy beliefs in peer feedback were found to improve at different paces and to different degrees. However, considerable individual variations were observed with two high-achieving, highly motivated participants becoming more feedback-literate than their under-achieving, minimally motivated peer. Teacher feedback on peer feedback was found to have distinct impacts on individual students, depending on learner factors including language ability, beliefs and motivation. These findings suggest that teacher feedback on peer feedback, if consistently provided and compatible with learner factors, can scaffold both cognitive and social-affective aspects of student feedback literacy.     

Investigating the relationship between quality,format and delivery of feedback for written assignments in higher education

Feedback can have a great impact on student learning. However, in order for it to be effective, feedback needs to be of high quality. Electronic marking has been one of the latest adaptations of technology in teaching and offers a new format of delivering feedback. There is little research investigating the impact the format of feedback has on quality of feedback and subsequently on student learning. This study sets out to investigate the impact paper-based and electronic methods of assignment submission and return have on students’ and markers’ perceived quality of feedback. Students and markers on an undergraduate course were asked to complete an anonymous online survey investigating their perceptions of quality, format and timeliness of feedback delivered electronically and on paper. The results showed that marking and providing feedback electronically was an acceptable method for markers, reporting improved speed and consistency of marking. There was no increase or decrease in satisfaction with the feedback received. Overall, electronic marking was found to be an acceptable method of delivery of feedback on written assignments by both students and markers. The findings of this study suggest that electronic marking can result in more timely feedback for students without impacting on quality.     

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.     

Mentoring as service-learning: The relationship between perceived peer support and outcomes for college women mentors

This study examined whether peer support was related to psychosocial outcomes for college women serving as youth mentors in the Young Women Leaders Program (YWLP), a service-learning mentoring program. The outcomes assessed were college students’ ethnocultural empathy and their sense of competence, relatedness, and autonomy. Data included questionnaires completed by YWLP mentors (YWLP; n = 227) and college women with (CS; n = 230) and without (no CS; n = 105) alternative community service involvement. Results showed that YWLP mentors’ level of perceived peer support was associated with stronger outcomes in autonomy as compared to the CS group and in ethnocultural empathy as compared to both comparison groups. These findings extend the literature on effective support for college service-learning participants.     

Feedback on feedback practice: perceptions of students and academics

While feedback is widely considered central to student learning, students across the higher education sector commonly report dissatisfaction with the feedback they receive. In contrast, academics often feel they provide quality and informative feedback. This article explores and compares the perceptions of students and academics with regard to feedback practice. The paper presents the results of questionnaire surveys conducted with academics and students at the School of the Built Environment, Liverpool John Moores University. It highlights the perceptions of academics and students with regard to preferences for different types of feedback, timeliness of feedback, students’ engagement and interest in feedback, quality feedback and satisfaction with current practice. The findings indicate a significant discord between staff and students in relation to certain aspects of feedback practice, namely opinions on students’ engagement and interest in feedback, satisfaction with current practice and feedback preference. Similarities in viewpoints were also found in relation to quality feedback.     

The challenges of feedback in higher education

Abstract

Assessment feedback is one of the most important components of the learning process. However, student and educator dissatisfaction with feedback practices continues to remain a significant problem in higher education. To better understand the barriers to effective feedback, the present study explores feedback challenges identified by 3807 students and 281 educators from two Australian universities. Open-response data were analysed using an inductively derived coding framework and thematic analysis. The findings reveal three major themes relating to the challenges of feedback from the perspective of students and educators: feedback practices, contextual constraints and individual capacity. In addition to confirming the persistence of many previously reported challenges in the literature, this paper also offers insights into challenges that are particular to feedback, especially relating to the production of useful comments and the perceived hurdles of both student and educator attitudes and capabilities. The findings also highlight the constrained nature of educators’ work, particularly in relation to time. While further research is needed, we propose that feedback needs to be understood as an interaction between practices, context and individuals.     

Student perceptions of hidden messages in teacher written feedback

Students take away a variety of messages from teachers’ responses to their writing, although not all the information conveyed is explicit or related to the work at hand. In fact, both the content of this feedback and the ways they respond can lead students to interpret their tutors’ beliefs about their subject, about learning, and about the value of literacy in their disciplines. Drawing on a series of interviews with 24 first and second year students at a Hong Kong university, this paper seeks to identify what these messages are and the consequences they can have for students’ attitudes to their field of study, to disciplinary writing, to learning and to teacher–student relationships.     

Connecting feedback to self-efficacy: Receiving and providing peer feedback in teacher education

Feedback can play a vital role in fostering teacher self-efficacy. Social comparisons and feedback valence (positive vs. negative feedback) are assumed to have a large impact on self-efficacy. Therefore, how pre-service teachers perceive social comparisons and feedback valence in peer feedback and the extent to which pre-service teachers (bachelor/master students) and teacher trainers incorporate comments that can have an impact on self-efficacy into their peer feedback merit investigation. Two studies were conducted. The first showed that peer feedback consisting of a social comparison and with positive feedback valence resulted in greater willingness to improve and positive affect. The second study revealed that teacher trainers’ feedback was more specific, whereas bachelor students’ feedback contained more social comparisons than did master students’ and teacher trainers’. Future research and practical implications are discussed.     

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.