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.     

The anonymous reviewer: the relationship between perceived expertise and the perceptions of peer feedback in higher education

Peer feedback often has positive effects on student learning processes and outcomes. However, students may not always be honest when giving and receiving peer feedback as they are likely to be biased due to peer relations, peer characteristics and personal preferences. To alleviate these biases, anonymous peer feedback was investigated in the current research. Research suggests that the expertise of the reviewer influences the perceived usefulness of the feedback. Therefore, this research investigated the relationship between expertise and the perceptions of peer feedback in a writing assignment of 41 students in higher education with a multilevel analysis. The results show that students perceive peer feedback as more adequate when knowing the reviewer perceives him/herself to have a high level of expertise. Furthermore, the results suggest that students who received feedback from a peer who perceives their expertise as closer to the reviewee’s own perceived expertise was more willing to improve his or her own assignment.     

Student peer review: enhancing formative feedback with a rebuttal

This study examines the use of peer review in an undergraduate ecology programme, in which students write a research proposal as a grant application, prior to carrying out the research project. Using a theoretical feedback model, we compared teacher and student peer reviews in a double blind exercise, and show how students responded to feedback given by each group. In addition, students wrote a rebuttal for every feedback point before re-drafting and submission. Despite students claiming they could tell if the reviewer was a teacher or student, this was not always the case, and both student and teacher feedback was accepted on merit. Analysis of feedback types and rebuttal actions showed similar patterns between students and teachers. Where teachers differed slightly was in the use of questions and giving direction. Interviews with students showed the rebuttal was a novel experience, because it required a consideration of each comment and justification as to why it was accepted, partially accepted or rejected. Being a reviewer helped students to learn about their own work, and it changed the way they understood the scientific literature. In addition, some students transferred their new peer review skills to help others outside of the ecology programme.     

Developing a procedure for learning and assessing peer review in a forensic science programme

Peer review of forensic casework is essential for ensuring quality and reducing error rates. However, it is not a common component of forensic science degree courses, and there are no published studies, guidelines or methods for teaching and learning forensic peer review. This study describes a method of learning, teaching and assessing forensic peer review through the use of group work to prepare checklists for reviewing casefiles and expert witness reports, followed by individual peer feedback. Example checklists and assessment criteria are provided. The peer feedback comments on expert reports were categorised revealing that suggestions are the most frequent type of feedback provided, followed by questions. Through a questionnaire, participants strongly agreed that the learning and teaching process described here was relevant to their future professional practice, and that through the use of checklists they understood the criteria for effective forensic peer review. It emerged from a semistructured interview that limited time led some students to surface review expert reports, that peers were seen as legitimate sources of knowledge, and additional feedback from lecturers was required. This study may be relevant to other areas where professional peer review is used, such as open source software development, nursing and community pharmacy.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Passive,active, and constructive engagement with peer feedback: A revised model of learning from peer feedback

To deepen understanding of learning through peer feedback, the current study investigated the relationships between different peer feedback activities (organized into constructive vs active activities) and learning (i.e., transfer to new tasks), examining the nature of activities within provided feedback, received feedback, and revisions in response to feedback. Across five US high schools, 367 students in Advanced Placement classes participated, implementing common assignments and peer assessment rubrics. Provided/received comments and revisions in one assignment, and writing improvements observed in a second assignment were exhaustively coded and subjected to hierarchical model regression analyses. Results showed that constructive activities (providing explanations and making revisions after receiving explanations or providing suggestions) were consistently associated with learning, whereas passive (e.g., receiving feedback without making revisions) or active activities (e.g., implementing specific suggestions) were not. Further, the effects of received feedback on learning were mediated by the number of revisions. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.     

The validity and students’ experiences of peer assessment in a large introductory class of gene technology

Although studies have examined the validity of peer assessment, research including students’ own experiences of peer assessment is scarce. The present study aims to improve assessment practices in a context with a highly traditional assessment culture. The aim is first to examine the validity of peer assessment by analysing the compatibility of student and teacher evaluation and explore the differences between minor and major students’ evaluations. Second, the study examines students’ experiences of peer assessment. Peer assessment was implemented in a large bioscience course with 79 student participants. After the peer assessment, the students provided feedback. The results indicate that student subject understanding can be supported through a proper assessment practice. Peer assessment was successful in an introductory class with minor and major students, and most students experienced it as supportive of their learning.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Group peer assessment for summative evaluation in a graduate-level statistics course for ecologists

Peer assessment is often used for formative learning, but few studies have examined the validity of group-based peer assessment for the summative evaluation of course assignments. The present study contributes to the literature by using online technology (the course management system Moodle^?) to implement structured, summative peer review based on an anchored rubric in an ecological statistics course taught to graduate students. We found that grade discrepancies between students and the instructor were fairly common (60% of assignments), relatively low in value (mean = 3.3 ± 2.5% on assignments that had discrepancies) and proportionally higher for criteria related to interpretation of statistical results and code quality and organisation than for criteria related to the successful completion of analysis or instructional tasks (e.g. fitting particular statistical methods, de-identification of one’s submission). Students reported that the peer assessment process increased their exposure to alternative ways of approaching statistical and computational problem-solving, but there were concerns raised about the fairness of the process and the effectiveness of the group component. We conclude with some recommendations for implementing peer assessment to maximise student learning and satisfaction.     

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.     

A pernicious cycle: Finding the pathways from child maltreatment to adolescent peer victimization

The purpose of this study was to identify the pathways from childhood physical and sexual abuse to adolescent physical and sexual victimization by assessing behavior symptoms (both internalizing and externalizing) and peer popularity as potential mediating variables. The data derive from Longitudinal Studies of Child Abuse and Neglect (LONGSCAN), which tracks the consequences of child abuse and neglect using five study sites across the US. Child physical and sexual abuse was measured at age 12 using self-reports of life-time maltreatment experiences. Internalizing and externalizing symptoms were assessed at age 12 using the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL). Peer popularity was assessed at age 14 by teachers. Peer victimization was assessed at age 16 using the modified version of the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire. The results indicated that physical abuse had no direct effect on either physical or sexual peer victimization, whereas sexual abuse had significant direct effect on both physical and sexual victimization. Assessed at age 12, children who had been physically or sexually maltreated were found to have higher levels of internalizing and externalizing symptoms. These increased symptoms are associated with lower peer popularity at age 14, which in turn is associated with greater physical and sexual peer victimization at age 16. The findings suggest that multiple points for interventions may exist to disrupt the cycle of victimization. Early assessment and treatment for externalizing symptoms and for low peer popularity may be helpful in preventing physical peer victimization among adolescents who have been physically and/or sexually abused.     

The bilateral benefits of providing and receiving peer feedback in academic writing across varying L2 proficiency

Although the effectiveness of peer review has been examined, few have tested the joint benefits of providing and receiving feedback features and quality in L2 contexts. The present study investigated variation in key features and quality of feedback provided and received by high and low L2 proficiency students and its benefits on revision in the authentic setting of students experiencing both roles of providing and receiving peer feedback in English academic writing. Analyses on two drafts from 50 students, 1356 idea units of anonymous implementable peer feedback and back-evaluation ratings revealed that the combined effect of providing and receiving feedback on revision was prominent for all students. But the bilateral benefits of providing and receiving feedback features were more significant for high proficiency students, while providing feedback features and quality benefited low proficiency students more. The study implies that students need more bilateral training with both providing and receiving feedback.     

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.     

Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider

This paper reviews studies of peer feedback from the novel perspective of the providers of that feedback. The possible learning benefits of providing peer feedback in online learning have not been extensively studied. The goal of this study was therefore to explore the process of providing online peer feedback as a learning activity for the provider. We concluded that (1) providing online peer feedback has several potential learning benefits for the provider; (2) when providing online peer feedback, students use different cognitive processes; (3) the cognitive processes and the potential learning benefits can be realised when students use specific elements in the feedback they provide.     

Introducing a scalable peer feedback system for learning teams

In the current research, we report on a peer feedback system for supporting student teamwork skill development during post-secondary education. The peer feedback system is part of a larger suite of assessments at ITPmetrics.com. This is a free assessment-based system that allows team members to provide round-robin ratings of each member’s effectiveness in the team on five dimensions (communication; commitment; foundation of knowledge, skills and abilities; emphasising high standards; and focus), as well as provide anonymous written feedback to supplement the numeric scores. Team members have access to a dashboard where they can complete the assessment and store assessment reports generated from their peers’ ratings. We summarise data from student learning teams suggesting that peer ratings are reliable (internally consistent, unidimensional and inter-rater correlated; n?>?85,000). Recommendations for implementation are provided with respect to pre-briefing, debriefing, and assessment schedules.