“Now you know what you’re doing right and wrong!” Peer feedback quality in synchronous peer assessment in secondary education

European Journal of Psychology of Education

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2018, Pages 255-275

  Rotsaert, Tijs ^a   Panadero, Ernesto ^b   Schellens, Tammy ^a   Raes, Annelies ^a  

^a GHENT UNIVERSITY   (Belgium)

^b UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

Assessment scaffolds; Peer assessment; Peer feedback; Practice effect

Indexed keywords

EID: 85013054874     PISSN: 02562928     EISSN: 18785174     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10212-017-0329-x     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C.-L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213–238. doi:10.3102/00346543061002213.
2. Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151–167. doi:10.1080/713695728.
3. Boud, D., & Soler, R. (2015). Sustainable assessment revisited. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–14. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1018133.
4. Cheng, K.-H., Liang, J.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2015). Examining the role of feedback messages in undergraduate students’ writing performance during an online peer assessment activity. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 78–84. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.02.001.
5. De Swert, K. (2012). Calculating inter-coder reliability in media content analysis using Krippendorff’s alpha. Retrieved from http://www.polcomm.org/wp-content/uploads/ICR01022012.pdf.
6. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: the risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland. Retrieved from https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00190230/.
7. Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83, 70–120.
8. Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: a meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287–322. doi:10.3102/00346543070003287.
9. Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2012). Peer assessment in a Wiki: product improvement, students’ learning and perception regarding peer feedback. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 585–594. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.450.
10. Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015). Structuring peer assessment: comparing the impact of the degree of structure on peer feedback content. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 315–325. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.019.
11. Harks, B., Rakoczy, K., Hattie, J., Besser, M., & Klieme, E. (2013). The effects of feedback on achievement, interest and self-evaluation: the role of feedback’s perceived usefulness. Educational Psychology, 1–22.
12. Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 249–270). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203839089.ch13.
13. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487.
14. Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2010). Peer assessment as collaborative learning: a cognitive perspective. Learning and Instruction, 20, 344–348. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.005.
15. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310.
16. Lin, S. S. J., Liu, E. Z. F., & Yuan, S. M. (2001). Web-based peer assessment: feedback for students with various thinking-styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(4), 420–432. doi:10.1046/j.0266-4909.2001.00198.x.
17. Liu, N.-F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11, 279–290.
18. Liu, X., & Li, L. (2013). Assessment training effects on student assessment skills and task performance in a technology-facilitated peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(3), 1–18. doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.823540.
19. Magaña, S., & Marzano, R. J. (2014). Using polling technologies to close feedback gaps. Educational Leadership, 82–83.
20. Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merril, J. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 124–143). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21. Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: how different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37, 375–401.
22. Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–517. doi:10.1080/02602931003786559.
23. Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122. doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.795518.
24. Panadero, E. (2016). Is it safe? Social, interpersonal, and human effects of peer assessment: a review and future directions. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Human factors and social conditions of assessment (pp. 1–39). New York: Routledge.
25. Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: a review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129–144. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.002.
26. Panadero, E., Romero, M., & Strijbos, J. W. (2013). The impact of a rubric and friendship on peer assessment: effects on construct validity, performance, and perceptions of fairness and comfort. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(4), 195–203. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.10.005.
27. Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Strijbos, J. W. (2016). Scaffolding self-regulated learning through self-assessment and peer assessment: guidelines for classroom implementation. In D. Laveault & L. Allal (Eds.), Assessment for learning: meeting the challenge of implementation (pp. 311–326). New York: Springer.
28. Prins, F. J., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Feedback for general practitioners in training: quality, styles, and preferences. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 11(3), 289–303.
29. Prins, F. J., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Kirschner, P. A., & Strijbos, J. (2010). Formative peer assessment in a CSCL environment: a case study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 417–444. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02602930500099219.
30. Reddy, Y. M., & Andrade, H. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 435–448. doi:10.1080/02602930902862859.
31. Reinholz, D. (2015a). Peer conferences in calculus: the impact of systematic training. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–17. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1077197.
32. Reinholz, D. L. (2015b). Peer-assisted reflection: a design-based intervention for improving success in calculus. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 1(2), 234–267. doi:10.1007/s40753-015-0005-y.
33. Reinholz, D. (2015c). The assessment cycle: a model for learning through peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–15. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1008982.
34. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.
35. Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 535–550.
36. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189.
37. Sluijsmans, D. M. A. (2002). Student involvement in assessment: the training of peer assessment skills. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Heerlen: Open University of the Netherlands.
38. Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Martens, R. L. (2004). Training teachers in peer-assessment skills: effects on performance and perceptions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41, 59–78. doi:10.1080/1470329032000172720.
39. Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249. doi:10.2307/1170598.
40. Topping, K. J. (2003). In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Self and peer assessment in school and university: reliability, validity and utility (pp. 55–87). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
41. Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 20–27. doi:10.1080/00405840802577569.
42. Tsivitanidou, O. E., & Constantinou, C. P. (2016). A study of students’ heuristics and strategy patterns in web-based reciprocal peer assessment for science learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 12–22. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.11.002.
43. Tsivitanidou, O. E., Zacharia, Z. C., & Hovardas, T. (2011). Investigating secondary school students’ unmediated peer assessment skills. Learning and Instruction, 21(4), 506–519. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.08.002.
44. Van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & Van Merriënboer, J. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20, 270–279.
45. Vanderhoven, E., Raes, A., Montrieux, H., Rotsaert, T., & Schellens, T. (2015). What if pupils can assess their peers anonymously? A quasi-experimental study. Computers & Education, 81, 123–132. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.001.
46. Yu, F.-Y., & Sung, S. (2015). A mixed methods approach to the assessor’s targeting behavior during online peer assessment: effects of anonymity and underlying reasons. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–18. doi:10.1080/10494820.2015.1041405.