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

Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education

Volumn 45, Issue 5, 2020, Pages 758-775

  Gaynor, J W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LIVERPOOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

feedback; higher education; peer feedback; Peer review

Indexed keywords

EID: 85076361560     PISSN: 02602938     EISSN: 1469297X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1697424     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Ambrose, S. A., M. W., Bridges, M., DiPietro, M. C., Lovett, M. K., Norman, and R. E., Mayer. 2010. How Learning Works: Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching. San Francisco: Wiley.
2. Bader, M., T., Burner, S. Hoem, Iversen, and Z., Varga. 2019. “Student Perspectives on Formative Feedback as Part of Writing Portfolios.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 44 (7): 1017–1028. doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1564811.
3. Bailey, R., and M., Garner. 2010. “Is the Feedback in Higher Education Assessment Worth the Paper It is Written on? Teachers' Reflections on Their Practices.” Teaching in Higher Education 15 (2): 187–198. doi:10.1080/13562511003620019.
4. Barkley, E. F., K. P., Cross, and C. H., Major. 2004. Collaborative Learning Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty. Wiley.
5. Black, P., and D., Wiliam. 1998. “Assessment and Classroom Learning.” Assessment in Education: Principles Policy & Practice 5 (1): 7–74. doi:10.1080/0969595980050102.
6. Bloxham, S., and A., West. 2004. “Understanding the Rules of the Game: Marking Peer Assessment as a Medium for Developing Students' Conceptions of Assessment.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 29 (6): 721–733. doi:10.1080/0260293042000227254.
7. Boud, D., 2000. “Sustainable Assessment: Rethinking Assessment for the Learning Society.” Studies in Continuing Education 22 (2): 151–167. doi:10.1080/01580379950177314.
8. Brammer, C., and M., Rees. 2007. “Peer Review from the Students' Perspective: Invaluable or Invalid?” Composition Studies 35 (2): 71–85.
9. Burke, D., 2009. “Strategies for Using Feedback Students Bring to Higher Education.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 34 (1): 41–50. doi:10.1080/02602930801895711.
10. Carifio, J., and R., Perla. 2008. “Resolving the 50-Year Debate around Using and Misusing Likert Scales.” Medical Education 42 (12): 1150–1152. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03172.x.
11. Cho, K., and C., MacArthur. 2011. “Learning by Reviewing.” Journal of Educational Psychology 103 (1): 73–84. doi:10.1037/a0021950.
12. Crisp, B. R., 2007. “Is It Worth the Effort? How Feedback Influences Students' Subsequent Submission of Assessable Work.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 32 (5): 571–581. doi:10.1080/02602930601116912.
13. Custers, E. J., 2010. “Long-Term Retention of Basic Science Knowledge: A Review Study.” Advances in Health Sciences Education 15 (1): 109–128. doi:10.1007/s10459-008-9101-y.
14. Evans, C., and M., Waring. 2011. “Exploring Students' Perceptions of Feedback in Relation to Cognitive Styles and Culture.” Research Papers in Education 26 (2): 171–190. doi:10.1080/02671522.2011.561976.
15. Freeman, S., S. L., Eddy, M., McDonough, N., Okoroafor, H., Jordt, M. P., Wenderoth, and M. K., Smith. 2014. “Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of Sciences: The United States of America 111 (23): 8410–8415. doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111.
16. Gibbs, G., and C., Simpson. 2005. “Conditions under Which Assessment Supports Students’ Learning.” Learning and Teaching in Higher Education 1: 3–31.
17. Grove, M., and T., Overton. 2013. “Getting Started in Pedagogic Research within the STEM Disciplines.” In University of Birmingham Stem Education Centre on Behalf of the National HE STEM Programme.
18. Gunter, T., 2018. “The Effect of the react strategy on Students’ Achievements with Regard to Solubility Equilibrium: Using Chemistry in Contexts.” Chemistry Education Research and Practice 19 (4): 1287–1306. doi:10.1039/C8RP00087E.
19. Hooper, T., S., Park, and G., Gerondis. 2011. “Student Perceptions of PeerWise Web 2.0 Technology.” Paper Presented at the TERNZ 2011 Conference, Wellington, NZ.
20. Hsieh, H., and S. E., Shannon. 2005. “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.” Qualitative Health Research 15 (9): 1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687.
21. Huisman, B., N., Saab, J., van Driel, and P., van den Broek. 2018. “Peer Feedback on Academic Writing: Undergraduate Students’ Peer Feedback Role, Peer Feedback Perceptions and Essay Performance.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 43 (6): 955–968. doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1424318.
22. Hunzer, K. M., 2012. Collaborative Learning and Writing: Essays on Using Small Groups in Teaching English and Composition. McFarland: Incorporated Publishers.
23. Jamieson, S., 2004. “Likert Scales: How to (ab)Use Them.” Medical Education 38 (12): 1217–1218. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02012.x.
24. Kruidering-Hall, M., P. S., O'Sullivan, and C. L., Chou. 2009. “Teaching Feedback to First-Year Medical Students: Long-Term Skill Retention and Accuracy of Student Self-Assessment.” Journal of General Internal Medicine 24 (6): 721–726. doi:10.1007/s11606-009-0983-z.
25. Lalla, M., 2017. “Fundamental Characteristics and Statistical Analysis of Ordinal Variables: A Review.” Quality & Quantity 51 (1): 435–458. doi:10.1007/s11135-016-0314-5.
26. Leong, P. A., 2013. “Thinking Critically: A Look at Students' Critiques of a Research Article.” Higher Education Research & Development 32 (4): 575–589. doi:10.1080/07294360.2012.708322.
27. Lundstrom, K., and W., Baker. 2009. “To Give is Better than to Receive: The Benefits of Peer Review to the Reviewer's Own Writing.” Journal of Second Language Writing 18 (1): 30–43. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002.
28. Malone, T. W., and M. R., Lepper. 1987. “Making Learning Fun: A Taxonomy of Intrinsic Motivations for Learning.” In Aptitude, Learning and Instruction III:Conative and Affective Process Analyses, edited by R. E, Snow and M. J, Farr, 223–253. Hilsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. Mangelsdorf, K., 1992. “Peer Reviews in the ESL Composition Classroom: What Do the Students Think?” ELT Journal 46 (3): 274–284. doi:10.1093/elt/46.3.274.
30. Meek, S. E. M., L., Blakemore, and L., Marks. 2017. “Is Peer Review an Appropriate Form of Assessment in a MOOC? Student Participation and Performance in Formative Peer Review.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 42 (6): 1000–1013. doi:10.1080/02602938.2016.1221052.
31. Nicol, D., A., Thomson, and C., Breslin. 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.
32. Nicol, D. J., and D., Macfarlane-Dick. 2006. “Formative Assessment and Self‐Regulated Learning: A Model and Seven Principles of Good Feedback Practice.” Studies in Higher Education 31 (2): 199–218. doi:10.1080/03075070600572090.
33. Rolfe, G., D., Freshwater, and M., Jasper. 2001. Critical Reflection in Nursing and the Helping Professions: A User's Guide. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
34. Rosenthal, R., 1994. “Parametric Measures of Effect Size.” The Handbook of Research Synthesis 621: 231–244.
35. Rosnow, R. L., and R., Rosenthal. 2003. “Effect Sizes for Experimenting Psychologists.” Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale 57 (3): 221–237. doi:10.1037/h0087427.
36. Ryan, R. M., and E. L., Deci. 2000. “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 25 (1): 54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.
37. Sadler, D., 1989. “Formative Assessment and the Design of Instructional Systems.” Instructional Science 18 (2): 119–144. doi:10.1007/BF00117714.
38. Salerno, S. M., J. L., Jackson, and P. G., O'Malley. 2003. “Interactive Faculty Development Seminars Improve the Quality of Written Feedback in Ambulatory Teaching.” Journal of General Internal Medicine 18 (10): 831–834. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20739.x.
39. Sawilowsky, S. S., 2009. “New Effect Size Rules of Thumb.” Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods 8 (2): 597–599. doi:10.22237/jmasm/1257035100.
40. Seery, M. K., H. Y., Agustian, E. D., Doidge, M. M., Kucharski, H. M., O’Connor, and A., Price. 2017. “Developing Laboratory Skills by Incorporating Peer-Review and Digital Badges.” Chemistry Education Research and Practice 18 (3): 403–419. doi:10.1039/C7RP00003K.
41. Svinicki, M. D., 1999. “New Directions in Learning and Motivation.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning 80: 5–27. doi:10.1002/tl.8001.
42. Taylor, C., and K., Burke da Silva. 2014. “An Analysis of the Effectiveness of Feedback to Students on Assessed Work.” Higher Education Research & Development 33 (4): 794–806. doi:10.1080/07294360.2013.863840.
43. Topping, K., 1998. “Peer Assessment between Students in Colleges and Universities.” Review of Educational Research 68 (3): 249–276. doi:10.3102/00346543068003249.
44. Vockell, E., 2004. Educational Psychology: A Practical Approach. Indiana: Purdue University.
45. Walker, M., 2009. “An Investigation into Written Comments on Assignments: Do Students Find Them Usable?” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 34 (1): 67–78. doi:10.1080/02602930801895752.
46. Walker, M., 2015. “The Quality of Written Peer Feedback on Undergraduates’ Draft Answers to an Assignment, and the Use Made of the Feedback.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 40 (2): 232–247. doi:10.1080/02602938.2014.898737.
47. Wheeldon, R., 2017. “Improving Preservice Chemistry Teachers’ Content Knowledge through Intervention Activities.” International Journal of Science Education 39 (9): 1238–1261. doi:10.1080/09500693.2017.1333655.
48. Wigfield, A. P., and J. S., Eccles. 2000. “Expectancy-Value Theory of Achievement Motivation.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 25 (1): 68–81. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1015.
49. Wittwer, J., and A., Renkl. 2008. “Why Instructional Explanations Often Do Not Work: A Framework for Understanding the Effectiveness of Instructional Explanations.” Educational Psychologist 43 (1): 49–64. doi:10.1080/00461520701756420.