Exploring the use of peer review in large university courses

Double blind peer review is a standard practice in the scientific community. It acts as a means of validating work as well as of getting feedback to improve it. As such, it seems prudent to also use it as a learning tool in large lectures to provide students with personalized feedback on their work. The general process can be directly adopted for the lecture context, but details need to be modified and adapted to create a better learning experience. The structure of a large lecture has been adjusted to provide the context for a double blind peer review process. Not only has the evaluation of activities during the semester changed to fit in with the double blind peer review, but also the organization of said activities was adapted to accompany the evaluation change. The first semester yielded promising results, but also pointed towards some issues with the current state of the system. We devised a list of design implications for future revisions of the double blind peer review system, based on feedback and experiences during the semester as well as on a survey among students at the end of the semester. These implications will be implemented to improve and refine the new system for upcoming semesters.

[1]  Peter Purgathofer,et al.  Layout Considered Harmful: On the Influence of Information Architecture on Dialogue , 2014, HCI.

[2]  Alice Man Sze Lau,et al.  ‘Formative good, summative bad?’ – A review of the dichotomy in assessment literature , 2016 .

[3]  S. Trahasch,et al.  From peer assessment towards collaborative learning , 2004, 34th Annual Frontiers in Education, 2004. FIE 2004..

[4]  Nancy M. Trautmann.  Interactive learning through web-mediated peer review of student science reports , 2009 .

[5]  Eric Zhi-Feng Liu,et al.  Web-based peer review: the learner as both adapter and reviewer , 2001, IEEE Trans. Educ..

[6]  Lynette Nagel,et al.  Supersizing e-learning: What a CoI survey reveals about teaching presence in a large online class , 2010, Internet High. Educ..

[7]  Christian Lundquist,et al.  Insights From Implementing a System for Peer Review , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Education.

[8]  William Hart-Davidson,et al.  A method for measuring helpfulness in online peer review , 2010, SIGDOC '10.

[9]  Annelies Raes,et al.  What if pupils can assess their peers anonymously? A quasi-experimental study , 2015, Comput. Educ..

[10]  William J. Wolfe,et al.  Online student peer reviews , 2004, CITC5 '04.

[11]  Edward F. Gehringer,et al.  Strategies and mechanisms for electronic peer review , 2000, 30th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Building on A Century of Progress in Engineering Education. Conference Proceedings (IEEE Cat. No.00CH37135).

[12]  S. Trahasch,et al.  Towards a flexible peer assessment system , 2004, Information Technology Based Proceedings of the FIfth International Conference onHigher Education and Training, 2004. ITHET 2004..

[13]  N. Pelaez,et al.  Problem-based writing with peer review improves academic performance in physiology. , 2002, Advances in physiology education.

[14]  Peter Purgathofer,et al.  Explorative Design as an Approach to Understanding Social Online Learning Tools , 2014 .

[15]  Alan R. Hevner,et al.  Design Research in Information Systems , 2010 .

[16]  P. Black,et al.  Assessment and Classroom Learning , 1998 .

[17]  Amber Settle,et al.  Engaging game design students using peer evaluation , 2011, SIGITE '11.

[18]  David E. Berry,et al.  Constructing the Components of a Lab Report Using Peer Review , 2010 .

[19]  Vahid Garousi.  Applying Peer Reviews in Software Engineering Education: An Experiment and Lessons Learned , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Education.

[20]  Thomas Lagkas,et al.  How to improve the peer review method: Free-selection vs assigned-pair protocol evaluated in a computer networking course , 2012, Comput. Educ..