The nature, reception, and use of online peer feedback in higher education

This article focuses on the use of online interactive peer feedback in higher education and identifies the successful uptake of feedback as an important aspect. We investigate the link between the nature of students' feedback, the way it is evaluated by the receiver, and its consecutive use for the revision of students' products. Two separate studies were conducted to investigate the link between these three variables across different educational contexts and tools. Both studies showed a significant relationship between feedback containing concrete suggestions and a successful uptake of the feedback. Regarding the different tools that were used, these concrete suggestions were more often produced in the Annotation system than in the Blackboard discussion forum, the latter showing more evaluative forms of feedback. We also found significant relationships between elements of both the nature and the reception of feedback on the one hand, and the use of this feedback by the receiver on the other hand.

[1]  P. Orsmond,et al.  The Importance of Marking Criteria in the Use of Peer Assessment , 1996 .

[2]  L. Flower.  Detection, Diagnosis, and the Strategies of Revision , 1986, College Composition & Communication.

[3]  Shuqiang Zhang,et al.  Peer Feedback in Second Language Writing Instruction: Boon or Bane?. , 1989 .

[4]  Tom J. van Weert,et al.  Task-Based Team Learning with ICT, Design and Development of New Learning , 2004, Education and Information Technologies.

[5]  K. Topping.  Peer Assessment Between Students in Colleges and Universities , 1998 .

[6]  Irene Mavrommati,et al.  Design principles , 2001 .

[7]  J. Hattie,et al.  The Power of Feedback , 2007 .

[8]  Nancy Falchikov,et al.  PRODUCT COMPARISONS AND PROCESS BENEFITS OF COLLABORATIVE PEER GROUP AND SELF ASSESSMENTS , 1986 .

[9]  G. Gibbs,et al.  Conditions Under Which Assessment Supports Students’ Learning , 2005 .

[10]  David Jones,et al.  Building a Web-Based Education System , 1997 .

[11]  D. Nicol,et al.  Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice , 2006 .

[12]  D. Sluijsmans,et al.  The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review , 1999 .

[13]  Abhir Bhalerao,et al.  Towards electronically assisted peer assessment: a case study , 2001 .

[14]  Royce Sadler.  Book Review. Segers, M., Dochy, F. & Cascallar, E. (Eds). (2003). Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. , 2004 .

[15]  K. Topping,et al.  Formative Peer Assessment of Academic Writing Between Postgraduate Students , 2000 .

[16]  D. Boud,et al.  Student Self-Assessment in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis , 1989 .

[17]  N. Falchikov,et al.  Student Peer Assessment in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Peer and Teacher Marks , 2000 .

[18]  Barbara Wasson,et al.  Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environments, Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Support for Collaborative Learning, CSCL 2003, Bergen, Norway, June 14-18, 2003 , 2003, CSCL.

[19]  S. Billett.  Critiquing workplace learning discourses: Participation and continuity at work , 2002 .

[20]  M. Eraut,et al.  Informal learning in the workplace , 2004 .

[21]  Edward F. Gehringer,et al.  Electronic peer review and peer grading in computer-science courses , 2001, SIGCSE '01.

[22]  Mike Joy,et al.  Using web-based peer assessment in fostering deep learning in computer programming , 2004 .

[23]  Wilfried Admiraal,et al.  Design principles and outcomes of peer assessment in higher education , 2006 .

[24]  P. Ng,et al.  Analyzing Talk in ESL Peer Response Groups: Stances, Functions, and Content , 1995 .

[25]  T. Tannacito,et al.  A comparison of e-response: Two experiences, one conclusion , 2002 .

[26]  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..

[27]  K. Topping.  Self and Peer Assessment in School and University: Reliability, Validity and Utility , 2003 .

[28]  K. Topping.  Trends in Peer Learning , 2005 .

[29]  P. Robert-Jan Simons,et al.  The affordance of anchored discussion for the collaborative processing of academic texts , 2006, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..

[30]  Beth L. Hewett,et al.  Characteristics of interactive oral and computer-mediated peer group talk and its influence on revision , 2000 .

[31]  Carel Jansen,et al.  Leren Communiceren; Handboek voor mondelinge en schriftelijke communicatie (Vijfde, herziene druk) , 1992 .

[32]  M. Shekary,et al.  Negotiation of Meaning and Noticing in Text‐Based Online Chat , 2006 .

[33]  Frank Tuzi,et al.  The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an academic writing course , 2004 .

[34]  W. Saunders.  Collaborative writing tasks and peer interaction , 1989 .

[35]  N. Webb,et al.  Promoting effective helping behavior in peer-directed groups , 2003 .

[36]  Tobias Lauer,et al.  From Lecture Recording Towards Personalized Collaborative Learning , 2003, CSCL.

[37]  Wilfried Admiraal,et al.  Designing student peer assessment in higher education: analysis of written and oral peer feedback , 2006 .