Peer feedback: benefits and application

Benefits

Peer feedback particularly formative feedback, can enhance disciplinary understanding, critical thinking skills, give students more ownership over their work, encourage active engagement with studies, foster student autonomy and increase understanding of learning outcomes particularly less tangible ones (Sadler 2010). In this way formative feedback and peer feedback in particular allows the opportunity for deep learning and sets the tone for lifelong learning (Brew 1999). Falchikov concluded from investigation that, ‘both the volume and helpfulness of the feedback were greater when peers were involved than when only the teacher provided feedback’ (Falchikov 2005 cited in Nicol 2010 p509). At the same time the very experience of learning about and engaging in peer feedback can encourage students to pay greater attention to any feedback they receive from staff as it can heighten their awareness of the value of feedback more broadly (Nicol 2010). Student engagement in peer feedback has also been shown to enhance assessment outcomes (Race 2001, Coleman 2006 and Oduyemi 2006 cited in Mills and Glover 2006). Brew (1999) notes that, ‘when teachers share with their students the process of assessment – giving up control, sharing power and leading students to take on the authority to assess themselves – the professional judgement of both is enhanced’ (Brew 1999, p169).

The practice of peer feedback not only provides students with the opportunity to enhance learning outcomes and transferable skills but it also provides staff with the opportunity to assess the progression of students as a cohort in real time (rather than retrospectively at the end of an assignment or module), i.e. the same benefits as staff-provided formative feedback but with additional benefits for students. Peer feedback allows a shift of focus from product to process which can enable the revelation of otherwise tacit knowledge and therefore afford staff the opportunity to test understanding of threshold concepts, ways of thinking, acting, talking, and students’ sense of scholarly identity (Meyer 2009, Bass 2010).

Peer feedback or peer assessment?

Some such as Falchikov (2002) have acknowledged the benefits of summative peer feedback, ‘peer feedback marking seems to be a great help both in encouraging student autonomy and in filling the gaps that so often exist in the provision of useful and timely feedback by overworked teachers’ (Falchikov 2002, p77). However, others, such as Brew (1999) and Keppell et al (2006) have argued that formative rather than summative peer feedback is more valuable to student confidence and learning and that summative peer feedback, or peer marking can be disruptive and unpopular with students (Boud et al 1997 cited in Brew 1999). In keeping with this finding, a survey of NTU student views of research-informed teaching conducted in 2008 revealed that 63% of surveyed students (sample size 700) felt that student evaluation and reflection upon each others research would have a positive impact on learning. It was also felt though that summative peer feedback / peer marking may be less valuable due to various student concerns for example the credibility of the students who are carrying out the assessments. Nicol has also argued that introducing summative peer feedback into a learning environment where formative feedback is already practiced can be detrimental to any gains, ‘such peer assessment is more threatening and can undermine the benefits of peer critiquing as it introduces high-stakes competition and can inhibit risk taking and learning’ (Nicol 2010, p510). In addition Brew (Brown and Glasnern 1999) notes that in a context of collaborative learning, summative peer assessment can undermine collaboration. Elton argues that students are most concerned with summative assessment so assurances of the value of formative assessment will be necessary, ‘once the summative assessment needs have been met through appropriate formative assessment, students are willing to consider higher aims such as learning for its own sake (Elton 1995 cited in Elton and Johnston 2002) and further formative assessment can then be linked to such learning’ (Elton and Johnston 2002, p17).

Underlying the practice of both summative and formative peer feedback is a tension which needs to be managed between, ‘a societally conscious life and social constructivism where students expand their knowledge within a social context with social interactions and peer learning; and a self-conscious individualistic view of education where students compete for grades and, ultimately, for jobs’ (Aubrey and McMorrow, p10). With regard to both of these considerations it is important that students fully understand the aims and objectives of peer feedback in order that they appreciate the value of it as a learning process, ‘because of the potential risks for students (loss of privacy or face, embarrassment or even humiliation), making their work public can most fruitfully be carried out when the rationale for it has been discussed and accepted; positive and trusting peer relations exist; and a collaborative learning climate has been established’ (Liu). To this end Keppell et al argue that, ‘to enhance peer feedback, principles of learning-oriented assessment need to be embedded into group and collaborative learning settings so that we encourage cooperation, communication and the giving and receiving of feedback’ (Keppell et al 2006, p463).

A culture of peer feedback

To encourage a sustained benefit from peer feedback it may be fruitful to consider how a culture of peer feedback could be encouraged outside of structured peer feedback opportunities for example by introducing to students the idea of the university as a place of collaborative learning to ‘shape lives and society’, the idea that whilst they are here students are members of an academic community, creators of knowledge as well as consumers. Such ideals can be translated into practice by for example, the setting up by students of Facebook pages to discuss assignments, discussion boards in NOW to discuss more general ideas and thoughts relating to their subject and the organising of other opportunities such as journal reading groups etc. where students can feed back on each others work and explore the work of other people in the same critical style. A consideration for staff wishing to introduce such cultural practises is to ensure that students understand the meaning of collaboration versus collusion.

For an example of where a whole programme has been redesigned to encourage a peer feedback culture see the HEA case study on NTU Nottingham Business School redesign of the MSc Marketing degree which aimed to ‘move away from the traditional design towards a more innovative, themed curriculum structure, the better to meet the needs of a diverse cultural group’ (Weaver, Vickerstaff and Sullivan 2008, p1). Case study available online from the HEA Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism network.

A culture of peer feedback would complement existing or planned peer assisted learning. Bournemouth University, Oxford Brookes University and University College London (UCL) amongst others have peer assisted learning programmes wherein students from higher levels of study provide learning support to students on lower levels of the same course with the aim of improving confidence, understanding and grades. Bournemouth describes their scheme as fostering, ‘cross-year support between students on the same course. PAL encourages students to support each other and to learn co-operatively under the guidance of trained students, called PAL Leaders, from the year above’.

The evaluation findings for one such scheme introduced in Biosciences at the University of Central Lancashire are available online.

The following suggestions may be useful when considering the introduction of peer feedback practices:

• Link peer feedback to tutor feedback from the outset, e.g. ask students to provide each other with formative feedback on an assignment then discuss the quality of the feedback comments given rather than the quality of the assignments themselves. This will introduce the notion of peer feedback as a valuable addition to tutor feedback, particularly where students are predisposed to tutor feedback (Nicol 2010).
• Start by introducing peer feedback as a voluntary opt-in.
• Begin with online peer feedback then move to class-based as student confidence and competence grows (Bignold and Barbera 2010).
• Start small – allocate a small amount of time to peer feedback.
• Start with a short writing task or other work in class.
• If using summative peer feedback begin with peer and/or self formative feedback until student competence understanding and confidence is at a suitable level before progressing to summative feedback.
• Encourage students to foster their own peer feedback cultures, e.g. through informal study groups, reading groups, online discussions.

In addition you might supply students with any available banks of staff feedback statements to provide a variety of comments for students to use in their peer feedback and to encourage students to practice self-reflection (Nicol 2010). You might also use in-peer marking to increase confidence ask students to, as well as providing a mark, identify at least one good feature of their peer’s work and at least one piece of advice on how it might be improved (Falchikov 2002)

On a practical level there may be initial resource implications involved in introducing a new form of assessment (Brew 1999, p168). In addition students will need preparation beforehand to ensure that feedback is carried out properly with maximum benefit in a practical sense, e.g. without guidance students may judge peers on the practical aspects rather than understanding/content aspects of their presentations Falchikov 2002). At the same time preparation should introduce students to the aims of peer feedback and should pre-empt and address any concerns, such as those suggested in the afore-mentioned NTU survey, namely the very notion that students rather than tutors would undertake assessment of other students (‘marking isn’t my job, it’s yours’), that students could adequately assess their peers’ work, (‘student credibility is questionable’) and that the activity of peer assessment may encourage plagiarism, (‘other students may copy my ideas’). Research evidence suggests that peer and staff marking is usually fairly comparable (Falchikov 2002) however Pond and Ul-Haq suggest some remedies for instances where peer marking problems such as collusive marking arise (Pond and Ul-Haq in Brown 1998).

Further resources including practice examples can be found on the ‘how to’ section of the NTU peer feedback web pages.

References

Aubrey, A. And McMorrow, J. How could we model enquiry-based learning? Functional and values-based perspectives on student-centred education in: Case Studies: CEEBL Supported Projects, 2008-10, Centre for Excellence in Enquiry-based Learning (CEEBL), University of Manchester, pp4-20.

Bass, R. (2010) The rise of social learning as a bridge to expertise. In: Pedagogical Research in Higher Education Conference. October 25th 2010, Liverpool Hope University.

Bignold, W. and Barbera, J. (2010) Inclusive education: listening to student voice as a means to ensure a research informed curriculum. In: Pedagogical Research in Higher Education Conference. October 25th 2010, Liverpool Hope University.

Boud., Anderson, G., Cohen, R. and Sampson, J. (1997) Developing assessment for peer learning. Research and Development in Higher Education, 20, 117-25.

Brew, A. (1999) Towards autonomous assessment: using self-assessment and
peer assessment, in S. Brown and A. Glasner (eds) Assessment Matters in Higher Education: choosing and using diverse approaches, Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Elton, L. and Johnston, B. (2002) Assessment in universities: a critical review of research. LTSN Generic Centre. 

Falchikov, N. (2002) Unpacking' peer assessment. In Schwartz, P. and Webb, G. Assessment (Case Studies of Teaching in Higher Education Series): Case Studies, Experience and Practice from Higher Education. pp. 70-77 London: Kogan Page Stylus Publishing.

Falchikov, N. (2005). Improving assessment through student involvement. London: Routledge-Falmer.

Keppell, M., Au, E. and Chan, C. (2006). Peer learning and learning-oriented assessment in technology-enhanced environments. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 453-464. Accessed at: 

Meyer, J. H. F. and Ward, S. C. and Latreille, P. (2009) Threshold concepts and metalearning capacity, International Review of Economics Education., 8 (1), 132-154.

Mills, J., and Glover C. (2006) Who provides the feedback - self and peer assessment?

Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 35(5), 501-517. 

Sadler, D.R. (2010). Beyond feedback: developing student capability in complex appraisal, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 35(5), 535-550. Accessed at: 

Weaver, M., Vickerstaff, A. and Sullivan, M. (2008) Designing a full time masters programme for a culturally diverse student population, Higher Education Academy Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Network: Enhancing Series: Internationalisation,