Improving Student Peer Feedback

Author(s): Linda B. Nilson

Source: College Teaching, Vol. 51, No. 1 (Winter, 2003), pp. 34-38
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27559125
Accessed: 18-09-2015 00:56 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to College Teaching.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 142.244.11.244 on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 00:56:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

STUDENT

IMPROVING
PEER

FEEDBACK
Linda B. Nilson

Instructors use peer feedback to afford stu

Abstract,
dents multiple
assessments
of their work and to help
them acquire
skills. However,
important
lifelong
research finds that this type of feedback has question
able validity, reliability, and accuracy, and instructors
consider much of it too uncritical,
superficial, vague,

es that add genuine

the same time,

1999).
Sampson
research studies have found peer learning
and

College-leveling
class

and

activities

before,

of

their

assignments

increasingly
for

responsible

not

their

of

reflects

this

monly
centered

trend,

sweeping
it coupled

find

learning,
and
ing,

cooperative

methods,
the

case

creative

with

in

mandating
one

own

learn

The

learning
com
and we
student

as problem-based

method,

service

learn
assign

versions

and

this

quasi

B. Nilson

is the director

and
Effectiveness
in South Carolina.
University,
Teaching

of the Office of
Innovation at Clemson

not

work,

but also

performances.

"studio

are trying

model"

of

once
confined
learning,
architecture
and the arts.

The

reasons

the

just

the final

Disciplines

to engineering

and

to

mostly

enrollments

have

prompted

and

use

assessment

more

time-efficient
methods,

especially

to devise

teaching

and

in writ

effective

quite

critical thinking,
learning,

and

Segers,

and

(Dochy,

1999; Topping 1998; Candy,

Sluijsmans
1994; Williams
Crebert, and O'Leary
et al. 1991; Slavin
1992; Bangert-Drowns
1990; Crooks 1988).
its
Yet peer feedback is not without
instructors

Many

problems.

experience

in implementing the method

1995), and the quality of stu
(McDowell
dent peer feedback is uneven. Although
Topping (1998) provides evidence from
thirty-one studies that peer feedback is
usually valid and reliable, Dancer and
Dancer
(1992) and Pond, Ulhaq, and
Wade (1995) maintain to the contrary that
difficulties

research

shows

are

assessments

that peer

biased by friendship and race. Reliability

is especially

when

poor

evaluate

students

each

other's essays
(Mowl and Pain
1995) and oral presentations
(Taylor
the most
1995; Watson
1989)?perhaps

Another
agreement

for this trend are both

faculty and faculty developers

skills

common

teaching

practical and pedagogical. Widespread

cuts in university budgets along with
increasing

Linda

another's

from English
out

process.

be

lifelong

collaborative

faculty
development,
to evaluate
and

drafts and rehearsals

to

for developing

communication,

students

students

such

multimedia

are

critique

as well.

other

In a parallel

ments.

as never

holding
only

ing but that of their peers

popularity

students'

assessment

methods

respons

thorough

to the peer feedback

value

faculty are relinquish

control

and

informative,

neutral,

and

Cohen,

(Boud,

At

and content-focused,
among other things. This article
feedback ques
posits that the typical judgment-based
tions give students emotionally
charged tasks that they
are cognitively
to perform well and that
ill equipped
that
permit laxness. It then introduces an alternative
encourages

courses

ing-intensive

ments

contexts

for

and

peer

is accuracy,

problem
with

the

grading.

feedback.

com

instructor's
Some

as

defined

studies

report

high accuracy (Oldfield and Macalpine

1995; Rushton, Ramsey, and Rada 1993;
Fry 1990), but others find that most stu
dents

grade

more

leniently

than

the

instructor over
(Orsmond,

80 percent of the time

and Reitch
1996;
Merry,

34

This content downloaded from 142.244.11.244 on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 00:56:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

COLLEGETEACHING

Pond, Ulhaq, and Wade

1995; Stefani
the pitfalls,
1992). Despite
Topping
(1998) contends that what is lost in qual
ity is compensated
and

frequency,
back,

for by

of

immediacy
to

compared

the

is well worth

improving.

The mixed research findings mirror the

reality that some faculty are pleased with
the quality of student peer feedback and
are

others

not.

The

especially
with

dents

to

useful

pleased

are

who

those

one

about

their

of

with

dents'

in

the

student

on

focused

of work,

peer

are

on

(e.g.,

trivial

and

dis

content

alone,

structure,

organization,

missing
and

style,

so

focused

their

or

agreement
the

with

agreement

dis

made

argument

rather than the logic of and evidence

for

the argument
even

harsh,

unnecessarily

Emotion,

ignorance,
barriers,

inconsistent,

internally

to

the

assignment
not
referenced

the

the

of

requirements

to

lazi

especially

are

doubt

aware

of

some

scant

pay

to

solely
person

the

real

audience.

the

When

Public

of

specifics

the

that

hap
much

and

speak

than

means

genuine

of

communication.

are merely

tions

They
on forms

oped.

Perhaps

that

have

the questions

flawed when

posed

are

themselves

typical

adapted

the following

questions

al forms

from

universities:

several

devel

to students. So

some

examining

the stu
to ques

responding
instructors

it is

forms. I
actu

idea

work

clear

throughout

the

paper?
Apparently
fault with
find
at

least

loath

most

are

students

one

another's

to express

or

products,
faults

those

to

loath

(Stra

chan andWilcox
1996; Pond, Ulhaq, and
Wade
1995; Williams
1995; Falchikov
1992; Byard 1989). In particular, students
do
ing

not

a fellow

they may
do

to be

want

student's

Vol.

it to me,"

or

they

insightful

instructor's

51/No.

In addition,

grade.

fear "If I do it to them, they'll

that giving
the

lower

for

responsible

grading

may

be

concerned

critiques may
standards.

raise
They

Does
state
paper
Does
your

the opening
the

position
takes?
the

opening

paragraph
the
that

paragraph

accurately
rest of
the

capture

attention?

Is the paper well written?

Is sufficient background provided?
How logical is the organization of the
paper?
Are the illustrations (visuals) effective?
Are the illustrations (visuals) easy to
understand?

sum
in

as

on which

be

rate

evaluated.
your

peer's

"excellent,"

"good,"

some

"needs

the

or

work,"

lot of work."

or

all

these

of

are

questions

indeed likely to evoke emotions

in stu
dents that they would not in scholars. All
of the items demand that the student arrive
at a judgment about a peer. They have to
find or not find fault with a fellow stu
and

work,

The
the

intrudes;

are

students

not

typical

to judge a peer's product

may

On

the other

or

a friend

be

peer

acquaintance.

further

aspect

personal

the

side,

an

peer

evoke dislike or hard feelings that

interfere with a balanced judgment.

may
may
To

scholars

sional

the

look

questions

quite

and they imply a multidimen

evaluative
is more

reasoning

continuum.

scholar's

complex:

The

paper

is

effectively written in terms of A, B, and C

but is somewhat weak on the X, Y, and Z

Is the title of this paper appropriate and

interesting? Is it too general or too
specific?
central

can

dimension,

"adequate,"
a
"needs

different,

questions

from

If not,

made

points

presentation

each

unfavorably.

lie with

intro

adequately

main

ly predisposed

The Questions

But does all the blame

the

its point?

prove

conclusion

the

oral

dent's

Problem:

Is the

the

Many

to impress the instructor for

rather

in

only

defeats

writing

essay

presentation

look

therefore

and

feedback

peer

its purpose.

worth

the

For

feedback

is

to please

stated

goals

paper?
Below is a list of dimensions

that

they

who

instructor,
have

student

grade

to

attention

is traditional,

the

they

only

research

marize

these

contradictory

inaccurate
unrelated

the

an
no

to

used

viewpoint?

How well has the writer interpreted the

significance of the results in relation to

Does

up the
and

or

why not?

in study

from real student peer feedback

mean-spirit

in its criticisms

ed; unconstructive

laziness

evidence

the argument

Does

various

in writing

formidable

of peers. As

dents?

forth
on

for

the

is

strong

duction?

professional

problems,

The

spelling)
on

focused

errors

and

problems

their

and/or

ing are media

likes of the work rather than its quality

focused

of

and so it is little wonder

of

in general
likes

How

evaluative

standards

and

ing the work

the

student's

the data clearly presented?

the graphs and tables explained
sufficiently in the text?

is no

there

in their own

the

ignorance
and

expectations

pens,

and unengaged

superficial

Are
Are

in combination.

in general

uncritical

picking

then

into

their

process,

ness

they have seen:

feedback

out

support

emotions

stu

The Students

weaknesses

good

others,

think,

When all is said and done, the prob

lems with student peer feedback seem to
boil down to three: the intrusion of stu

feedback.

In both the literature and the work

shops I have facilitated on this topic, fac
ulty have identified many and surprising
ly varied

at

weaknesses."

Students

The Problem:

so

for their handing

not

work.

another's

weaknesses

types

here should be

assessments

the

make

to soliciting

approach

that I propose

feedback

are

students

work

and

instructor's,

that therefore peer feedback

using?and

feed

peer

"If

excuse

volume,

greater

reason that the instructor will

may

The

criteria.

evidence
but

hypothesis

the main

supports
on

is ambiguous

sec

the

one.

ondary

Maybe most students lack the discipli

nary background to respond to the ques
an

at

tions

They

give

helpful

After

all,

level

adequate

tion.

simply

do

not

feedback

many

of
know

sophistica
how

(Svinicki
are

students

not

to

2001).
even

vaguely familiar with the standards for

quality work in a given field, especially in
a field
Ph.D.
and

that

is not

candidates
discrimination

their
lack

Even
major.
the critical

to produce

an

most
savvy
accept

able product in the first draft of their dis

if the students knew
sertation. Certainly
how

to write

a focused

paper,

how

much

35

This content downloaded from 142.244.11.244 on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 00:56:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

below the main points of

paper/speech/project.
this paper/speech/project
Outline
the back of this sheet.

and

argument,
if for no

forms
ask

explicitly

items

the

too,

Perhaps,
feedback

on

for

most

peer

laxness.

permit
only

tions

response,

tions

almost

ask

always

ly young
be as

an

for

"opinion."

of the traditional
one

undergraduate,
as another,
good

or

justified

not

or

made

the particulars

of

If judgment
evaluations

and

students,

to

do

examine

do not evoke

informed,

teach

a work

the writer's/speaker's

for

students

line

all

come

you

con

give

of
paragraph
sentence.
topic

the

to

had

feedback

peer

a different

item?one

ask for a judgment

no

evokes

Kind

what

that

one

emotion;

that

rules,

pline's

student,

whether

a oral

a written

it be

to experience.

product
instructor

Furthermore,
to grade

wishes

the

back that students provide,

the answers

is quite

Let us consider
items

and

what

peer

they

are

As

feed

what

the

stu

of

"long,"

(aside from
or

"good,"

"bad")

would you choose to describe the title

of the paper/speech?
What do you think is the thesis of the
it below.
paper/speech?
Paraphrase
stars around
Put
the sentence
that

is the thesis

believe

statement

Most

in this

your

these

own

two
words

writer's/speaker's

sentences
what
position

only,

state
think

you

in
the

intended

audience,

as

especially
are no yes/no

there
some

of

really

questions

at

all;

the

are

tasks

did

of

intrusion

bar

grading

and

strongest
emotionally
its most

every

and

least

to

accustomed

any

Secondly,

answers

to the

items.

In

fact,
at

the

and

strongest

the weakest

what

these

task

evidence).

items

stu

direct

dents to do: Rather than asking for a judg

or

ment

opinion,

many

of

them

ask

outline,
et,

check)

star,

underline,

parts

or

highlight,
of

features

tion,

disagreeing

who

or

read

has

require

not

do

In Bloom's

atten

ask

scavenger

hunt

for

or to identify

feedback

to go

it.

the

of

pieces

their

If a peer

to include all the

students

above,

but

students

to

reactions

they

opera

and describe

form were

for

analysis,

cognitive

They

nonjudgmental

ask
terms,

and

evaluation.
a

would

about

knowledge

essay

need
writ

of

punctua
speech,
sentence
mechanics.

Thirdly, no student can ignore the work

in question.
keen
focus
and attention
The
to detail
that these
items
prevent
require
once-over
or
To
skimming
lazy listening.
out aspects
of content,
pick
organization,
and

mechanics

three

list,

all

the work

or

for comprehension
the most
challenging

call
not

stu

brack

rhetoric

arguments

They

they

all.

and

students

of

tion to the work but not a strong discipli

nary background or discriminating judg

grammar,

identify

as

powerful

student

tion,

specify
or to

piece

the
not

is

listened to the work can give acceptable

the

questions

long

agreeing

those

justifications

out

with each other, so this task should not

lead to problematic feelings.

outline

are

pos

in the eye of every beholder. Students are

work or list its main points). Even

list

as

that

parts

that

class,

evidence

charged

understand

cannot

picking

weakest

rhetoric,

to

the

for

Even

retribution.

ing,

(e.g.,

Stu

raise
grade,
or
provoke

student's

only

mini-assignments

risk.

and

answers

their

or

they
to
(e.g.,

minimize

they

emotions

a fellow

hurt

questions

not

so

and

be,

sibly

work

ques
are

dents simply to identify (paraphrase,

is.

At what point in the paper/speech

you identify the thesis?

items
Therefore,

judgment

they

items

they

are?

seem?and

reaction
neutral.

basic

Consider
or

items,

obviously,
In fact,

paper.
In one

the

tions.

items
you

of

to the first set of questions?

compare
"short,"

or

Why

are some of the distinguishing

features

one or two adjectives

disagree

position?

of

aspects

it.

interpret

sonal

on

What

dents to do:
What

with

questions would you have after

to the
the paper/listening
reading
speech?

sample

asking

or

to or

ment.

a member

if the

the quality of

the following

agree

why not?

to assess.

easy

you

the writer's/speaker's

to, or a visual

to listen

presentation

speech,

to read,

paper

do

judgment

rather

has

What do you find most compelling

about the paper/speech/project?
to the
After reading the paper/listening

and

one that demands that students carefully

attend to the details of the work in ques
tion,

saying.
find
you

that

to
in the margin
next
a
that
line
has
any
grammar,
spelling,
or mechanical
error.
Let
punctuation,
error.
correct
the writer
and
the
identify

the disci

of answering;

to

or effective.

strong
particularly
a checkmark

and so

any

was

the writer

sentences

any

once

than

of

student
This approach to obtaining
out
in stu
the
best
feedback
peer
brings
dents and eliminates the typical problems
listed earlier. First, identification and per

the

that

Put

not

does

no matter how unfamiliar with

is capable

Bracket

kind of

or opinion

transitions

in the paper.

read

to the

reactions

personal

stu

items ask

as good or bad, but how

respond

may

more

mis

as each

errors),

dents are not finding fault with a peer's

product or deciding how good or bad it

under

(in color) any passages

understand

A Solution: A Different
of Feedback Item

the paper,

their
their

the work

the

posi

the logical

across

Highlight
you

writing

evi

the writer's/speaker's

Underline

to

how

and

carefully

In each

thorough
can
what

structive feedback?

I propose

posi

tion?Why?

questions

from

instructors

dence

the work.

well

fair-minded,

for

tion?Why?
What do you think is the weakest

to

reference

specific

etc.)

for

work?not

justifi

transitions,

mechanical

spellings,

students
for

do you think is the strongest evi

dence

sentences,

topic

dent sees them. The remaining

paper/speech.

few questions
(Perry 1968). Besides,
demand a reasoned justification for the
judgment

on

justifica

evidence,

logic,

(readings,

What

may

opinion

the writer's/speaker's

(the thesis, main points, evidence,

cations,

taking the positions that he or she does?

List the types of supporting evidence
in the
and/or
given
experiences

is all that many students will feel

obligated to give. In addition, the ques

which

In the relativistic mind

are

What

Some

a yes/no

the

List

an
to supply,
to structure
how
so forth,
do so,
they would
reason
than a good
other
grade.

background

or more
items

the

necessarily

They

force

in a

paper
may
require
In fact,
readings.
although
be doable,
may
they are not
to answer.
and
easy
quick

a student
36

This content downloaded from 142.244.11.244 on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 00:56:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

to learn. They

COLLEGETEACHING

that he or she actively

demand
the

in

lessons

about

the

listening,
and

ics,

mechan

audience.

The Value of Student

Peer

used

judgment

give
to one

back
are

those

out

problems

a great

deal

another.

of

erroneous

of

and

in

mistakes

the work.

No

thinks.

audience

doubt

raise

the

anyway.

it, but reading

peer feedback by grading

answers

on all the written

commenting
a
formidable
task, one
presents
and

as class

ble

size

answers

tion
are

no

an

and

judgments,

or

more

give
to see how

answer

with

sonal-reaction
cannot
as

identification

student's

honest

an

but

clarify

its meaning.
say a student

the

intended

be

thesis

radically
serve

should

example

long
can a

wrong?

sound

may

na?ve,

Let's

How

faith.

perception

statement

This

as

feedback,

in good

a paper

that

to

that

asks

out

fill

reviewers
them,

important

among

a feedback
other

the paper

reads

just

The

to

the writer

intended and says that the paper argues in

a

favor

of

being

considered

particular
by

bill
gun-control
a House
committee.

student identifies the thesis

the Second Amendment
differently?that

The

should

second
be

amended

Vol.

51/No.

to reflect

the particu

bill. The third believes

contends that the House

lar gun-control
that the paper

the

is not

(or

speaker)

reviewers

or an

the

of

reactions

and

weakest

evidence

can

or effective"

strong

the writer

do more

is doing

often.

of

any

changed

of

to

interest

primary
Peer

feedback
an

or

informs

fellow

be

cial

and

their

cannot

fake

audience,

genuine

They

that reflects
As

intended.

students

writers

that

realize

measure
appropriate
to communicate,
cess?is
the

their

understand

audience

and

their

Instructors

of
to

of

reality

Still,
tening.
are written

lesson

but
true

some

audience,

that

course,
in

If fellow

they
here

any
members

some
and

compel

articles

delivered
people's

is to express

the

so

speeches

real

at

audience,
This

stages.

in the position

hon

they should
in

least
stu

places

of writing

truly

The feedback
these

that students give under

conditions

lems

that

is less

plague

back?blandness,

reaction

tionally

charged

items

and

gloss
a
of

paper

They
of
can

the
such

cognitive

comprehension
diffi
than
the more

a peer's

speech.

for

to perform

of
process
demanding
the items
do not allow

over

and
emo

have

Second,

recipient.

students

instructors
ly on

not

do

consequences

or

operations?primarily
and analysis?rather
cult

forth?for

identification

First,

giver

so

and

reasons.

personal

Third,

feed
inaccura

superficiality,

inconsistencies,

ask

to the prob

prone

judgment-based

grade
of

peer
close

in and
a

require

to

students

or fade

the work

the evidence

evaluation.

out

thorough
and

in question,
feedback

large

attention.

effectively

attention.
oneself

the

examination

be half-lis
and

to provide

feedback,

revision

parts

project.

to communicate.

or

readership
will

are

students

constitute

miss

reflect

they

feed

peer

to defined
or

speech,

the

in the

en

greatly

present

react

est and useful

items

point.

and may
members
lazy audience
some
clear
that are perfectly
points

that

the paper,

suc

help

be

Yes,

to personally

of

feedback

their

is

however,

can

should

or

the

speakers,

value,

instructors

several

purpose?and

that

back items that ask students to identify

cies,

that some students may

Is it possible

text?

is

and

it is a cru

take

hance its benefits:

the

"uncrit

and
Its

skill.

constitute

just what

to give

how

dents

feedback

that peer feedback

to students,

valuable

very

lifelong

self

an

of and justifi

largely dependent on avoiding its various

two
problems and pitfalls. By following

effective

students

on
than

easier

Conclusion

or

process for enhancing

learning (Boud,
Cohen, and Sampson 1999; Boud 1995).
When
instructors distribute feedback
forms with identification and personal
items,

effort.

Grading

be much

judgments.

for

faith

reasonable?
should

the defensibility

she

writer

especially

answers

criteria

cations

audience

any

"defensi

to all the items?

evaluating

members' minds demonstrates just how

effective the argument was, which should
be

or

good

the

these

right and

the

reflect

Are

identi

he

Whether

assess

cannot

They

"accuracy"

the student respond

guidelines,

content to highlight and which to

downplay or edit out. What they identify

which

"particularly

for

answers

can

writer

the

different.

Did

learning

reviewers

tells

be

feedback

There is no question

was

and should be emphasized.

personal

one

bility" because it is purely perceptual. All

that they can judge is the extent to which

writer

or her message

no

almost

miss

evidence,

of his

the

the

the thesis

justification,

of

that part

writer

form

things,
as

also provide helpful information. What

audience members find to be the strongest

identify the thesis of the paper. The first

student

thesis
add

she

reinforcing
of

piece

knows

ical" answer

with
gun

particular

what

writer

a key

point,

reaction

control bill being considered by a House

should be passed. The three
committee
peer

main

meaningful.
writes

the

assessment,

per

students

items,

erroneous

respond

and

her

that

Instructors who wish to grade this type

of feedback can still do so, but the crite
ria must

she

even

should

stating

If most

speaker.

feedback

give

they

on.

actually

well justified each one is.

However,

she

consider

should

defensible

must

instructor

to each

reading

less

to make

paper

conclusion,

fies what

Judgment-ques
as there
to grade,
easy
answers.
or
wrong
right

only

It means

Similarly, if a couple of peer reviewers

say that they did not know the thesis until

as

feasi

increases.

absolute

careful

less

are not

are

There

the

of

quality

the

that she did not make

understood by a sig
audience.

Perhaps
or two

missed

stu

many

instructor

is the
can

Instructors

her

early

and
dents find peer feedback misleading
even useless because they feel that the
real

revise

the

then, the recipient of the peer

that his work is of
believes
higher quality than it actually is, and than
instructor

should

should

to point

failure

omission?a

errors

the

of

Many

feed

Typically,
feedback
the

of her

to

ly and
powerfully
tunes
out.

arguing.

based peer feedback forms know that stu

dents

mean

erroneous,

part

sentence
have

who

as

nificant

clearer.

Feedback

Instructors

seen

be

recipient? Itmeans
herself completely

evidence,

grammar,

style,

intended

should repeal the Second Amendment.

What does this feedback, some of which
could

organi
of

types

argumentation,

active

classes

construction,

essay/speech

zation,

practice

and

readings

The

so clear

Key

words:

methods,

peer

feedback,

evaluation,

assessment

cooperative

learning

37

This content downloaded from 142.244.11.244 on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 00:56:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

NOTE
to Dr. Cynthia
credit goes
L. Seife,
Grateful
and communication
of composition
professor
at Michigan
in the Department
of Humanities
whose
University,
faculty
Technological
on this topic planted
workshop
to Dr.
this article.
Thanks
also

the

for

seed

Laura

April
Tech

of Educational
Department
for introducing
Concordia
nology,
University,
me
on student
to the rich research
literature

McEwen,

peer assessment
an, and Australian

Canadi

by British,
published
scholars.

events.

effect

Review

of

of

feedback

1956.

J. A.
The

in test-like

Educational

Taxonomy
York: David

New
objectives.
D.
1995. Enhancing
Vol.

assessment,

of

Research
educational

McKay.

in

1999.
and
24:

Education

Higher

413-26.

on College
Composition
tion, Seattle, WA, March.
and
P., G. Crebert,
Candy,
Developing

and Communica
J. O'Leary.
learners

lifelong
education.
undergraduate
missioned
No.
28.
Report
tralian Government

Educational

International

Training

1990.

of

and

Implementation

evalua

peer

L. 1995. The
McDowell,
on student
assessment
in Education

and

of

impact

innovative
Innovations

learning.

International

Training

A
writing:
Innovations
International

Pain.

1995. Using
self and
to improve
students'
essay
case
from
study
geography.
in Education

and

Training

in

J.

1994.
through
Com

NBEET
Canberra:

Aus

Services.
Publishing
The
impact of classroom
on students.
Review
practices
of
Research
58:438-81.
1988.

Oldfield,
Peer

1995.

level:

An
report.
experiential
Evaluation
in Higher
20:125-32.

and

Perry, W.
ethical
scheme.

G.

tertiary
Assessment
Education

1968. Forms

development
New
York:

and
of intellectual
in the college
years: A
Rinehart
and
Holt,

Educa

1996. Peer

and

work:

of group

Developing
enroll
increased

to
response
course
in microclima
in a third-year
in Higher
Journal
of
Geography
tology.
Education
20:343-53.
effective

M.

D.

Encouraging
In New
feedback.
No.

in Teaching
and Learning,
ed. San Francisco:
Lewis,
I. 1995. Understanding
Taylor,
ware:

Review

student

Northern

Peer-assessment

colleges
Educational

of

C.

in higher
tutoring
K. Houston,
and A.

eds.
Coleraine,
Lazenblatt,
land: University
of Ulster.
1998.

K.

soft
computer
in the develop
some aspects
of

In Enhancing

software.

peer
through
S. Griffiths,

in

87.

Jossey-Bass.

peer
Using
tutoring
of understanding
of

K.
Topping,
students

your stu
Directions

2001.

to give

and

Ire

between
universities.

Research

68:

249-76.
on the first year
Report
an evaluative
developing
for assessing
seminar work. Col

H. M.
Watson,
of research

1989.

into

technique
lected
Original

in Education

Resources

(CORE) 13 (2): Fiche 12Cl.

Winston.
and W. Wade.
1995. Peer
Pond, K., R. Ulhaq,
to peer
assessment.
review:
A precursor
in Education
Innovations
and
Training
International

an

learning
education.

K. A., and J. M. K. Macalpine.

at the
self-assessment

and

Biochemical

ment

computer

21:

study.
20:75-80.

Instruction

and S. Wilcox.

I. B.,
Strachan,
self-assessment

in the
and

1993.
hyper
Journal

on cooperative
Research
Edu
and controversy.
learning: Consensus
47:52-54.
cational
Leadership
of collabo
Stefani, L. A. J. 1992. Comparison
in a
rative self, peer and tutor assessment

1996.

Education

Higher

case

environment:

of Computer-Based
R. E.
1990.
Slavin,

ment

32:324-35.

and K. Reitch.
Orsmond,
P., S. Merry,
The
of marking
criteria
importance
use of peer
assessment.
Assessment
Evaluation

media

Svinicki,
dents

32:302-13.
G., and R.
assessment

and R. Rada.
P. Ramsey,
C,
assessment
in a collaborative

Rushton,
Peer

biochemistry
practical.
tion 20:148-51.

239-49.

use and
V.
1989. Power
Byard,
play: The
of power
in peer
abuse
cri
relationships
at the Conference
tiquing.
Paper presented

T.
Crooks,
evaluation

S. A.

peer

learning
through
1. London
and Phila

delphia:
Kogan
Page.
R. and J. Sampson.
Boud, D., R. Cohen,
assessment.
Peer
Assessment
learning
Evaluation

and

32:175-87.

Mowl,

B.

Boud,

self

Education

in higher
education.
marking
and Evaluation
Assessment
in Higher
Edu
cation
15:177-89.

61:213-38.
Bloom,

in Higher
24:331-50.
Education
N.
1995. Peer
feedback
Falchikov,
marking:
in
Innovations
peer assessment.
Developing

tion

L., C. L. C. Kulik,
T. Morgan.
1991.

R.
M.

67:306-09.
for Business
and D.
F., M.
Sluijsmans.
Dochy,
Segers,
1999. The use of self-, peer and co-assess
ment
A review.
in higher education:
Studies

Fry,

REFERENCES
Bangert-Drowns,
and
Kulik,
instructional

1992. Peer rating

Dancer, W. T., and J. Dancer.
in higher
education.
Journal
of Education

32:314-23.

Williams,

E.

approaches
Assessment
cation

1992.

Student

to

learning
and Evaluation

attitudes
and

towards

assessment.

in Higher

Edu

17:45-58.

38

This content downloaded from 142.244.11.244 on Fri, 18 Sep 2015 00:56:59 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

COLLEGETEACHING