Student Peer Review - Improving Feedback and Enhancing Learning

of 32/32
Student Peer Review - Improving Feedback and Enhancing Learning Dr Anne Jones Centre for Educational Development Dr Bjoern Elsaesser School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering
  • date post

  • Category


  • view

  • download


Embed Size (px)


Student Peer Review - Improving Feedback and Enhancing Learning. Dr Anne Jones Centre for Educational Development Dr Bjoern Elsaesser School of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering. Structure. Introduction to peer review Case example from MEng Civil Engineering Level 4 module - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Student Peer Review - Improving Feedback and Enhancing Learning

Student Peer Review - Improving Feedback and Enhancing Learning

Student Peer Review - Improving Feedback and Enhancing LearningDr Anne JonesCentre for Educational DevelopmentDr Bjoern ElsaesserSchool of Planning, Architecture and Civil Engineering

1StructureIntroduction to peer reviewCase example from MEng Civil Engineering Level 4 moduleSome software to support peer review

2Peer assessment or peer review?Peer assessment where students award marks and may also give feedback Peer review students provide feedback to each other develops students ability to construct feedbackPeer learning

Involves students in participation in course activities

Engaging students with assessment criteria and learning outcomesEngagement in active learningLearn from peers diversity of views not just the instructorsFeedback from peers may help in the development of skills and knowledge

Being able to review peers is a graduate skill Peer learning students learning from each other

Peer assessment is often used a means of assessing the process in a group project/work most of the literature until recently has been on peer-tutor grade correlations with the main purpose to show that students can peer mark as well as their teachers


4Peer feedback can Add to the amount and variety of feedback students already receive without adding to staff workloadAddress timeliness while it matters and with the opportunity to act on itProvide feedback in a language understood by the studentsProvide multiple sources of feedback more realistic of the real world develops ability to reconcile different viewpointsEngage students in constructing feedback

5Engage students in constructing feedbackActive learners high level activity that is cognitively demandingActive engagement with criteria and standardsOften there is an element of reciprocity feedback provided on the same piece of workDisciplinary expertise writing feedback commentaries deepens understandingLearning communities Self-assessment skills and professional life

6Staff concernsStudents do not have the knowledge or skill to comment on anothers workToo critical and harsh in their commentsCompromise academic integrityToo time consuming

7Student concernsThis is your job We dont know how to do thisI wouldnt trust the comments of another studentWhat if I get a weaker student or someone I dont trust reviewing my work?

8Implementing peer reviewUse exemplars to introduce students to the processAsk students to suggest something which could be improved upon or is not included which could be relevantAsk students to review more than one piece of work so that the author of the work has comments to compare and self-assess

Psychology group project presentations videoed. Videos played in following tutorials and students asked to give one good point and one thing which could be improved

As a means of better engaging students with feedback and developing a sense of self-assessment, Sadler (2010a; 2010b) discusses the role of peer assessment within a formative setting. Students and the tutor come to a session with 300 words on a topic previously provided. These are without names. The papers are passed around the group and students answer four questions:Does the piece answer the question set?How good is it on a range of pretty awful to pretty good?Why do you say that using whatever criteria are appropriate? This gets the students used to applying criteria in their own wordsWrite some advice ca 50 words about how the paper could be improved.Every few weeks, only the tutor essay would be used as a model answer to inculcate the concept of quality.

9Tutor provides assessment on the quality of the feedback ensures students engage

10TESTA projectPoor quality lab reportsStudents worked in groups to produce their lab report as a posterStudents asked to write comments on all the posters increased learning gains in lab reporting and examsEncouraged time and effort on challenging tasksOpportunity to use the feedbackCreates learning communities

11Hammer, Kell and Spence (2007)Peer review and feedback on essay in English with 80 studentsUsed electronic software Arop which manages the anonymous distribution cf PeerMarkAssessment rubric provided by staffMarks for participation NOT quality Set up so that student did not review their own topic

12Students asked to provide a response to the following: What issue is the essay addressing?What is the main argument? Or suggest an argumentWhat support does the author offer for the argument? Suggest a counter-argumentIdentify a characteristic sentence in the draft and suggest how it might be improved

13Student views:PositiveDoing the review and using the assessment criteria gave them an insight into how their work was assessedProviding feedback would help them become more able to self-assessIdentified blind spots in their own writing and learned from the writing styles of others


15Dr Bjoern ElsaesserSchool of Planning, Architecture & Civil Engineering

Using Peer Review in Hydraulics 4 CIV4026

16ContentIntroduction to the topicOverview of moduleIssues with students learningStudent peer review processExample reviewsThe lecturers experiencePros & consWider issues with moduleConclusion

17Hydraulics 4 MEng/MSc Civil Eng module in 2nd semester of level 435 -20 students-> introduce students to the principles and practice of advanced fluid mechanics in engineering-> emphasis on environmental problems and renewable energy systems

12 weeks split into two parts:~5 weeks for research of topic and report / lecture2 weeks peer assessment of above

5 weeks applied analysis to engineering problemReporting and presentation

18Hydraulics 4 MEng/MSc Civil Eng Topics taught:Hydropower& Tidal power Turbo machinery in hydropower, types, typical features, characteristics, key design specificationsFree stream rotors, types, blade element momentum theory,Design of spillways and overflow structures, Aspects of hydrodynamic forces on structures in rivers, coasts and offshoreTransient & two phase flow problems Transient pipe flows / Surge chambers and overflows,Sediment transport processes,Hydrodynamics theoryNavier Stokes equation & its application19Deficit of students at level 4Reports had been very superficialVery little evidence based description of topicsLimited number of equations and factual design guidanceLimited evidence of acquired transferable knowledgeHeavily criticised by colleagues as easy subject(reflected by student numbers)

20AssessmentGroup report / lecture notePeer reviewProject / AnalysisPresentation

Groups of 2-4 students

One topic

45% Individual

All other topics

10%Group as previous

Topic different to previous


On project / analysis

10%Ongoing consultation with lecturerLecturer edited peer feedbackOngoing consultation with lecturerVerbal feedback

Feedback21Setting out the peer reviewStudents informed at introduction about the peer review processReview does not replace tutors marking, review forms part of indiv. assessmentStudents are given marking sheet and criteriaTotal marks set out for each criteriaAt review stage process is explained againStudents are asked to review as individual (not in groups)

22Example reviews

23The lecturers experienceHas worked well and not increased workloadCan provide strong evidence for freeloadersVehicle to providing feedback to studentsReview provide an excellent assessment matrixWidened the gap between good and less adept students?

24Assessment matrix

25peer review the issuesProsWidens knowledge from one topic to severalIndividual mark for individual studentsGood students clearly identify deficits and apply to their own workQuick feedback

ConsLow grade students left behind?Own assessmentAbility to judge good work from poorSkim only surface of topicAssessment of peer review is summative, no chance to improve

26Wider issues in Hydraulics 4Varying student numberVarying quality of reports producedStaff effortEvidence of enhanced knowledge & understandingWidening gap between different grades of students

27Using technology to support peer reviewPeerMarkPeerWise

28PeerMarkPart of the Turnitin suiteStudents upload workSystem can be set up to distribute the papers randomly and anonymously if requiredIncludes option for self-reviewCan include a rating if peer assessment is wantedTutor can see all reviewsAbility to make all reviews available to the group following the exercise


Siobhan Cox also in CIV29PeerWiseUniversity of Auckland Free open sourceStaff set up the classStudents asked to register and select nom de plume - Students write MCQs with appropriate feedbackStudents answer and review the questions of their peersHigh level cognitive activity


31ReferencesHamer, J., Kell, C. and Spence, F. (2007) Peer assessment suing Arop, Australian Computing Society, available at: Nicol, D (2010) From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback in mass higher Education Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 35:5, 501-517TESTA project