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: 25-08-2014 20:38 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 134.161.28.175 on Mon, 25 Aug 2014 20:38:00 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 134.161.28.175 on Mon, 25 Aug 2014 20:38:00 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
a
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
a
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.
lower
In addition,
grade.
fear "If I do it to them, they'll
that giving
the
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.
A
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
1
This content downloaded from 134.161.28.175 on Mon, 25 Aug 2014 20:38:00 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
a
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
a
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
a
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 134.161.28.175 on Mon, 25 Aug 2014 20:38:00 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
a
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
a
particular
that
asks
out
fill
reviewers
them,
among
a feedback
other
important
the paper
reads
just
to
The
form
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
a
is not
(or
speaker)
the thesis
reviewers
or an
the
evidence,
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
a
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
a
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
of his
no
almost
a
miss
justification,
the
the
also provide helpful information. What
audience members find to be the strongest
writer
gun
the
of
that part
ical" answer
with
things,
as
thesis
add
she
reinforcing
of
piece
knows
identify the thesis of the paper. The first
student
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
1
This content downloaded from 134.161.28.175 on Mon, 25 Aug 2014 20:38:00 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.
NBEET
Canberra:
1994.
through
Com
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
A
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 134.161.28.175 on Mon, 25 Aug 2014 20:38:00 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
COLLEGETEACHING