Peer Evaluation as an Active Learning Technique
Nancy Reese-Durham
An action research was carried out during the fall 2003 term. Nineteen students in
an Applied Research in Education course at Fayettevilie State University, North
Carolina were participants in the study to determine the impact of using peers in the
evaluation of a partial research paper. The answers to three questions were sought:
I)To what extent is peer feedback meaningful and effective; 2) What lessons (if any)
do the peer-evaluators learn from the activity; and 3) To what extent does the peer
evaluation process result in better research papers for student researchers and peer
evaluators? Results showed that all ofthe student researchers agreed that the feedback
was helpful, constructive, clear and understandable. Further, results indicated that the
student researchers realized that they need to include more substantial information in
the review ofthe literature section and that the activity was helpful in the final paper
revision process. Overall, the quality ofthe papers from this class was significantly
higher than papers collected from previous classes.
In my introductory research course the
focus is more on getting my students to learn
the process than getting them to master the
process. Learning the terminology, being
competent in statistical computations, understanding how to analyze research and other
basic components of educational research are
essential knowledge for the student.
Evaluation is a crucial part ofthe learning process (Barrett, 1986), Consequently,
feedback and evaluation on a student's
progress are important both to the student
and to the faculty. Students need information
on their progress to make improvements in
their work. Although a faculty evaluation of
student work is perhaps the most common
type of evaluation, the use of peers in the
evaluation process may be just as effective
in their academic growth.
Previous evaluations of students' work
involved me, as the instructor, in reviewing
Nancy Reese-Durham, Ph. D., Department
of Middle Grades, Secondary and Special Education, School of Education, Fayettevilie State
University.
Correspondence concerning this article
should be addressed to Dr. Nancy Reese-Durham,
1200 Murchison Road, Fayettevilie, NC 28301;
Email: ndurham@uncfsu.edu.
drafts of papers, inserting comments in red
ink, and returning the papers to the students.
In some Instances, students expressed how the
editing oftheir papers was intimidating and
damaging to their self-esteem. Discovering
another way to effectively evaluate student
research while at the same time making
the evaluation process a learning activity
would eliminate the problems associated
with editing, such as the loss in self-esteem
and increase the involvement ofthe class in
the process.
Peer Evaluation
According to Boyd (1989), evaluation can be used to "provide constructive
criticism and suggestions to improve weak
areas and amplify strengths." (p,2). Two
types of evaluation exist - formative and
summative. Formative evaluation involves
giving feedback that is focused on changing
processes as they are happening. On the other
hand, summative evaluation occurs at the
end of the process and focuses on judging
the quality of the outcome (Boulmetis and
Dutwin, 2000).
Using peers has been found to be an
effective addition to the evaluation process.
Formative peer evaluations allow peers to
work collaboratively to assess each others'
338
Peer Evaluation . . 1339
work and assist one another in efforts to that is required in a research course. There
strengthen research. Working with one's is an ardent amount of information for the
peers allows interchange of ideas and meth- beginning students to understand in order to
odologies resulting in a more refined product "do" research. For example, basic research
(Powell, 1992;Sapin-Piane, 1993). Studies terminology terms (e.g., independent and
by Saavedra and Kwun (199.3) found that "on dependent variables, internal and external
the whole, both field and laboratory studies validity, hypothesis, types of research and
indicate that peer assessment is a valid and types of experimental design) which represent
reliable evaluation procedure." (p. 450)
basic concepts which must be understood by
Lisk (2000) argued that this process of beginning researchers.
cooperative learning must include a number
Lastly, students are faced with a dilemma
of essential conditions to be successful in when attempting to conduct research in their
learning environments. The conditions in- own classrooms. This aspect of applying
clude: (a) a clear set of learning objectives research skills acquired in the classroom is
that are accepted by all students, (b) positive vital to "learning how to conduct research".
interdependence, (c) positive social interac- However, if a student chooses to use curtion behaviorand attitudes, and (d) individual rent classroom test data (i.e., pre and post
accountability.
test scores) as a measuring instrument, the
Portfolio assessment, self-assessment student may need to "create" post-test scores
and peer-review are forms of assessment that if the college course ends before the actual
encourage students to engage continuously post-test scores are available.
and foster a deeper approach to learning. Key
To address these issues and improve the
elements of these approaches are reflection, instructional process, I sought toexamine the
feedback, and integration of learning and as- impact of using peers in the evaluation of a
sessment (Dochy and McDowell, 1997).
partial research paper. Specifically, I wanted
to answer the following questions:
Peer Evaluation of Research Papers
1. To what extent is peer feedback meaningThere are several issues that are assoful and effective?
ciated with evaluating beginning research 2. What lessons (if any) do the peer-evalustudents. Beginning research students are not
ators learn from the activity?
only required to learn about the process of 3. To what extent does the peer evaluation
"doing" but are also at the same time applying
process result in better research papers
the process to a real classroom situation.
for student researchers and peer evaluOne issue is the wide range of research
ators?
skill that students bring to the class. A graduate education program generally require a
In this study, the students evaluated only
research class as a core course in the cur- thefirstpart oftheirclassmates research paper.
riculum and is viewed as a course which This "partial" section inluded the Introducwill provide a foundation for future research tion, Statement of the Problem, Review of
projects which students will have to complete the Literature, Statement of the Hypothesis
in their programs. While some students will and the Methods section. The term "peer
have completed a research paper or project evaluation" is defined as "a participation of
in their undergraduate programs, for most colleagues in the development and assessment
students the graduate course will likely be of activities" (Benshoff, 1988). Colleagues
their first exposure to the research process.
can helpeach other by reviewing each other's
Another issue is the number of new work, and sometimes, simply sitting and
concepts and the amount of information talking with each other about their studies is
3401 Journal of Instructional Psyctiology, Vol. 32, No. 4
meaningful. In this way, critical and supportive feedback is emphasized while evaluation
is de-emphasized.
Methodology
This project involved the use of one
graduate educational research class. The
subjects in the course were nineteen (19)
teachers who, when asked to rate their skills
at conducting research, showed a range of
scores from 3 to 10 with 6 being the median
score and 5 being the mode score (see Table
1). Most students expressed that they knew
there was much more to learn about conducting research.
Table 1
Self Report of Research Skill on a
Scale of I-JO, with 10 ^high
Number
1
?.
3
4
6
7
8
9
0
1
7
13
14
15
16
7
8
9
Median
Mode
Research Skill
6.5
4
7
7
7
6
5
5
5
5
10
5
3
4
6
45
6.5
6
5
An educational research text by Gay and
Airasian (2000) served as a guide for the instruments designed for this study. Prior to the
beginning ofthe activity, rules forcompleting
the peer evaluation forms were shared and
discussed with the class.
Each student was given forms to share
with two peers of his/her choice in the
evaluation ofthe research paper. Each student
provided a copy ofthe partial research paper
to the two self-selected classmates to review
and submit suggestions and/or comments
about the paper. Each reviewer signed the
review sheet to indicate who had reviewed the
research paper for the researcher. In this way,
the researchercouldaskforclarification from
the reviewer about suggested revisions prior
to making final revisions to the paper.
The evaluation form was divided into
sections that corresponded to the portions of
the paper that were to have been completed
at the midpoint ofthe course. Specific questions about the problem statement, review of
related literature, hypothesis and descriptions
of the participants were included on the review form. For example, a question about the
"Review of the Related Literature" section
asked the following: Is the review comprehensive? Although, the peer consultant had
not reviewed the information for the topic,
it was expected that the written information
provided by the student researcher would
be comprehensive enough for the reviewer
to understand the topic. Since each student
in the course had completed similar research
papers each reviewer was knowledgeable
about the type of information that was to be
included in each section of the paper.
A column on the evaluation form was
included for the peer reviewer to make comments relative to each question. After the
forms were returned, the student researcher
reviewed the comments and talked with each
reviewer concerning comments needing clarifications. The student researcher then composed a paragraph about the lessons learned
from the activity and rated the activity on a
5-point Likert scale (l=strongly disagree to
5=strongly agree) on four statements relative
to the activity. Lastly, a questionnaire was
developed for the peer evaluators to make
comments about the activity.
This learning activity was administered
during the mid-term examination week, approximately halfway through the semester.
At the end of the activity, each student submitted the original research paper with peer
review sheets and the student researcher form
attached. Each student also submitted the
Peer Evaluation.. 1341
questionnaire that evaluated the activity.
Findings
Meaningful Peer Feedback
To address this area, the student researchers were asked to respond to three
questions:
1. Was the feedback helpful?
2. Was the feedback constructive?
3. Was the feedback clear and understandable?
All of the student researchers agreed
that the feedback was helpful, constructive,
and clear and understandable. They felt most
strongly about the constructiveness of the
feedback (84% strongly agreed) and least
strongly about how clear and understandable
the feedback was (only 58% strongly agreed).
(See Table 2)
In addition to the above, the peer evaluators were asked if they were able to give
constructi ve feedback and whether or not they
felt that their feedback should be useful in
helping the student researcher revise his/her
paper. All of the peer evaluators responded
positively to both questions. Although 100%
of them strongly agreed that they gave constructive feedback, only 79% strongly agreed
that the student researcher should be able
to use their feedback to revise the research
paper. (See Table 3)
Based on the responses ofthe student researchers and peer reviewers, the peer evaluation activity was meaningful and effective
in this case. The student researchers found
the feedback to be constructive and clear and
therefore useful and the peer reviewers were
confident that their feedback wasconstructive
and helpful to the student researcher.
Peer Evahiator Lessons
The peer reviewers were asked if they
understood their role as evaluators and 100%
of them agreed they they did (68% strongly
agreed). However, the responses ofthe student
researchers who also served as peer reviewers
Table 2
Student Researcher Responses (N=I9)
Statement
1. This activity was helpful in my revisions for this
paper
2. The feedback from my peers was constructive
SD
D
U
A
32%
SA
68%
-
-
-
16%
84%
42%
58%
3. The feedback from my peers was clear and understandable
Table 3
Peer Evaluator Responses fN= 19)
Statement
1.1 understood my role as a peer evaluator
2.1 was able to give constructive feedback
3. My feedback should be useful for revising
the paper
SD
-
D
-
U
-
A
32%
SA
-
21%
100%
79%
68%
342/ Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 32, No. 4
were more illuminating. The comments can
be categorized into the areas of "content"
and "process". Statements about tbe content
dealt witb the research topic and the material written to support tbe stated bypotbesis.
Statements about the process dealt witb tbe
evaluation of tbe activity.
Example statements of "content" were
as follows:
• I must work barder to cover every aspect
of this paper so tbat the reader will not
wonder about any validity of my bypotbesis.
• I need to analyze and critique more studies for my paper.
• I need to define more words for tbe
reader.
• It's strange bow some things make perfect sense to you, tbe author, but aren't
quite clear to another person reading the
article.
• I'm not sure I agree with some of the
suggestions from my reviewers.
• I learned a lot about other topics, like
retention and tbe use of the Ligbtspan
program.
Example statements of "process" were as
follows:
• After I received my peer evaluations,
the evaluators suggested I change the
same tbings I was already considering
cbanging.
• It's bard to look at your own paper objectively.
• I enjoyed this more than I tbougbt I
would. I was able to see that I actually
knew what I was doing and that I was
getting my points across.
• I am learning that we are all struggling
together. I do need tbe critiques of others
because if 2 people see that something
is missing, I know it is not there.
• The job of critiquing is not easy.
• I was able to view tbe otber students'
papers from a position of critic that
increased my level of researcher adeptness.
•
From looking at and reviewing otber research papers, V ve learned a lot about tbe
process and how things should flow.
It is clear from the comments tbat tbe
students learned tbings about tbe papers as
well as about the research process. Some
students realized that clarity is extremely important but not always easy to acbieve. Some
students also found that the review process
helped them do a better job as researchers
since tbey gained a better understanding of
bow their papers would be reviewed.
Impact ofthe Peer Evaluation Activit}'
All of tbe students indicated tbat tbey
intended to use tbe feedback to revise tbeir
papers and tbat they felt that the activity
helped them become better researcbers.
Overall tbe students in tbis course felt
that peer evaluations were helpful, meaningful and effective. I noticed tbat many of tbe
students were very cautious of tbe comments
that they made on tbeir peers' papers. Many
asked me if it was all rigbt to mark on the
paper and to write certain comments. I felt
tbat these comments stemmed from their own
fear of receiving written comments on tbeir
papers. Tbey were likewise very apologetic
to their peers wben clarifying their written
comments.
Similarly, tbe students as a wbole were
still "learning the process" of conducting
research and welcomed comments from
someone otber than the instructor. They
viewed tbe peer evaluator as someone wbo
knew the process as tbey knew it. It seemed
to help to have another set of eyes to view
their work. The ensuing discussion between
the student researcher and peer evaluator
also allowed the researcher to clarify any
content that was unclear or confusing to the
peer reviewer.
The peer evaluators felt that tbis activity was belpful in helping tbem in tbe final
revisions for their papers. They felt tbat tbe
activity was a good way to evaluate tbeir
Peer Evaluation .. 1343
understanding of the information that they
had learned up to that point in the semester.
Likewise, the students felt that it allowed
them to be "facilitators" to others learning
the process of conducting research.
In general, this peer evaluation activity
proved to be very effective as another way to
evaluate student research papers. It allowed
the students to make corrections and revisions that were from their peers rather than
the instructor. It gave them an opportunity to
defend their research design and statements
that they had written. It also allowed the
instructor an opportunity to evaluate their
skills as evaluators. The student researchers
stated that the activity would make them
better researchers.
Overall, the quality of papers from this
class was significantly higher than papers
collected from previous classes. This was
particularly true of the review of literature
section. The peer evaluation activity helped
students realize that they has to include more
substantial information in this section. The
selection of information for this section was
more representative ofcurrent information in
the field and was organized in a more logical
manner than in the papers presented before
the peer evaluations were initiated.
In terms of the editing process and
whether it continued to damage their selfesteem, this peer evaluation process helped to
remove the stigma associated with the instructor editing their papers. The peer evaluation
process allowed the students to experience
the editing process by their peers as well as
perform the editing of their peer's paper. In
some strange way, it seemed to bring meaning to the value of "editing marks". As one
student commented, " I am learning that we
are all struggling together". As a researcher,
I too am struggling to learn better ways of
helping student researchers become better in
the process of "doing research".
References
Barrett, J. (1986) The evaluation of teachers.
(ERIC Digest No. 12). Washington, D.C: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Teacher Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED278657)
Benshoff, J. (1988). The effects of the
Structured Peer Supervision Model on overall
supervised counseling effectiveness ratings of
advanced counselors in training. Dissertation
Abstracts International. 49. no II A. Accession
No: AAG8902828
Boulmetis. J. and Dutwin, P. (2000). The
ABCs of evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Boyd. R. T C.( 1989). Improving teacher evaluations. (ERIC Digest No. Ill), American Institutes
for Research Washington D.C: ERIC Clearinghouse
on Tests Measurement and Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED3I5431)
Darling-Hammond, L.,Wise,A.E.,& Pease.
S. R. (1983). Teacher evaluations in an organizational context: A review of literature. Review of
Educational Reseaivh. 53(3). 285-328.
Dochy. F.J.R.C. and McDowell, L. (1997).
Assessment as a tool for learning. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 23. 279-298.
Gay, L. and Airasian, PW. (2002). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and
applications. (6'" edition) Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Keig, L. and Waggoner, M. D. ( 1993 ).
Collaborative peer review. The role of faculty in
improving college teaching. (ERIC Digest 071).
George Washington Univ. Washington DC. School
of Education and Human Development. ERIC
Clearinghouse on Higher Education (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED378924 )
Lisk, A. R. (2000). Using teams to enhance
learning in management education Retrieved
March 9, 2004, from the University of Dubuque
website : htip://cobacourses.creighton.edu/
MAM/200.\/papers/lisk.doc
Powell, R. R. (1992). Acquisition and use
of pedagogical knowledge among career-change
preservice teachers. Action in Teacher Education.
13(4). 17-24.
Saavedra, R & Kwun, S. K. (1993). Peer
evaluation in self managing work groups. Journal
of Applied Psychology. 7S(3),450 - 462.
Sapin-Piane, B. M. (1993). Mature adults
becoming teachers: Sailing towards Ithaka.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of
Massachusetts, Amherst.
344 / Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 32, No. 4
Index
Aduwa-Ogiegbaen, S.E.O. & Isah, M.S., Extent of faculty members' use of Internet in the
University ofBenin. Nigeria. 32(4). 269-76.
Ajayi, L.J., A sociocultural perspective: Language arts, vocabulary activities, and English
language learners in a second grade mixed classroom. 32(3), 180-95.
Astleitner, H., Principles of Effective Instruction: General standards for teachers and
instructional designers. 32(1), 3-8.
Augustyniak, K., Murphy, J., & Phillips, D.K., Psychological perspectives in assessing
mathematics learning needs. 32(4), 277-86.
Boon, R.T., Ayres, K, Forek, G., & Spencer, V.G. The effects of cognitive organizers to
facilitate content-area learning for students with mild disabilities: A pilot study. 32(2),
101-117.
Bums, M.K. & Dean. V.J., Effect of drill ratios on recall and on-task behavior for children
with learning and attention difficulties. 32(2), 118-26
ChanLin. LJ., Development of a questionnaire for determining the factors in technology
integration among teachers. 32(4). 287-92.
Clump, M.K., Changes to students' learning processes following instructions on the topic.
32(4), 293-7.
Corpus. J.H. & Eisbach. A.O..A live demonstration to enhance interest and understanding
in child development. 32(1). 35-43.
Diamantes, T., Open record laws and the tenure and promotion process. 32(3), 196-7.
Dykeman. B.F. Cultural implications of crisis intervention. 32(1), 45-48.
Ediger, M., Themes to emphasize in the geography curriculum. 32(2), 160-3.
Egbocbuku, E.O. & Obodo, B.O. Effects of systematic desensitization (SD) therapy on the
reduction of test anxiety among adolescents in Nigerian schools. 32(4), 298-304.
Findlay H.F., Analysis of teachers' concerns in selected Alabama schools. 32(2), 152-9
Fore. C. & Riser, S.E., Promoting maintenance and generalization tbrough cognitive
decision making training. 32(2), 127-35.
Gadzella, B.M., Stacks, J., Stephens, R.C. & Masten, W.G. Watson-Glaser Critical Tbinking
Appraisal, Form S for education majors, 32(1), 9-12.
Geiger, J.F. & Litwiller, R.M. Spatial working memory and gender differences in science.
32(0,49-57.
Germain, M.L. & Scandura, T.A., Grade inflation and student individual differences as
systematic bias in faculty evaluations. 32(1), 58-67.
Heffner, M. & Cohen, C , Evaluating student use of web-based material. 32(1), 74-81.
Iyamu, E.O.S. & Obiunu, J.J. Impact of citizenship education on the civic consciousness
of Nigerian youth. 32(4). 305-9.
Kelly, W.E., An investigation of noctcaelador and vocational interests. 32(2), 164-6.
Kranz, PL., Steele, R.A. & Lund, N.L., The Venture Studies Program at the University of
North Florida: Innovation, Experiential courses. 32(1), 17-20.
Kuhn, L., Kranz, PL., Koo, F., Cossio, G., & Lund, N., Assessment of stress in physician
assistant students. 32(2), 167-77.
Lane, R.J., Bishop, H.L.. & Wilson-Jones,L., Creating an effective strategic plan for tbe
school district. 32(3), 197-204.
Lee, D. & Kang, S., Perceived usefulness and outcomes of Intranet-Based Learning (IBL):
Developing asynchronous knowledge management systems in organizational settings.
32(1), 68-73.
Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 32 , No. 4 . . / 345
Machen, S.M.. Wilson, J.D.. & Notar, C.E., Parental involvement in the classroom. 32(1),
13-6.
McDonald, T.W.. Caso, R., & Fugit, D., Teaching and learning operant principles in animal
shelters: Perspectives from faculty, students, and shelter staff. 32(4), 310-21.
Oh, D.M., Ankers, A.M., Llamas, J.M., &Tomyoy, C , Impact of pre-service student teaching
experience on urban school teachers. 32(1), 82-98.
Pan, W. & Tang, M., Students' perceptions on factors of statistics anxiety and instructional
strategies. 32(3). 205-14
Panasuk, R.M. & Todd. J., Effectiveness of lesson planning: Factor analysis. 32(3). 21538.
Parente, D.H.. Brown, R.C, & Warner, A.G., Review sessions and results: Testing the
Capstone Business Class. 32(3), 233-43.
Payne, E.E. & Payne, J.S., A comparison of lecture ratings by native speakers of English
with EFL students at two universities. 32(3). 244-7.
Petress, K.. The role of censorship in school. 32(3). 248-52.
Pope, J. & Wilder, J., Now that I'm out in the field: Student teaching and valuing diversity.
32(4), 322-8.
Quezada, R., From student teacher to teacher: Making the second cut (Part II). 3(1), 219.
Ramirez, S.Z., Flores-Torres, L.L., Kranz, P.L. & Lund, N.L., Using Axline's Eight
Principles of Play Therapy with Mexican-American children. 32(4), 329-37.
Reese-Durham, N., Peer evaluation as a active learning technique. 32(4), 338-43.
Schoen, A. A., Culturally sensitive counseling for Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders. 32(3),
253-8.
Smith-Burton, K., Using student peer evaluations to evaluate team taught lessons. 32(2),
136-8.
Snell, J. & Marsh. M., Biochemical sociology: Correlates of aggression. 32(1), 30-4.
Swain, K.D., CBM with goal setting: Impacting students' understanding of reading goals.
32(3), 259-65.
Swars, S.L., Examining perceptions of mathematics teaching effectiveness among
elementary preservice teachers with differing levels of mathematics teaching efficacy.
32(2), 139-47.
Warren, L.L. & Holloman, H.L. Jr., On-line instruction: Are the outcomes the same? 32(2),
148-51.
Watts, S.J. & Markham, R.A.. Etiology of depression in children. 32(3), 266-70.