Publications | Student Peer Review

This page contains details of many of the academic publications on peer review, grouped into categories. If you know of other papers that you think should be listed here, please contact us.

Project team publications

Mulder, R.A., Baik, C., Naylor, R. & Pearce, J. (2014). How does student peer review influence perceptions, engagement and academic outcomes? A case study. Journal of Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. Vol. 39, No. 6, 657-677.
This is a report on research investigating how assessment outcomes related to student perceptions and the content of peer reviews. The case study relates to a third-year undergraduate subject.

Mulder, R.A., Pearce, J. & Baik, C. (2014). Peer review in higher education: student perceptions before and after participation. Journal of Active Learning in Higher Education, 1-15.
Relatively little is known about how student perceptions influence their appreciation of peer review. Here we examined university student perceptions before and after experiencing student peer review in four university subjects differing in discipline, year level and class size.

Mulder, R.A., Baik, C., Naylor, R. & Pearce, J.M. (2013). How does student peer review influence perceptions, engagement and academic outcomes? A case study. Symposium on the use of peers in psychology education. Geelong, Australia.

Pearce, J.M., Livett, M., Mulder, R., Baik, C., Naylor, R. (2013). Peer review as a learning tool. Australian Conference on Science and Mathematics Education. Canberra, Australia.
This poster overviewed the use of peer review in a first year Physics subject and a third year Zoology subject. In both cases the focus was on the content learning outcomes from the process. More details on the Zoology study can be found in the “Peer review in higher education…” paper above.

Mulder, R., Baik, C., Naylor, R., Pearce, J. (2013). Student peer review in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australia Conference. Auckland, New Zealand.

Pearce, J., Mulder, R.A. & Baik, C. (2009). Involving students in peer review: case studies and practical strategies for university teaching. Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne.
This guide provides an introduction to peer review; a concise review of the literatures; detailed case studies; the use of online tools; and key considerations in implementing peer review.

Mulder, R.A. & Pearce, J.M. (2007). PRAZE: innovating teaching through online peer review. ICT: Providing choices for learners and learning. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, pp. 727-736. Singapore.
This paper describes the development of the online peer review tool PRAZE, and discusses the issues associated with implementing online peer review.

Top

Reliability & validity of peer review

Cho, K., Schunn, C.D. & Wilson, R.W. (2006) Validity and reliability of scaffolded peer assessment of writing from instructor and student perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 891-901.
This paper examines the validity and reliability of peer-generated grades. Results suggest that combined ratings of four peers on a piece of writing are highly reliable, and as valid as instructor ratings.

Cho, K. & Schunn, C.D. (2007). Student learning and reflection through peer reviews. Issues in Educational Research 23: 119-131.
This study focuses on the effects of giving feedback and whether students writing is improved through student peer review.

Cho, K. & Schunn, C.D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: a web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers and Education 48: 409-426.
This study focuses on the effects of giving feedback and whether students writing is improved through student peer review.

Hounsell, D., McCune, V., Hounsell, J. & Litjens, J. (2008) The quality of guidance and feedback to students. Higher Education Research & Development, 27, 55-67.
This paper describes a six-step framework for the peer review process that was developed based on student experiences of guidance and feedback gained through the use of questionnaires and interviews.

Hu, G. & Lam, S.T.E. (2010) Issues of cultural appropriateness and pedagogical efficacy: Exploring peer review in a second language writing class. Instructional Science, 38, 371-394.
This study investigated the effectiveness of using peer review in a second language writing class, including a literature review of research into this area.

Li, L. (2011) How do students of diverse achievement levels benefit from peer assessment? International Journal for the Scholarship of Learning & Teaching, 5, 1-16.
This study investigated how peer review benefits students at various achievement levels, and found that while all students show an increase in work quality, this difference was more pronounced for those students in early learning development stages. High-achieving students appeared to benefit from writing reviews and deepening their understanding of subject content, and students across the achievement levels generally showed positive responses to the exercise.

Li, L., Lui, X. & Steckelberg, A. (2010) Assessor or assessee: how student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41, 525-536.
This study provides empirical data on the how the roles of assessor and assessee impact student learning and results suggest that there is a significant relationship between the quality of feedback students provide and the quality of their own final product.

Liang, J.-C. & Tsai, C.-C. (2010) Learning through science writing via online peer assessment in a college biology course. The Internet and Higher Education, 13, 242-247.
In this paper, Lian and Tsai examine how undergraduate biology students’ writing improved with the use of peer assessment. Peer and expert reviewers evaluated and scored each assignment, and results indicate that peer assessment is of equal value to expert assessment. Student writing was significantly improved over the course of the peer assessment activity.

Lundstrom, K. & Baker, W. (2009) To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30-43.
This study compared the benefits of peer review to the reviewer to the student giving feedback, showing that more benefits were seen to student writing when the focus was on reviewing student work.

Mei, T. & Yuan, Q. (2010). A case study of peer feedback in a Chinese EFL writing classroom. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33, 87-98.
This paper explored how much peer feedback is incorporated and whether revisions lead to improvement in student work. Results suggested that students incorporated a significant amount of feedback leading to substantially improved revised drafts.

Moore, C. & Teather, S. (2013) Engaging students in peer review: Feedback as learning. In Design, develop, evaluate: the core of the learning environment. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 7-8 February 2013. Perth: Murdoch University.
A study describing a positive change in student perceptions of peer review before and after involvement, including student comments. This paper also includes recommendations for effective engagement of students in peer review.

Patchan, M., Schunn, C. & Clark, R. (2011) Writing in the natural sciences: understanding the effects of different types of reviewers on the writing process. Journal of Writing Research, 2, 365-393.
This paper compares how aspects of the writing process are affected when undergraduate students write papers to be evaluated by peers versus teaching staff. Results suggest that the quality of student drafts were greater when writing for peers; student reviewer comments were more detailed; and students made more revisions if they received feedback from peers.

Paulus, T.M. (1999) The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265-289.
This study examined the effect of feedback in an English as a Second Language classroom, and found that changes made as a result of teacher and peer feedback were more substantial than those students made on their own.

Pope, N. (2001) An Examination of the Use of Peer Rating for Formative Assessment in the Context of the Theory of Consumption Values. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, 235-246.
This paper examines the use of peer assessment in the context of consumption values, and concludes that peer assessment can lead to improved student motivation and learning but can also be stressful for students.

Topping, K. (1998) Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249-276.
This research investigated the effect of student peer review on writing and showed that there is a positive effect on student achievement and attitudes that are equivalent or better than the effects of teacher assessment.

Topping, K.J., Smith, E.F., Swanson, I. & Elliot, A. (2000) Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25, 149-169.
This study explored the reliability and validity of formative peer review, and found that staff and peer assessors showed a similar balance between positive and negative comments, and there was little conflict between their views.

Top

Approaches to implementing peer review

Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K. & Mylonas, A. (2002) Developing procedures for implementing peer assessment in large classes using an Action Research Process. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 427-441.
This paper gives special attention to considerations for implementing peer review in large classes, and recommendations are made for effective use peer review with large student groups.

Boase-Jelinek, D., Parker, J. & Herrington, J. (2013). Peer reviews: What can we learn from our students? In Design, develop, evaluate: The core of the learning environment . Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 7-8 February 2013. Perth: Murdoch University.
The paper describes the implementation of non-anonymised peer review in a first year Bachelor of Education unit. The paper contains some interesting student comments and suggestions for the use of peer review.

Boase-Jelinek, D., Parker, J. & Herrington, J. (2013). Student reflection and learning through peer reviews. Issues in Educational Research. 23(2): 119-131.
The paper describes the implementation of non-anonymised peer review in a first year Bachelor of Education unit, and considers what is required for its successful implementation.

Cho, K. & MacArthur, C. (2010) Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20, 328-338.
This study investigated how the reviewer arrangement (single expert; single peer; multiple peers) affects the improvement made to students’ work, and found that multiple reviewers resulted in the greatest work improvement. The paper includes an interesting discussion on the differences between the way experts and students approach reviewing.

Gehringer, E.F. (2001) Electronic peer review and peer grading in computer-science courses. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, pp. 139-143. ACM.
This paper describes one of the first projects that used the web for the entire peer review process, through the software Peer Grader, and includes suggestions for ways that peer review can be incorporated into the curriculum.

Gielen, S., Dochy, F. & Onghena, P. (2011) An inventory of peer assessment diversity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 137-155.
In this paper, Gielen and colleagues present an inventory of peer assessment components that has been revised and updated from Topping (1998). The resulting inventory can function as a checklist, guidline or framework for instructors and academics using peer review.

Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P. & Struyven, K. (2010) Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20, 304-315.
A review of various techniques for improving the effectiveness of peer feedback. Details an experiment investigating the characteristics of feedback that affect performance and accuracy.

Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onghena, P. & Smeets, S. (2010) A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback and of various feedback forms in a secondary school writing curriculum. British Educational Research Journal
In this study, Gielen et al. compare secondary student performance before and after experiencing different forms of peer feedback. Results of the study suggest that the most improvement comes when authors indicating their needs for feedback (i.e. what parts of the assignment they are seeking feedback on) rather than simply submitting the assignments for review.

Hansen, J.G. & Liu, J. (2005) Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal: English Language Teachers Journal, 59, 31-38.
A list of guiding principles for teacher planning and student training that are essential for implementing effective peer review, divided into “before”, “during” and “after” the peer review process.

Howard, C., Barrett, A. & Frick, T. (2010) Anonymity to promote peer feedback: pre-service teachers’ comments in asynchronous computer-mediated communication. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43, 89-112.
Howard and colleagues examine how anonymity of reviewers affects the quality and quantity of feedback provided to authors. Results suggest that anonymous students were much more likely to provide critical feedback than those whose identities were known, and were more likely to provide reasons for needed inmprovement and suggest improvements.

Kao, G.Y.-M. (2013) Enhancing the quality of peer review by reducing student “free riding”: Peer assessment with positive interdependence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44, 112-124.
This paper discusses the idea of including a “Peer Assessor Score” in the process of peer review to overcome potential problems of carelessness and favouritism.

Magin, D. (2001) Reciprocity as a source of bias in multiple peer assessment of group work. Studies in Higher Education, 26, 53-63.
This paper discusses the potential for social interactions and friendships to bias peer assessment in non-anonymised systems. However, the results of the study shows this effect accounted for only 1% of the variance in peer scores.

Mostert, M. & Snowball, J. (2012) Where angels fear to tread: online peer-assessment in a large first-year class. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, available online.
This paper explores the use of an online tool (Moodle Workshop) to faciliate peer review of students’ individual work in a large (>800 students) first-year undergraduate class. Students showed mixed responses to the process and the paper includes an interesting selection of student comments.

Nulty, D. (2010) Peer and self-assessment in the first year of university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 493-507.
In this paper, Nulty reviews the literature regarding the use of peer and self-assessment in first year university courses. He concludes that the benefits of incorporating peer and self-assessment early in university courses outweigh the impediments and arguments against doing so.

Papadopoulos, P.M., Lagkas, T.D. & Demetriadis, S.N. (2012) How to improve the peer review method: Free-selection vs assigned-pair protocol evaluated in a computer networking course. Computers & Education, 59, 182-195.
An investigation of a “free-selection” peer review design, where students were free to read and select assignments to review, rather than be allocated assignments. Contains a good overview of the peer review process and associated learning benefits at each stage.

Rubin, R. (2006). The academic journal review process as a framework for student developmental peer feedback. Journal of Management Education, 30(2), 378-398.
This paper gives a detailed example of a peer review system including background, implementation, student reactions and potential costs and benefits of adopting the method.

Sluijsmans, D. (2002) Establishing learning effects with integrated peer assessment tasks. The Higher Education Academy, Available from: http://78.158.56.101/archive/palatine/files/930.pdf.
This paper provides a framework which can be used to integrate peer assessment activities into higher education courses.

Topping, K. (2010) Methodological quandries in studying process and outcomes in peer assessment. Learning and Instruction, 20, 339-343.
This commentary discusses five recent papers on peer assessment and draws several overarching conclusions, as well as generating a list of variables and recommendations for further research.

van den Berg, I., Admiraal, W. & Pilot, A. (2006) Design principles and outcomes of peer assessment in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 341-356.
This paper compares several different peer review designs which were tested and evaluated with respect to learning outcomes. This information was then used to identify several features that are key to the design of effective peer review systems.

van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D. & van Merrienboer, J. (2010) Effective peer assessment processes: research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20, 270-279.
This review of peer assessment literature reveals four main conclusions: (1) Training and practice improve the reliability and validity of peer assessment; (2) Development of domain-specific skills benefits from peer assessment based revision; (3) Training aids the development of peer assessment skills and is realted to students’ thinking style and academic achievement level; (4) Training and experience improves student attitudes towards peer assessment.

Xiao, Y. & Lucking, R. (2008) The impact of two types of peer assessment on students’ performance and satisfaction within a Wiki environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 11, 186-193.
This paper compares two methods of peer assessment – ‘rating-plus-qualitative-feedback’ and ‘rating-only’. The students who received feedback in addition to a rating showed a greater improvement in writing and higher levels of satisfaction. Furthermore, the majority of students were actively involved and felt they benefited from being both an assessor and assessee.

Top

Student perceptions

Brindley, C. & Scoffield, S. (1998) Peer assessment in undergraduate programmes. Teaching in Higher Education, 3, 79-90.
In this paper, Brindley & Scoffield describe the positive and negative responses of students exposed to peer assessment. Some students felt the process motivated them to engage with the assessment process, while others felt that assessment should be entirely the tutor’s responsibility.

Cartney, P. (2010) Exploring the use of peer assessment as a vehicle for closing the gap between feedback given and feedback used. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 551-564.
Cartney describes the use of formative peer assessment to attempt to close the gap between feedback given and feedback used. Interviews with students revealed there were high levels of student anxiety about writing and receiving reviews, although this appeared to improve when students were able to identify potential benefits from engaging in the process.

Cheng, W. & Warren, M. (1997) Having second thoughts: Student perceptions before and after a peer assessment exercise. Studies in Higher Education, 22, 233-239.
This paper describes student attitudes to peer assessment before and after involvement, and focuses on discussing the negative responses and the reasons behind them.

Hanrahan, S.J. & Isaacs, G. (2001) Assessing self- and peer-assessment: the students’ views. Higher Education Research & Development, 20, 53-70.
This paper focuses on summative assessment and describes the views of a large group of students who had experienced self- and peer assessment.

Kaufman, J. & Schunn, C. (2011) Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: their origin and impact on revision work. Instructional Science, 39, 387-406.
A discussion of students’ negative perceptions of summative peer assessment and what factors influence these negative perceptions.

Vickerman, P. (2009) Student perspectives on formative peer assessment: an attempt to deepen learning? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34, 221-230.
This paper describes the perceptions and experiences of undergraduate students about formative peer review, and includes recommendations to maximise the benefit gained.

Yang, Y.-F. (2010) Students’ reflection on online self-correction and peer review to improve writing. Computers & Education, 55, 1202-1210.
This study describes student reflections on the use of self-correction and peer review through a reflective journal task.

Top

Related general literature

Australian Council of Educational Research (2010). Australasia Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE) report. Melbourne: ACER.
This ACER Australasian Survey of Student Engagement (AUSSE) provides information on the time and effort students devote to educationally purposeful activities and on students’ perceptions of the quality of other aspects of their university experience.

Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2007) Teaching for quality learning at university, 3rd edition. Open University Press, Berkshire.
This book provides an introduction to university teaching, giveing practical advice to academics who want to improve their students’ learning.

Boud, D. (1990) Assessment and the promotion of academic values. Studies in Higher Education, 15, 101-111.
This paper discusses the relationship between student assessment and the values that universities propagate.

Boud, D. (2000) Sustainable assessment: rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22, 151-167.
In this paper Boud introduces sustainable assessment through a discussion of research on effective formative assessment and its benefits for students.

Dochy, F., Segers, M. & Sluijsmans, D. (1999) The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: a review. Studies in Higher Education, 24, 331-350.
A review of the use of self- and peer assessment, including guidelines for educational practitioners.

Falchikov, N. (2005) Improving assessment through student involvement: Practical solutions for aiding learning. RoutledgeFalmer, London.
This book offers a guide to involving students in assessment and includes chapters on self, peer collaborative and group assessment and feedback.

Fallows, S. & Chandramohan, B. (2001) Multiple approaches to assessment: reflections on use of tutor, peer and self-assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 6, 229-246.
This paper discusses the experiences of two academics with the introduction of both self and peer assessment into a literature module at a new UK university.

Gielen, S., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., Struyven, K. & Smeets, S. (2011) Goals of peer assessment and their associated quality concepts. Studies in Higher Education, 36, 719-735.
This paper discusses five different goals of peer assessment and the quality criteria that can be used to evaluate each goal. The five goals of peer assessment are: (1) Assessment tool; (2) Learning tool; (3) Learning-how-to-assess tool; (4) Social control tool; and (5) Active participation tool.

Hamer, J., Luxton-Reilly, A., Purchase, H. C., & Sheard, J. (2011) Tools for “contributing student learning”. ACM Inroads, 2, 78-91.
This paper examines the various tools that are currently available to support collaborative student learning, and categorises them according to their form and use.

Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007) The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81-112.
A discussion of feedback including the particular properties and circumstances that make it effective.

Krause, K.-L., Hartley, R., James, R. & McInnis, C. (2005) The first year experience in Australian universities: Findings from a decade of national studies. Centre for the Study of Higher Education, University of Melbourne, Melbourne.
A national study on the experience of first-year students in Australian universities showing that lack of feedback is an area of concern.

Liu, N.-F. & Carless, D. (2006) Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11, 279-290.
This paper emphasizes the importance of feedback in enhancing student learning, rather than simple peer assessment using grades, and recommends strategies for promoting peer feedback.

Nicol, D.J. & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31, 199-218.
This paper explores research on formative assessment and feedback to show how these processes can help students take control of their own learning.

Price, M. & O’Donovan, B. (2003) Improving students’ learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 28, 147-164.
This paper reports the findings of a research project focused on developing students’ understanding of assessment criteria and the assessment process.

Ramsden, P. (2003) Learning to teach in higher education. RoutledgeFalmer, New York.
This book offers an introduction to the practice of university teaching and its underlying theory.

Rust, C., Price, M. & O’Donovan, B. (2003) Improving students’ learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 147-164.
This study discusses the importance of improving student understanding of assessment and how this can lead to better student performance.

Shute, V.J. (2008) Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153-189.
A review of formative feedback and a discussion of the issues that can interact with feedback and affect the goal of supporting learning.

Somervell, H. (1993) Issues in assessment, enterprise and higher education: The case for self-, peer and collaborative assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 18, 221-233.
This paper highlights a need to change the assessment structure in higher education and move towards a system where the student is more involved.

Top