Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

“Now you know what you’re doing right and wrong!” Peer feedback quality in synchronous peer assessment in secondary education

  • Published:
European Journal of Psychology of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study explores the effects of peer assessment (PA) practice on peer feedback (PF) quality of 11th grade secondary education students (N = 36). The PA setting was synchronous: anonymous assessors gave immediate PF using mobile response technology during 10 feedback occasions. The design was quasi-experimental (experimental vs. control condition) in which students in one condition received a scaffold to filter out relevant information they received. It was expected that this filter-out scaffold would influence PF quality in subsequent tasks in which they were assessors. PF content analysis showed that offering multiple PF occasions improved PF quality: messages contained more negative verifications and informative and suggestive elaborations after the intervention. However, no effects were found of filtering out relevant information on PF quality. Moreover, students’ perceived peer feedback skills improved which was in correspondence with their actual quality improvement over time. Additionally, the perceived usefulness of the received feedback was rated high by all participants.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C.-L. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 213–238. doi:10.3102/00346543061002213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151–167. doi:10.1080/713695728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., & Soler, R. (2015). Sustainable assessment revisited. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–14. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1018133.

  • Cheng, K.-H., Liang, J.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2015). Examining the role of feedback messages in undergraduate students’ writing performance during an online peer assessment activity. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 78–84. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.02.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Swert, K. (2012). Calculating inter-coder reliability in media content analysis using Krippendorff’s alpha. Retrieved from http://www.polcomm.org/wp-content/uploads/ICR01022012.pdf.

  • Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: the risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland. Retrieved from https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00190230/.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83, 70–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: a meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287–322. doi:10.3102/00346543070003287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2012). Peer assessment in a Wiki: product improvement, students’ learning and perception regarding peer feedback. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 585–594. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015). Structuring peer assessment: comparing the impact of the degree of structure on peer feedback content. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 315–325. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harks, B., Rakoczy, K., Hattie, J., Besser, M., & Klieme, E. (2013). The effects of feedback on achievement, interest and self-evaluation: the role of feedback’s perceived usefulness. Educational Psychology, 1–22.

  • Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 249–270). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203839089.ch13.

  • Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2010). Peer assessment as collaborative learning: a cognitive perspective. Learning and Instruction, 20, 344–348. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. doi:10.2307/2529310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, S. S. J., Liu, E. Z. F., & Yuan, S. M. (2001). Web-based peer assessment: feedback for students with various thinking-styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(4), 420–432. doi:10.1046/j.0266-4909.2001.00198.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, N.-F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11, 279–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, X., & Li, L. (2013). Assessment training effects on student assessment skills and task performance in a technology-facilitated peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(3), 1–18. doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.823540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magaña, S., & Marzano, R. J. (2014). Using polling technologies to close feedback gaps. Educational Leadership, 82–83.

  • Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merril, J. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 124–143). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). The nature of feedback: how different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37, 375–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–517. doi:10.1080/02602931003786559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122. doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.795518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panadero, E. (2016). Is it safe? Social, interpersonal, and human effects of peer assessment: a review and future directions. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Human factors and social conditions of assessment (pp. 1–39). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: a review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129–144. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panadero, E., Romero, M., & Strijbos, J. W. (2013). The impact of a rubric and friendship on peer assessment: effects on construct validity, performance, and perceptions of fairness and comfort. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(4), 195–203. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.10.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Strijbos, J. W. (2016). Scaffolding self-regulated learning through self-assessment and peer assessment: guidelines for classroom implementation. In D. Laveault & L. Allal (Eds.), Assessment for learning: meeting the challenge of implementation (pp. 311–326). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prins, F. J., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Feedback for general practitioners in training: quality, styles, and preferences. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 11(3), 289–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prins, F. J., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Kirschner, P. A., & Strijbos, J. (2010). Formative peer assessment in a CSCL environment: a case study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 417–444. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02602930500099219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reddy, Y. M., & Andrade, H. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 435–448. doi:10.1080/02602930902862859.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinholz, D. (2015a). Peer conferences in calculus: the impact of systematic training. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–17. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1077197.

  • Reinholz, D. L. (2015b). Peer-assisted reflection: a design-based intervention for improving success in calculus. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 1(2), 234–267. doi:10.1007/s40753-015-0005-y.

  • Reinholz, D. (2015c). The assessment cycle: a model for learning through peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–15. doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1008982.

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 535–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sluijsmans, D. M. A. (2002). Student involvement in assessment: the training of peer assessment skills. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Heerlen: Open University of the Netherlands.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Martens, R. L. (2004). Training teachers in peer-assessment skills: effects on performance and perceptions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41, 59–78. doi:10.1080/1470329032000172720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249. doi:10.2307/1170598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J. (2003). In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Self and peer assessment in school and university: reliability, validity and utility (pp. 55–87). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 20–27. doi:10.1080/00405840802577569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsivitanidou, O. E., & Constantinou, C. P. (2016). A study of students’ heuristics and strategy patterns in web-based reciprocal peer assessment for science learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 12–22. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.11.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsivitanidou, O. E., Zacharia, Z. C., & Hovardas, T. (2011). Investigating secondary school students’ unmediated peer assessment skills. Learning and Instruction, 21(4), 506–519. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.08.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & Van Merriënboer, J. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20, 270–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderhoven, E., Raes, A., Montrieux, H., Rotsaert, T., & Schellens, T. (2015). What if pupils can assess their peers anonymously? A quasi-experimental study. Computers & Education, 81, 123–132. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, F.-Y., & Sung, S. (2015). A mixed methods approach to the assessor’s targeting behavior during online peer assessment: effects of anonymity and underlying reasons. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–18. doi:10.1080/10494820.2015.1041405.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The first author’s research was funded by Ghent University BOF fund number BOF13/24J/115. The second author’s research was funded by the Spanish Ramón y Cajal program number RYC-2013-134069.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Educational Studies, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000, Ghent, Belgium

    Tijs Rotsaert, Tammy Schellens & Annelies Raes

  2. Departamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

    Ernesto Panadero

Authors
  1. Tijs Rotsaert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ernesto Panadero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tammy Schellens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Annelies Raes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tijs Rotsaert.

Additional information

Tijs Rotsaert. Department of Educational Studies, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences,Ghent University,Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Ghent,Belgium. E-mail: Tijs.Rotsaert@UGent.be

Current themes of research:

Peer assessment (PA). Interpersonal processes within PA. Anonymity within PA.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Vanderhoven, E., Raes, A., Montrieux, H., Rotsaert, T., & Schellens, T. (2015). What if pupils can assess their peers anonymously? A quasi-experimental study. Computers & Education, 81, 123–132. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.001.

Rotsaert, T., Raes, A., & Schellens, T. (2015). Anonymous peer assessment through mobile response technology in higher education: effects of interpersonal variables and students’ preferred type of teacher guidance. American Educational Research Association, Abstracts. Presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Conference in Chicago, USA.

Rotsaert, T., & Schellens, T. (2015). The interpersonal nature of interactions in peer assessment: focus on anonymity and students’ personality. Presented at the biannual conference of the European Association for Research on Learning & Instruction (EARLI) in Limassol, Cyprus.

Ernesto Panadero. Departamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación,Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid,Spain.

Current themes of research:

Formative assessment (self-assessment and PA). Rubrics. Collaborative learning and socially shared regulated learning. Self-regulated learning.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Panadero, E., & Brown, G. T. L. (2016). Teachers’ reasons for using peer assessment: positive experience predicts use. European Journal of Psychology of Education. doi:10.1007/s10212-015-0282-5.

Panadero, E. (2016). Is it safe? Social, interpersonal, and human effects of peer assessment: a review and future directions. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Human factors and social conditions of assessment. New York: Routledge.

Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Strijbos, J. W. (2016). Scaffolding self-regulated learning through self-assessment and peer assessment: guidelines for classroom implementation. In D. Laveault & L. Allal (Eds.), Assessment for learning: meeting the challenge of implementation.

Panadero, E. & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: a review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129–144.

Panadero, E., Romero, M. & Strijbos, J. W. (2013). The impact of a rubric and friendship on construct validity of peer assessment, perceived fairness and comfort, and performance. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(4), 195–203.

Tammy Schellens. Department of Educational Studies, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences,Ghent University,Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000Ghent,Belgium.

Current themes of research:

Peer assessment (PA). Computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL).

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Vanderhoven, E., Raes, A., Montrieux, H., Rotsaert, T., & Schellens, T. (2015). What if pupils can assess their peers anonymously? A quasi-experimental study. Computers & Education, 81, 123–132. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.001.

Rotsaert, T., Raes, A., & Schellens, T. (2015). Anonymous peer assessment through mobile response technology in higher education: effects of interpersonal variables and students’ preferred type of teacher guidance. American Educational Research Association, Abstracts. Presented at the American Educational Research Association (AERA) Conference in Chicago, USA.

Rotsaert, T., & Schellens, T. (2015). The interpersonal nature of interactions in peer assessment: focus on anonymity and students’ personality. Presented at the biannual conference of the European Association for Research on Learning & Instruction (EARLI) in Limassol, Cyprus.

Annelies Raes. Department of Educational Studies, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences,Ghent University,Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000Ghent,Belgium.

Current themes of research:

Peer assessment (PA). Computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL).

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Raes, A., Vanderhoven, E., & Schellens, T. (2013). Increasing anonymity in peer assessment by using classroom response technology within face-to-face higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 40(1), doi:10.1080/03075079.2013.823930.

Vanderhoven, E., Raes, A., Montrieux, H., Rotsaert, T., & Schellens, T. (2015). What if pupils can assess their peers anonymously? A quasi-experimental study. Computers & Education, 81, 123–132. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.001.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Table 6 Evaluation criteria used during semester I
Full size table

Table 7

Table 7 Evaluation criteria used during semester II
Full size table

Appendix 2

figure afigure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rotsaert, T., Panadero, E., Schellens, T. et al. “Now you know what you’re doing right and wrong!” Peer feedback quality in synchronous peer assessment in secondary education. Eur J Psychol Educ 33, 255–275 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-017-0329-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-017-0329-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation