Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Impacts of Dialogic Interaction to Engage Students in Peer Assessment

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The beneficial impacts of peer assessment to improve students’ writing have been frequently reported. While students’ engagement in the peer assessment process has been highlighted as a critical factor to enhance learning, few studies reported how to engage students. Although students’ interaction has been advocated to let students participate in learning, it was found that previous studies of peer assessment only provided very limited opportunities for students to directly interact with each other. In this case study, 153 pre-service teachers were engaged in a group-based online reciprocal peer assessment learning activity to improve their academic writing skills. A core component of dialogic interaction was purposively implemented to foster engagement in the peer assessment process. Results suggest that while the students considered the process quite complicated and they needed more peer assessment training, they were seriously engaged in the process. The quality of students’ writing was also found to have improved. The students appreciated the dialogic interactive feature of peer assessment to enhance their learning and they were satisfied with the instructional methods. This study highlights the importance of using dialogic interaction to improve students’ engagement.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alt, D., & Raichel, N. (2020). Higher education students’ perceptions of and attitudes towards peer assessment in multicultural classrooms. Asian-Pacific Education Researcher, 29(6), 567–580.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aryadoust, V. (2016). Gender and academic major bias in peer assessment of oral presentations. Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(1), 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, K. M. (2016). Peer review as a strategy for improving students’ writing process. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(3), 179–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various χ2 approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 16(2), 296–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biango-Daniels, M., & Sarvary, M. (2020). A challenge in teaching scientific communication: Academic experience does not improve undergraduates’ ability to assess their or their peers’ writing. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(5), 809–820. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1812512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bong, J., & Park, M. S. (2020). Peer assessment of contributions and learning processes in group projects: An analysis of information technology undergraduate students’ performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(8), 1155–1168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bretz, R., & Schmidbauer, M. (1983). Media for interactive communication. SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carless, D. (2011). From testing to productive student learning: Implementing formative assessment in Confucian-heritage settings. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carless, D. (2020). From teacher transmission of information to student feedback literacy: Activating the learner role in feedback processes. Active Learning in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787420945845

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(5), 551–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C.-H. (2010). The implementation and evaluation of a mobile self- and peer-assessment system. Computers & Education, 55(1), 229–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, K.-H., Hou, H.-T., & Wu, S.-Y. (2014). Exploring students’ emotional responses and participation in an online peer assessment activity: A case study. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(3), 271–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (1997). Having second thoughts: Student perceptions before and after a peer assessment exercise. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 233–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cua, A. S. (1998). Moral vision and tradition: Essays in Chinese ethics. Catholic University of America Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, P. (2006). Peer assessment: Judging the quality of students’ work by comments rather than marks. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 43(1), 69–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, I. N., Saab, N., & Admiraal, W. (2021). Online peer feedback on video presentations: Type of feedback and improvement of presentation skills. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1904826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donia, M. B., Mach, M., O’Neill, T. A., & Brutus, S. (2021). Student satisfaction with use of an online peer feedback system. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2021.1912286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espasa, A., Mayordomo, R. M., Guasch, T., & Martinez-Melo, M. (2019). Does the type of feedback channel used in online learning environments matter? Students’ perceptions and impact on learning. Active Learning in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787419891307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falchikov, N. (1986). Product comparisons and process benefits of collaborative peer group and self assessments. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 11(2), 146–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falchikov, N., & Magin, D. (1997). Detecting gender bias in peer marking of students’ group process work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 22(4), 385–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez-Toro, M., & Duensing, A. (2020). Repositioning peer marking for feedback literacy in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1863911

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. Mc Graw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaynor, W. J. (2020). Peer review in the classroom: Student perceptions, peer feedback quality and the role of assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(5), 758–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 304–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, G. L., Roswell, B. S., & Hillary, M. (1995). Can assessment mirror instruction? A look at peer response and revision in a large-scale writing test. Educational Assessment, 3(4), 287–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, Y., & Xu, Y. (2020). The development of student feedback literacy: The influences of teacher feedback on peer feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(5), 680–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heerden, M. V., & Bharuthram, S. (2021). Knowing me, knowing you: The effects of peer familiarity on receiving peer feedback for undergraduate student writers. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1863910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, J., & West, H. (2020). Improving the student learning experience through dialogic feed-forward assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(1), 82–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1608908

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huisman, B., Saab, N., Broek, P. V., & Driel, J. V. (2019). The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: a Meta-Analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 863–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M., & Ryu, J. (2013). The development and implementation of a web-based formative peer assessment system for enhancing students’ metacognitive awareness and performance in ill-structured tasks. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61, 549–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2010). Peer assessment as collaborative learning: A cognitive perspective. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 344–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Law, S., & Baer, A. (2020). Using technology and structured peer reviews to enhance students’ writing. Active Learning in Higher Education, 21(1), 23–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leahy, S., Lyon, C., Thompson, M., & Wiliam, D. (2005). Classroom assessment: Minute by minute, day by day. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 19–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, L. (2017). The role of anonymity in peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(4), 645–656.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A. L. (2010). Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 525–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y. Z. (1997). The structure of the Chinese ethical archetype: The archetype of Chinese ethics and academic ideology: A hermeneutico-semiotic study. Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, S. J., Liu, E. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, L. A., Elliott, M. N., Haas, A., Hays, R. D., & Weinick, R. M. (2016). Less use of extreme response options by Asians to standardized care scenarios may explain some racial/ethnic differences in CAHPS scores. Medical Care, 54(1), 38–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercader, C., Ion, G., & Diaz-Vicario, A. (2020). Factors influencing students’ peer feedback uptake: Instructional design matters. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(8), 1169–1180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naghdipour, B., & Koc, S. (2015). The evaluation of a teaching intervention in Iranian EFL writing. Asian-Pacific Education Researcher, 24(2), 389–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, W. S. (2016). Enhancing the quality of educational website design through assessment for learning strategies. In G. Sreedhar (Ed.), Design solutions for improving website quality and effectiveness (pp. 24–51). Information Science Reference.

    Chapter  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noroozi, O., Hatami, J., Bayat, A., Ginkel, S. V., Biemans, H. J., & Mulder, M. (2020). Students’ online argumentative peer feedback, essay writing, and content learning: does gender matter? Interactive Learning Environments, 28(6), 698–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Shea, P. M., Baker, P. B., & Allen, D. W. (2007). New levels of student participatory learning: A wikitext for the introductory course in education. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 6(3), 227–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedler, M., Yeigh, T., & Hudson, S. (2020). The teachers’ role in student engagement: A review. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 45(3), 48–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rust, C. (2007). Towards a scholarship of assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 229–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 89–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sebba, J., Crick, R. D., Yu, G., Lawson, H., Harlen, W., & Durant, K. (2008). Systematic review of research evidence of the impact on students in secondary schools of self and peer assessment. Social Science Research Unit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, A., Choudhury, M., Althoff, T., & Sharma, A. (2020). Engagement patterns of peer-to-peer interactions on mental health platforms. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.04999.pdf

  • Simpson, A. (2016). Designing pedagogic strategies for dialogic learning in higher education. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(2), 135–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D., Campbell, J., & Brooker, R. (1999). The impact of students’ approaches to essay writing on the quality of their essays. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(3), 327–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stancic, M. (2020). Peer assessment as a learning and self-assessment tool: A look inside the black box. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(6), 852–864. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1828267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stenalt, M. H. (2021). Researching student agency in digital education as if the social aspects matter: Students’ experience of participatory dimensions of online peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(4), 644–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swan, K. (2001). Build learning communities in online courses: The important of interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 23–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 20–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 146–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tseng, S.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2007). On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school computer course. Computer & Education, 49(4), 1161–1174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venables, A., & Summit, R. (2003). Enhancing scientific essay writing using peer assesment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(3), 281–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wever, B. D., Keer, H. V., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2011). Assessing collaboration in a wiki: The reliability of university students’ peer assessment. Internet and Higher Education, 14(4), 201–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xiao, Y., & Lucking, R. (2008). The impact of two types of peer assessment on students’ performance and satisfaction within a wiki environment. Internet and Higher Education, 11(3), 186–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yao, Y., Guo, N. S., Li, C., & McCampbell, D. (2021). How university EFL writers’ beliefs in writing ability impact their perceptions of peer assessment: Perspectives from implicit theories of intelligence. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(1), 151–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, S. (2021). Giving genre-based peer feedback in academic writing: Sources of knowledge and skills, difficulties and challenges. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(1), 36–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhan, Y. (2021). What matters in design? Cultivating undergraduates’ critical thinking through online peer assessment in a Confucian heritage context. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(4), 615–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, F., Schunn, C., Li, W., & Long, M. (2020). Changes in the reliability and validity of peer assessment across the college years. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(8), 1073–1087.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, J., Zheng, Y., & Tai, J.H.-M. (2020). Grudges and gratitude: The social-affective impacts of peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(3), 345–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zong, Z., Schunn, C. D., & Wang, Y. (2020). Learning to improve the quality peer feedback through experience with peer feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(6), 973–992. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1833179

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Science and Technology, Hong Kong Metropolitan University, Kowloon, Hong Kong

    Wing Shui Ng

  2. School of Education, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

    Guoxing Yu

Authors
  1. Wing Shui Ng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Guoxing Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wing Shui Ng.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ng, W.S., Yu, G. The Impacts of Dialogic Interaction to Engage Students in Peer Assessment. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 32, 53–64 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00633-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021-00633-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation