European Journal of Psychology of Education

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 255–275 | Cite as

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

  • Tijs RotsaertEmail author
  • Ernesto Panadero
  • Tammy Schellens
  • Annelies Raes


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.


Peer feedback Peer assessment Assessment scaffolds Practice effect 



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.


  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151–167. doi: 10.1080/713695728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boud, D., & Soler, R. (2015). Sustainable assessment revisited. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–14. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1018133.
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Swert, K. (2012). Calculating inter-coder reliability in media content analysis using Krippendorff’s alpha. Retrieved from
  6. Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: the risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland. Retrieved from Scholar
  7. Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational Research, 83, 70–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. 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.
  13. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112. doi: 10.3102/003465430298487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. doi: 10.2307/2529310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liu, N.-F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11, 279–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Magaña, S., & Marzano, R. J. (2014). Using polling technologies to close feedback gaps. Educational Leadership, 82–83.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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 10.1080/02602930500099219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.
  32. 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.
  33. 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.
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 535–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249. doi: 10.2307/1170598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 20–27. doi: 10.1080/00405840802577569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & Van Merriënboer, J. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20, 270–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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.

Copyright information

© Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisboa, Portugal and Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Studies, Faculty of Psychology and Educational SciencesGhent UniversityGhentBelgium
  2. 2.Departamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la EducaciónUniversidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations