Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Factors That Determine the Perceived Effectiveness of Peer Feedback in Collaborative Learning: a Mixed Methods Design

  • Original research
  • Published:
Medical Science Educator Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Peer assessment has been promoted as a valuable approach to formative assessment to support learning and peer professionalism. This mixed methods study employed a conceptual framework to explore the factors that enhance the perceived effectiveness of formative peer assessment in the context of team-based learning as a form of collaborative learning.

Materials and Methods

The volume and quality of written peer comments of two medical school classes at three time points were analyzed. Focus groups were then conducted to clarify issues that appeared in the quantitative data and to explore other emerging dimensions.

Results

There was a notable deficiency in both the volume and quality of the comments provided, with no improvement over time. Several factors were identified, including some that are logistical and operational and can be corrected easily, such as the timing of the assignments. Others that stood out as major substantive issues and/or limitations related to the students’ conceptions of the purpose of the peer assessment and to their interpersonal variables.

Discussion

There were social disincentives for students to provide constructive feedback to peers with whom a continuing working relationship is necessary. There was also an inconsistency between the quality of the peer feedback being typically shallow and lacking in substance, and students considering it beneficial.

Conclusion

The findings identify factors that need to be addressed in order to ensure the quality and effectiveness of formative peer assessment among medical students.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Strijbos JW, Sluijsmans D. Unravelling peer assessment: methodological, functional, and conceptual developments. Learn Instr. 2010;20:265–9.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Nofziger AC, Naumburg EH, Davis BJ, Mooney CJ, Epstein RM. Impact of peer assessment on the professional development of medical students: a qualitative study. Acad Med. 2010;85(1):140–7.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Arnold L. Assessing professional behavior: yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Acad Med. 2002;77(6):502–15.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Prins FJ, Sluijsmans DMA, Kirschner PA, Strijbos JW. Formative peer assessment in a CSCL environment: a case study. Assess Eval High Educ. 2005;30(4):417–44.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Strijbos JW, Narciss S, Dunnebier K. Peer feedback content and sender’s competence level in academic writing revision tasks: are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learn Instr. 2010;20:291–303.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gielen S, Peeters E, Dochy F, Onghena P, Struyven K. Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learn Instr. 2010;20:304–15.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Canavan C, Holtman MC, Richmond M, Katsufrakis PJ. The quality of written comments on professional behaviors in a developmental multisource feedback program. Acad Med. 2010;85(10 Suppl):S106–9.

    Google Scholar 

  8. White JS, Sharma N. Who writes what? Using written comments in team-based assessment to better understand medical student performance: a mixed-methods study. BMC Med Educ. 2012;12:123.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Walker M. The quality of written peer feedback on undergraduates’ draft answers to an assignment, and the use made of the feedback. Assess Eval High Educ. 2014;40(2):232–47.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Ploegh K, Tillema HH, Segers MSR. In search of quality criteria in peer assessment practices. Stud Educ Eval. 2009;35:102–9.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hovardas T, Tisvitanidou OE, Zacharia ZC. Peer versus expert feedback: an investigation of the quality of peer feedback among secondary school students. Comp Educ. 2013;71:133–52.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Loureiro MJ, Pombo L, Moreira A. The quality of peer assessment in a wiki-based online context: a qualitative study. Educ Media Int. 2012;49(2):139–49.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Prins FJ, Sluijsmans DM, Kirschner PA. Feedback for general practitioners in training: quality, styles, and preferences. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2006;11(3):289–303.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Burgess A, Mellis C. Feedback and assessment for clinical placements: achieving the right balance. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2015;6:373–81.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Slavin R. Cooperative learning: theory, research and practice. Engle wood cliffs NJ: Prencice-Hall; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Parmelee D, Michaelsen LK, Cook S, Hudes PD. Team-based learning: a practical guide: AMEE guide no. 65. Med Teach. 2012;34(5):e275–87.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Nasr R, Antoun J, Sabra R, Zgheib NK. Interactive and collaborative learning in the classroom at the medical school: automated response systems and team-based learning. J Med Liban. 2016;64(4):217–22.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Levine RE. Peer evaluation in team-based learning. Team-based learning for health professions education: a guide to using small groups for improving learning. First ed. Sterling, Virginia: Stylus Publishing; 2008. p. 103–11.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cestone C, Levine RE, Lane DR. Peer assessment and evaluation in team-based learning. In: Michaelsen LK, Sweet M, Parmelee DX, editors. Team-based learning: small group learning’s next big step. Wiley InterScience; 2008. p. 69-78.

  20. Speyer R, Pilz W, Van Der Kruis J, Brunings JW. Reliability and validity of student peer assessment in medical education: a systematic review. Med Teach. 2011;33(11):e572–85.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Burgess A, McGregor D, Mellis C. Medical students as peer tutors: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:115.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Burgess AW, McGregor DM, Mellis CM. Applying established guidelines to team-based learning programs in medical schools: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2014;89(4):678–88.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Han Y, James DH, McLain RM. Relationships between student peer and faculty evaluations of clinical performance: a pilot study. J Nurs Educ Pract. 2013;3(8):170–8.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Reimschisel T, Herring AL, Huang J, Minor TJ. A systematic review of the published literature on team-based learning in health professions education. Med Teach. 2017;39(12):1227–37.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Panadero E, Romero M, Strijbos JW. The impact of a rubric and friendship on peer assessment: effects on construct validity, performance, and perceptions of fairness and comfort. Stud Educ Eval. 2013;39:195–203.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Maas MJ, Sluijsmans DM, van der Wees PJ, Heerkens YF, Nijhuis-van der Sanden MW, van der Vleuten CP. Why peer assessment helps to improve clinical performance in undergraduate physical therapy education: a mixed methods design. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:117.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Van Gennip NAE, Segers MSR, Tillema HH. Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity: the role of interpersonal variables and conceptions. Learn Instr. 2010;20:280–90.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Calhoun JG, Ten Haken JD, Woolliscroft JO. Medical students’ development of self- and peer-assessment skills: a longitudinal study. Teach Lear Med: Int J. 2009;2(1):25–9.

    Google Scholar 

  29. van Zundert M, Sluijsmans D, van Merrienboer J. Effective peer assessment processes: research findings and future directions. Learn Instr. 2010;20(4):270–9.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hamer J, Purchase HC, Denny P, Luxton-Reilly A. Quality of peer assessment in CS1. In Proceedings of the fifth international workshop on computing education research workshop. Assoc Comput Mach. 2009:27–36.

  31. Schifferdecker KE, Reed VA. Using mixed methods research in medical education: basic guidelines for researchers. Med Educ. 2009;43(7):637–44.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lavelle E, Vuk J, Barber C. Twelve tips for getting started using mixed methods in medical education research. Med Teach. 2013;35(4):272–6.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Zgheib NK, Dimassi Z, Bou AI, Badr KF, Sabra R. The long-term impact of team-based learning on medical students’ team performance scores and on their peer evaluation scores. Med Teach. 2016;38(10):1017–24.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Koles PG. Peer evaluation - examples and graded comments. 2018. https://cdn.ymaws.com/teambasedlearning.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/Docs/Peer_Eval_examples_graded_co.pdf Accessed January 2019.

  35. Michaelsen LK, Schultheiss EE. Making feedback helpful. Org Behav Teach Rev. 1988;13(1):109–13.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Vaismoradi M, Turunen H, Bondas T. Content analysis and thematic analysis: implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci. 2013;15(3):398–405.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Arnold L, Shue CK, Kritt B, Ginsburg S, Stern DT. Medical students’ views on peer assessment of professionalism. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(9):819–24.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Levine RE, Kelly PA, Karakoc T, Haidet P. Peer evaluation in a clinical clerkship: students’ attitudes, experiences, and correlations with traditional assessments. Acad Psychiatry. 2007;31(1):19–24.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Bryan RE, Krych AJ, Carmichael SW, Viggiano TR, Pawlina W. Assessing professionalism in early medical education: experience with peer evaluation and self-evaluation in the gross anatomy course. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2005;34(8):486–91.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Cottrell S, Samora JB, Shumway J. An analysis of first-year medical student comments in a peer evaluation of professionalism. Med Sci Educ. 2006;17(1):27–32.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Street SE, Hobbs MM. Face-to-face peer evaluation improved student perception of feedback in a preclinical course. Med Sci Educ. 2015;25(1):9–11.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Tayem YI, James H, Al-Khaja KA, Razzak RL, Potu BK, Sequeira RP. Medical students’ perceptions of peer assessment in a problem-based learning curriculum. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2015;15(3):e376–81.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Gukas ID, Miles S, Heylings DJ, Leinster SJ. Medical students’ perceptions of peer feedback on an anatomy student-selected study module. Med Teach. 2008;30(8):812–4.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Smith H, Cooper A, Lancaster L. Improving the quality of undergraduate peer assessment: a case for student and staff development. Innov Educ Teach Int. 2002;39(1):71–81.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Linn BS, Arostegui M, Zeppa R. Performance rating scale for peer and self assessment. Br J Med Educ. 1975;9(2):98–101.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Freidson E. Profession of medicine. New York: A study of sociology of applied knowledge; 1990.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank participants of the focus groups.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Education Unit, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

    Dayane Daou

  2. Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon

    Dayane Daou

  3. Program for Research and Innovation in Medical Education, Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Faculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut, PO. Box 11-0236, Riad El Solh, Beirut, Lebanon

    Ramzi Sabra & Nathalie K. Zgheib

Authors
  1. Dayane Daou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ramzi Sabra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nathalie K. Zgheib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ramzi Sabra or Nathalie K. Zgheib.

Ethics declarations

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the American University of Beirut under the expedited category. All focus group participants signed an IRB-approved informed consent form.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Electronic Supplementary Material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Daou, D., Sabra, R. & Zgheib, N.K. Factors That Determine the Perceived Effectiveness of Peer Feedback in Collaborative Learning: a Mixed Methods Design. Med.Sci.Educ. 30, 1145–1156 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-020-00980-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-020-00980-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation