Peer Review from Teachers’ Perspective
Peer review, a well-known method for quality assurance in science, is now being used as a teaching method in universities. In this work, we present an analysis of five different teaching scenarios that use peer review as the main method. All scenarios use the same technical setting within different courses in e-business education and include approximately 600 participants. Qualitative and quantitative data from over 300 students were collected and analyzed. When used for more laborious, elaborate, complex, and cognitively ambitious assignments, similar to writing academic papers, peer review tends to be less liked by inexperienced students. For well-structured, less time-consuming tasks such as management process modeling exercise, peer review is better accepted and higher rated even in settings with much larger groups. Further analysis of more than 30 criteria such as lead time, support expense, tutoring suitability, conflict potential, dimension of cognitive processes, meeting professional standards, self-motivation, and social interaction could show how the five different peer review scenarios lead to either better or less efficient learning performances.
KeywordsPeer review Peer assessment Learning scenarios Educational method Scientific learning Self-directed learning Higher education
- 1.Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
- 2.Gehringer, E., Ehresman, L., Conger, S. G., & Wagle, P. (2007). Reusable learning objects through peer review: The Expertiza approach. Innovate—Journal of Online Education, 3, 6.Google Scholar
- 3.Katzlinger, E., & Herzog, M. A. (2014). Didactic support of diversity of learning styles? Potential analysis of three collaborative learning methods within e-business education. In E. P. W. H. Rynson, Lau, P. K. H. Leung, M. Laanpere (Eds.), Advances in web-based learning–ICWL 2014, Proceedings on 13th International Conference Tallinn, Estonia, August 14–17, 2014 (pp. 239–244).Google Scholar
- 4.Katzlinger, E., & Herzog, M. A. (2014). Peer-review from learners’ perspective. in new horizons in web based learning (pp. 72–81). Berlin: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
- 6.Rifkin, J. (2014). The zero marginal cost society: The Internet of things, the collaborative commons, and the eclipse of capitalism. Macmillan.Google Scholar
- 7.Sharples, M., McAndrew, P., Weller, M., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Hirst, T., & Whitelock, D. (2012). Innovating pedagogy 2012: Exploring new forms of teaching, learning and assessment, to guide educators and policy makers. Milton Keynes: The Open University.Google Scholar
- 8.Turner, S., & Perez-Quinones, M. A. (2009). Exploring peer review in the computer science classroom. arXiv preprint arXiv:0907.3456.Google Scholar
- 10.Weber-Wulff, D., Class, C., Coy, W., Kurz, C., & Zellhöfer, D. (2009). Gewissensbisse. Ethische Probleme der Informatik. Biometrie – Datenschutz – geistiges Eigentum. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag. http://gewissensbits.gi.de/. [07 March, 2015].