Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:10:38.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

18 - Providing Formative Peer Feedback

What Do We Know?

from Part III - Contexts and Sources of Feedback

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2018

By
Ernesto Panadero ,
Anders Jonsson  and
Maryam Alqassab
Edited by
Anastasiya A. Lipnevich  and
Jeffrey K. Smith
Anastasiya A. Lipnevich
Affiliation:
Queens College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York
Jeffrey K. Smith
Affiliation:
University of Otago, New Zealand
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Instructional Feedback , pp. 409 - 431
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alqassab, M. (2016). Peer feedback provision and mathematical proofs: Role of domain knowledge, beliefs, perceptions, epistemic emotions, and peer feedback content. Doctoral thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians University.Google Scholar
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5, 7–73.Google Scholar
Brown, G. T. L., & Harris, L. R. (2013). Student self-assessment. In McMillan, J. (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of research on classroom assessment (pp. 367–393). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Chesney, S., & Marcangelo, C. (2010). “There was a lot of learning going on”: Using a digital medium to support learning in a professional course for new HE lecturers. Computers & Education, 54, 701–708.Google Scholar
Cho, K., Cho, M., & Hacker, D. J. (2010). Self-monitoring support for learning to write. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(2), 101–113.Google Scholar
Cho, K., Chung, T. R., King, W. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Peer-based computer-supported knowledge refinement: An empirical investigation. Communications of the ACM, 51(3), 83–88.Google Scholar
Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. A. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20, 328–338.Google Scholar
Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Charney, D. (2006). Commenting on writing. Written Communication, 23, 260–294.Google Scholar
Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer- and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24, 331–350.Google Scholar
Falchikov, N. (2007). The place of peers in learning and assessment. In Boud, D. & Falchikov, N. (Eds.), Rethinking assessment for higher education: Learning for the longer term (pp. 128–143). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Falchikov, N., & Boud, D. (1989). Student self-assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 59, 395–430.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, 287–322.Google Scholar
Gan, J. S. M. (2011). The effects of prompts and explicit coaching on peer feedback quality. Doctoral thesis, University of Auckland.Google Scholar
Gan, M. J. S., & Hattie, J. (2014). Prompting secondary students’ use of criteria, feedback specificity and feedback levels during an investigative task. Instructional Science, 42, 861–878.Google Scholar
Gan, M. J. S., & Hill, M. (2014). Using a dialogical approach to examine peer feedback during chemistry investigative task discussion. Research in Science Education, 44, 727–749.Google Scholar
Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 51, 21–38.Google Scholar
Gielen, M. (2016). The impact of structuring peer feedback in a wiki-based CSCL environment on performance and feedback content. Dissertation, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Ghent University.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.Google Scholar
Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015a). Structuring the peer assessment process: A multilevel approach for the impact on product improvement and peer feedback quality. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31, 435–449.Google Scholar
Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015b). Structuring peer assessment: Comparing the impact of the degree of structure on peer feedback content. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 315–325.Google Scholar
Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015c). Scripting the role of assessor and assessee in peer assessment in a wiki environment: Impact on peer feedback quality and product improvement. Computers & Education, 88, 370–386.Google Scholar
Gielen, S. (2007). Peer assessment as a tool for learning. Doctoral thesis, University of Leuven.Google Scholar
Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Dierick, S. (2003). Evaluating the consequential validity of new modes of assessment: The influence of assessment on learning, including pre-, post-, and true assessment effects. In Segers, M., Dochy, F., & Cascallar, E. (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 37–54). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Onghena, P. (2011). An inventory of peer assessment diversity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 137–155.Google Scholar
Gielen, S., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., Janssens, S., Schelfhout, W., & Decuyper, S. (2007). A complementary role for peer feedback and staff feedback in powerful learning environments. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Gielen, S., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., Struyven, K., & Smeets, S. (2011). Goals of peer assessment and their associated quality concepts. Studies in Higher Education, 36, 719–735.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, 304–315.Google Scholar
Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Smeets, S. (2010). Peer feedback as a substitute for teacher feedback. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Gikandi, J. W., & Morrow, D. (2016). Designing and implementing peer formative feedback within online learning environments. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25, 153–170.Google Scholar
Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In Mayer, R. E. & Alexander, P. A. (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 249–271). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81–112.Google Scholar
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284.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, 525–536.Google Scholar
Lipnevich, A. A., Berg, D. A. G., & Smith, J. K. (2016). Toward a model of student response to feedback. In Brown, G. T. L. & Harris, L. R. (Eds.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 169–185). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lin, S. S. J., Liu, E. Z. F., & Yuan, S. M. (2002). Student attitudes toward networked peer assessment: Case studies of undergraduate students and senior high school students. International Journal of Instructional Media, 29, 241–254.Google Scholar
Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11, 279–290.Google Scholar
McCarthy, J. M. (2016). Global learning partnerships in the café: Peer feedback as a formative assessment tool for animation students. Interactive Learning Environments, 24, 1298–1318.Google Scholar
Messick, S. (1998). Test validity: A matter of consequence. Social Indicators Research, 45, 35–44.Google Scholar
Narciss, S., & Huth, K. (2004). How to design informative tutoring feedback for multimedia learning. In Niegemann, H. M., Brünken, R., & Leutner, D. (Eds.), Instructional design for multimedia learning. Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop of SIG 6 Instructional Design of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI) (pp. 181–195). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Panadero, E. (2016). Is it safe? Social, interpersonal, and human effects of peer assessment: A review and future directions. In Brown, G. T. L. & Harris, L. R. (Eds.), Handbook of human and social conditions in assessment (pp. 247–266). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Panadero, E., & Brown, G. T. L. (2017). Teachers’ reasons for using peer assessment: Positive experience predicts use. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32, 133–156.Google Scholar
Panadero, E., Brown, G. T. L., & Strijbos, J. W. (2016). The future of student self-assessment: A review of known unknowns and potential directions. Educational Psychology Review, 28, 803–830.Google Scholar
Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Botella, J. (2017). Effects of self-assessment on self-regulated learning and self-efficacy: Four meta-analyses. Educational Research Review, 22, 74–98.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 Laveault, D. & Allal, L. (Eds.), Assessment for learning: Meeting the challenge of implementation (pp. 311–326). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
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, 195–203.Google Scholar
Patchan, M. M., Hawk, B., Stevens, C. A., & Schunn, C. D. (2013). The effects of skill diversity on commenting and revisions. Instructional Science, 41, 381–405.Google Scholar
Patchan, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2015). Understanding the benefits of providing peer feedback: How students respond to peers’ texts of varying quality. Instructional Science, 43, 591–614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265–289.Google Scholar
Rotsaert, T. (2017). The social nature of peer assessment in secondary and higher education: Examining students’ perceptions on interpersonal processes and peer feedback quality in anonymous face-to-face settings using mobile response technology. Doctoral thesis, Ghent University.Google Scholar
Rotsaert, T., Panadero, E., Estrada, E., & Schellens, T. (2017). How do students perceive the educational value of peer assessment in relation to its social nature? A survey study in Flanders. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 53, 29–40.Google Scholar
Rotsaert, T., Panadero, E., Schellens, T., & Raes, A. (2018a). “Now you know what you?re doing right and wrong!” Peer feedback quality in synchronous peer assessment in secondary education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33(2), 255–275. doi:10.1007/s10212-017-0329-xGoogle Scholar
Rotsaert, T., Panadero, E., & Schellens, T. (2018b). Peer assessment use, its social nature challenges and perceived educational value: a teachers’ survey study. Accepted for publication in Studies in Educational Evaluation.Google Scholar
Rotsaert, T., Panadero, E., & Schellens, T. (2018c). Anonymity as an instructional scaffold in peer assessment: Its effects on peer feedback quality and evolution in students’ perceptions about peer assessment skills. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33, 75–99. doi:10.1007/s10212-017-0339-8Google Scholar
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78, 153–189.Google Scholar
Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2002). Peer assessment training in teacher education: Effects on performance and perceptions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 443–454.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.Google Scholar
Strijbos, J. W., & Müller, A. (2014). Personale faktoren im feedbackprozess. In Ditton, H. & Müller, A. (Eds.), Feedback und rückmeldungen: Theoretische grundlagen, empirische befunde, praktische anwendungsfelder [Feedback and evaluation: Theoretical foundations, empirical findings, practical implementation] (pp. 87–134). Münster: Waxmann.Google Scholar
Strijbos, J. W., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback content and sender’s competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and Instruction, 20, 291–303.Google Scholar
Strijbos, J. W., Ochoa, T. A., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Segers, M., & Tillema, H. H. (2009). Fostering interactivity through formative peer assessment in (web-based) collaborative learning environments. In Mourlas, C., Tsianos, N., & Germanakos, P. (Eds.), Cognitive and emotional processes in web-based education: Integrating human factors and personalization (pp. 375–395). Hersey, PA: IGI Global.Google Scholar
Strijbos, J. W., & Sluijsmans, D. (2010). Unravelling peer assessment: Methodological, functional, and conceptual developments. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 265–269.Google Scholar
Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249–276.Google Scholar
van Gennip, N. (2012). Assessing together: Peer assessment from an interpersonal perspective. Doctoral thesis, Universiteit Leiden.Google Scholar
van Gennip, N., Segers, M., & Tillema, H. H. (2009). Peer assessment for learning from a social perspective: The influence of interpersonal variables and structural features. Educational Research Review, 4, 41–54.Google Scholar
van Gennip, N., Segers, M., & Tillema, H. H. (2010). Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity: The role of interpersonal variables and conceptions. Learning and Instruction, 20, 280–290.Google Scholar
van Zundert, M. (2012). Conditions of peer assessment for complex learning. Doctoral thesis, Maastrich University.Google Scholar
van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Könings, K. D., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2012). The differential effects of task complexity on domain-specific and peer assessment skills. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 32, 127–145.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.Google Scholar
Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37, 3–14.Google Scholar
Yan, Z., & Brown, G. T. L. (2016). A cyclical self-assessment process: Towards a model of how students engage in self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–16.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×