Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology

Volume 14, Number 1, 2015

Students Perspectives on the Role of Peer

Feedback in Supporting Learning
Carol Evans
Faculty of Social and Human Sciences
University of Southampton, United Kingdom

There has been a considerable growth in research considering the role of peer feedback within higher education over the last 10 years (Gielen, Dochy, & Onghena,2011).
However, there are mixed opinions regarding what peer feedback involves and its value
in relation to enhancing student learning outcomes. Furthermore, for those supporters of holistic assessment designs advocating greater student involvement and agency
in the assessment process (Boud & Associates, 2010), there is a tension regarding the
extent to which students should be required to participate in peer feedback activities
(Nicol, 2008). In developing this argument, it is known that although peer feedback can
be a positive experience for students (De Grez, Valcke, & Berings, 2010), impacts on
learning can also be variable, reflecting the interplay of individual and contextual factors.
Adopting an interpretative phenomenological analysis approach, this article examines with students how they make sense of and use peer feedback opportunities. Informed by a personal learning styles pedagogy (PLSP; Evans & Waring, 2009,
2014), two peer feedback pedagogical interventions involving postgraduate students
were implemented at two U.K. higher education institutions. Using a mixed methods
approach, the role of individual and contextual variables in affecting students perceptions of the value of peer feedback and the PLSP approach are explored. Informed by
current peer feedback debates, recommendations to inform practice are made.
Keywords: peer feedback; personal learning styles pedagogy; student perceptions;
self-assessment; phenomenological

he key aim of this research was to examine with students how they made sense of
and used peer feedback opportunities, informed by a personal learning styles pedagogy (PLSP) approach (Evans & Waring, 2009, 2014) underpinned by constructivist
(Hatzipanagos & Warburton, 2009) and sociocultural (Gipps, 2002) theoretical frameworks.
A PLSP explicitly addresses how, in practice, one can use an understanding of individual differences to inform pedagogy to include development of peer feedback strategies to support
student self-regulatory practice. The role of individual and contextual variables in affecting
students perceptions of the value of peer feedback and the PLSP approach is explored.
110

2015 Springer Publishing Company

http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/1945-8959.14.1.110

Students Perspectives on the Role of Peer Feedback Initiatives

111

There are mixed opinions regarding what exactly peer feedback involves and its value in
the development of student self-regulatory skills and learning outcomes (Chen, Wei, Wu, &
Uden, 2009). Definitions of peer feedback vary in the extent to which peer feedback is seen
as (a) formative and/or summative; (b) a stand-alone, one off element or an integrated aspect
of learning and teaching design; (c) peer feedback as a compulsory or choice element of assessment; (d) focused on peer-to-peer feedback and/or group feedback; (e) focused on student
feedback giving and/or on student response to feedback; and (f) student controlling the feedback process to manage sources of feedback and/or student as a passive receiver of feedback.
However, there is an increased emphasis on the importance of peer engagement as opposed
to peer assessment in peer feedback as part of sustainable assessment feedback practice.
Theterm peer engagement emphasizes an enriched pedagogy building student collaboration,
confidence, and autonomy (Cowan & Creme, 2005).
Some see peer assessment as commensurate with measurement and specifically the accuracy of peer marking, whereas Van der Pol, Van den Berg, Admiraal, and Simons (2008)
drawing on Falchikovs (1986) work have emphasized the formative nature of peer assessment:
a method in which students engage in reflective criticism of the products of other students and
provide them with feedback, using previously defined criteria (p. 1805). In this article, I also
adopt a formative definition of peer feedback but place greater emphasis on the importance of
how students manage the feedback process. Students needs to be encouraged to review the feedback they give, and receive from, peers with lecturers to develop their self-regulation capacity.
Exploring the pedagogical value of peer feedback and its role in supporting student selfregulation is problematic given the varied interpretations of peer feedback approaches. Questions remain about the quality of peer interventions and how peer relations influence learning
(Riese, Samara, & Lillejord, 2012). Topping (2010) noted that so much depends on the exact
nature of the peer feedback process and how students are prepared for such approaches.
Understanding what is effective and what is not is made more difficult by the lack of explication of the context of learning and processes involved in peer feedback designs making replication of studies and comparison of approaches difficult (Gielen et al., 2011).
Advocates of peer feedback have argued the value of the process to both student and lecturer in supporting the enhanced role of the student in the feedback process (Sadler, 2010;
Vickerman, 2009). Peer feedback is seen as an important way of engaging students in the
development of their own learning and self-assessment skills (Orsmond, 2006). However, the
effectiveness of peer feedback in enhancing student self-regulation skills and performance
has been questioned (Bloxham & West, 2004; Chen et al., 2009; Strijbos & Sluijsmans, 2010).
Peer feedback may be a positive experience for many students, but this is certainly not the
case for all (Carillo-de-la-Pea et al., 2009; De Grez et al., 2010). There is a lack of evidence of
the positive impact of peer feedback on student performance even when students have been
positive about the process (ODonovan, Price, & Rust, 2004). Studies have identified the lack
of a relationship between the quality of feedback a student receives and the quality of his or
her own work, suggesting the need for a student to engage more actively with feedback. Liu
and Carless (2006) found that whether students acted as assessors and/or assessees influenced outcomes. Blom and Poole (2004) found students receipt of feedback had less impact
on future performance than their giving of feedback. The importance of students engaging
in reflection on the feedback they both receive and give to address their own learning needs
is seen as crucial in impacting on learning outcomes and the development of self-regulatory
skills (Kim, 2009; Li, Liu, & Steckelberg, 2010).

112 Evans

Students need time to adjust to new learning environments (Papinczak, Young, & Groves,
2007; Schnrock-Adema, Heijne-Penninga, Van Duijn, Geertsma, & Cohen-Schotanus,
2007), and in order for students to engage meaningfully in peer feedback, they need to be
convinced of the value of it to their own learning (Evans, 2013).
For peer feedback to be effective, it has been argued that the type of feedback matters. Most
promising student learning outcomes have been reported when students have been asked to
focus on giving feedback on objective tasks (Bouzidi & Jaillet, 2009; Tseng & Tsai,2010),
where feedback is concise and general rather than elaborated and specific (Strijbos & Sluijsmans, 2010) and where assessment criteria are well understood by the students (Falchikov &
Goldfinch, 2000). Peer feedback is seen as most effective when used as an integral element
within a holistic assessment design and not as a stand-alone process (Price, Handley, Millar,
& ODonovan, 2010). Holistic feedback designs emphasize the (a) formative nature of feedback focusing on the relative benefits of feedforward compared to feedback, (b) explicit nature
of feedback, (c) engagement of students with the feedback process, and (d) importance of
training in assessment for students and lecturers (Evans, 2013; Topping, 2010).

METHODOLOGY
The two intervention projects carried out in two U.K. higher education institutions took place
in naturalistic settings and involved the implementation of peer feedback as an element
of a holistic feedback design. They contain elements of an action research frame involving
self-reflective, self-critical, and critical enquiry to improve understanding of peer feedback
practices and to identify implications for wider contexts of practice (Lomax, 2002). A PLSP
framework was used to underpin the way in which peer feedback was implemented (Evans &
Waring, 2009, 2014). The key principles of a PLSP as applied to assessment feedback include
(a)explicit discussion of student beliefs about the relative value of peer feedback compared
to other forms of feedback in the learning process, (b) use of specific tools and approaches
to support the development of peer feedback, (c) working with students to explore how they
make sense of and use feedback, (d) implementing holistic assessment designs based on principles of effective feedback practice (Evans, 2013), and (e) promotion of student agency within
the peer feedback process. Using the PLSP approach emphasis is placed on how peer feedback
can be used effectively to support students to manage their own learning more effectively.
An interpretative phenomenological analysis approach was used to explore student perceptions of peer feedback (Smith, 2003). In both studies, a mixed methods approach was used
(Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003). Data was gathered from various sources (group and individual
student discussions during teaching sessions; focus group meetings [4560 min duration];
structured questionnaires). All interview data was transcribed and subject to descriptive,
topic, and analytical coding (Richards, 2009). Using a constant comparative method, newly
collected data were constantly compared with existing data and theory and the codings were
revised to ensure overall consistency (Arthur, Waring, Coe, & Hedges, 2012).

The Assessment Feedback Interventions

The interventions took place within the context of students learning to teach and learning
to write at masters level. Intervention 1 involved an opportunistic sample of one group of
13 students from a cohort of 34 international students studying for a masters in education
at one U.K. university. Feedback was available in the form of oral (face-to-face tutorial and

Students Perspectives on the Role of Peer Feedback Initiatives

113

whole group discussion) and written formative feedback on two formative assignments from
the tutor including feedback on full drafts of work (handwritten and typed notes, e-mail communications, track changes on documents) and peer-initiated feedback from student-written
postings via the virtual learning environment (VLE). The intervention significantly added
to the curriculum design in that discussions about assessment were integrated into each
teaching session via (a) explicit discussion of student beliefs regarding different forms of
feedback, (b) discussion about the role of peer feedback within the learning process and the
relative value of different forms of feedback received (15 min discussion each teaching session), (c)student-led feedback on VLE postings from peers, and (d) oral peer feedback on
student assignment plans. Students were required to give short focused presentations of their
research to their peers and receive feedback on this. Students were initially grouped around
their chosen topic of study and in mixed ability groups and subsequently placed in random
groups to repeat the process of presentation and feedback over the duration of the module.
Intervention 2 involved an opportunistic group of 20 primary teacher training students
studying for a Postgraduate Certificate in Education with masters at another U.K. university. The holistic design comprised (a) provision of tutor-produced self-assessment rubric, (b)
signposted feedback from the tutor on two formative assignments (comment boxes throughout assignments and summary of key points), (c) individual one-to-one oral feedback support
from the tutor, (d) VLE peer discussion groups, (e) genuine involvement of students in assessment feedback decisions, (f) integration of assessment feedback into each taught session,
and (g) feedback tracking sheets where students commented on how they had used previous
feedback. The additional peer feedback elements included (h) opportunities for students to
meet in groups at regular intervals to discuss the requirements of future assessment and to
receive oral feedback from peers, and (i) reciprocal formative peer to peer written feedback on
full drafts of assignments.
Important features common to both interventions were constructive alignment of curriculum and assessment, authenticity of assessment, active engagement of students in the
process, feedforward opportunities, appropriateness of task and timing of task, opportunities for the development of self- and peer-assessment skills, student choice, and equitable
dialogue. In Intervention 1, oral peer feedback was a compulsory element of the design and
used as a mechanism to support students working toward their summative assignment,
whereas in Intervention 2, peer feedback (oral and written) were optional elements of a holistic assessment design.

RESULTS
Students in Intervention 1 ranked tutor feedback as most important to their learning, followed
by peer and self-feedback. Using a 5-point Likert scale (1 5 most important), mean scores respectively were 1.47 (SD 5 .70), 1.91(SD 5 .79), and 2.24(SD 5 1.0). Their top five most
highly rated types of feedback included (a) tutor feedback on draft assignments, (b)positive
feedback from the tutor, (c) feedback from the tutor focusing on areas to improve, (d) confirmation of what was correct or incorrect in their work, and (e) suggestions from the tutor
about alternative strategies they could employ. Notably, the giving and receiving of feedback
to or from peers was not seen as highly valuable to the students. In Intervention2, students
in ranking the nine elements of their holistic assessment feedback intervention most valued
(a) oral peer feedback additional group sessions (2.9; SD 5 2.5), followed by (b)signposted

114 Evans

f eedback from the tutor on written assignments (2.3; SD 5 1.5), (c) tutor one-to-one support
(3.3; SD 5 2.5), (d) the 15 min per session allocated to assessment questions (3.5; SD 5 2.1),
and (e) support from other academic and pastoral tutors (3.7; SD 5 2.3). Written peer feedback on assignments was not sought out or offered by most students and not highly valued.
The process whereby the tutor provided generic feedback to groups on pointers to improve
their written work was not that well received as students felt unable to identify those elements of the feedback that were most relevant to them. Students ability to seek feedback and
self-assess was varied. Most students in Intervention 1 (85%) felt themselves to be proactive
in seeking feedback compared to 40% of students in Intervention 2. Only 35% and 39% of
students in Interventions 1 and 2 respectively felt confident in their ability to self-assess.
Although the mean ranks give an indication of student feedback preferences, the qualitative data afforded by interviews and questionnaires enabled a richer picture of student feedback preferences to emerge. Concerns about peer feedback emanated from students previous
experience of feedback, issues of trust, perceived ability, organization of assessment, and students available support networks. (In the following examples, used to exemplify key points,
students names have been anonymized and replaced with numbers; the first number in the
closed bracket refers to the student number and the second number refers to the intervention: [12/1] refers to Student 12, Intervention 1, and [5/2] refers to Student 5, Intervention 2).
Students in both interventions associated peer feedback with peer and group assessment
and favored formative rather than the summative use of peer feedback: I dont like to see group
members receiving the acknowledgement of work when they havent contributed(12/1),
Maybe you are on to something they havent worked out yet and they will get the credit(2/1),
Other people will not put in enough effort. It happens; I would end up doing more work and
the assessment at the end would not be fair (10/1). Representative comments from students
in Intervention 2 commented, I wouldnt want to read anyone elsesI dont think my opinion would be valued (5/2); I am not a big fan of X Factor feedback, when they concentrate
on the person and what theyve done and what they can do (17/2); In terms of group assessment, I cant think that its anything but a bad ideas . . . all sort of high pressure will bring out
the worst in people like The Apprentice (3/2).
The importance of trust in self and in others to be able to give and receive good feedback
was a finding in common with many studies (Friedman, Cox, & Maher, 2008; Su & Beaumont,
2010). The need to be able to personally relate to the feedback giver was raised by students in
Intervention 1: I need to feel comfortable with the person, and how they treat me in front of
others is important (3/1), Respect for me and the way I respond to feedback(9/1), I need
to be able to relate to the person (4/1), I dont seek when there are personal differences because I wish for constructive feedback about my work and not how they think my personality
interferes with theirs (7/1). However, some Intervention 1 students noted a greater preference for peer over tutor feedback citing practical and emotional reasons: It is easier than asking a tutor and you get different opinions (10/1); If I am struggling, I can get help without
admitting my stupidity to tutors (6/1).
Students perceptions of their own ability and that of others to give peer feedback was
noted and mirrors concerns about the variable ability of students to give good feedback (Liu
& Lin, 2007; McMahon, 2010): If I feel their feedback is relevant and that they are qualified to
give me feedback, then I will listen and respect their feedback (7/1). Many students doubted
their own ability to give good feedback and also questioned whether they would be prepared
to make the commitment to read and provide written peer feedback on other students work

Students Perspectives on the Role of Peer Feedback Initiatives

115

because some could not see how this would personally benefit them feeling that their own
networks of support were sufficient to meet their needs. The high stakes nature of assessment and perceptions regarding the competence of peers influenced the feedback choices of
students: The tutor designed the activity and therefore would be most knowledgeable about
the assignment, why would I go elsewhere? (12/1). Lack of familiarity with peer feedback
also led some students to question the potential value of it:
I didnt have the time or . . . the inclination, simply, because Im generally with essays
a creature of habit and because its not what I did for my undergrad[uate], where I did
a lot of essays, its just not in my essay writing psyche. (5/2)
Additionally, where students felt confident in their own ability, they did not seek feedback from peers: When I feel I have understood the work and done well, I dont seek
feedback(11/1), and conversely, as one student noted, If I am not up to date on the material
Iknow, I will not benefit from feedback (8/1). For others, the order of information gathering
was important: I need to be able to search for myself first before I am in a place to benefit
from others feedback (5/1).
The organization and timing of peer assessment impacted on students involvement in
it. Perceived control over their own work was important for some students: I like complete
control over my own assessment; working with others may have conflicts on my interest and
time (13/1). In Intervention 2, where students had been left to agree the timings of assignment exchange with one another, one student argued the need for more structure in how peer
feedback activities were configured:
It would have needed to have been set up that everyone that had agreed to doing it
would have had to almost have a structure . . . so everyone knows theres a set time and
theres a set thing you are going to send it. (2/2)
The process of how peer feedback was organized and who was selected to work together
impacted on students sense of agency: I think I would have wanted it to have been a person
on my own judgement, for somebody that I trusted had the relevant skills, rather than just
another name from the seminar group (14/2).
Id obviously have to choose carefully who Id choose to read mine, so I know that their
feedbacks going to be useful . . . but also if you are swapping work would they become
similar and start giving you doubts of what youd wrote yourself. I dont know, I dont
think that would work for me. (6/2)
The following student noted the value of the peer feedback process but with someone of
her choosing outside of the seminar group:
I was paired with someone, I just didnt know them very well . . . there was no . . .
trust, I didnt really feel like I wanted his opinions on my writing because . . . I didnt
know... how good he was, or what he would say, I didnt even ask him. Whereas
my friend . . . gave me an example of one of her . . . her essays. Hers was really well
structured . . . and when I read through like it just flowed more, and then she was

116 Evans

explaining to me about how to write . . . how to make it flow, and just that was helpful.
Whereas weve been told that in loads of our guidance, but weve been told it, but we
havent been actually shown it, like in an essay. So when I saw it in her essay, it made
more sense, because I could see how shed done it, and that was really helpful. (16/2)
The value of oral feedback is noted by many of the students. In Intervention 2, 17 out of
the 20 students engaged in the additional oral feedback peer group activities and only two in
written peer feedback exchange, although some argued that this was because they had left
the completion of work to the last minute and had found insufficient time to exchange work
with others, but it does also point to the relative value some students placed on this form of
feedback. Oral feedback from the tutor and peers was highly valued: I find it more beneficial
to discuss an essay rather than read written feedback as I can get a better idea of where the
tutor is coming from and on what basis the comments were made (9/1).
Having one to one verbal feedback is also one of the most useful things that Ive
had because you can ask questions, you know, you can, with written feedback you
dont have that person there in front of you to question how theyve questioned your
work.(2/2)
The value and limitations of oral feedback within the peer feedback groups in Intervention2
was noted:
As a group, we could pick up on what each other had said, and pick up good points
from each other, recognize where each other had made mistakes . . . I thought it was
definitely a useful model. I can understand why people would not want to go in a
group if they were insecure about their writing, especially as it was pretty much our
first bash at doing it, but no, I think it was really, really beneficial. For that point that
Imade just about sharing each others successes and falling down. (14/2)
How VLEs are designed and managed can significantly impact on student engagement in
peer feedback activity. The use of VLEs as part of an existing element of curriculum design to
support student interaction had mixed results. In Intervention 1, where students were asked
to feedback on very specific topics and the students took turns to manage the feedback to the
whole group, this worked well. In Intervention 2, where roles were less clearly defined and
the tasks more open-ended, some students thrived on the interactive learning opportunities,
whereas others found this more difficult:
It felt like a noose around my neck, I dreaded having to respond to other students
comments and being directed by them when I wasnt at that point in my learning.
Idid, however, find going back and reading through the postings a useful summary
when completing my assignment. (8/2)
In summary, students views on the relative value of peer feedback compared to other
forms of feedback depended on contextual variables (course design, timing of assessment,
authenticity of assessment, degree of choice offered regarding engagement in peer feedback
activities) and personal variables (previous experiences of peer feedback as part of taught

Students Perspectives on the Role of Peer Feedback Initiatives

117

delivery including assessment, perceived agency, trust in self and others to provide good feedback, belief in own ability linked to self-esteem and self-worth, and personal histories of peer
feedback). Students personal learning histories and experiences of peer assessment, issues
of trust in self and others defined as acting responsibly in respect of sound principles, practices or behaviours in assessment (Carless, 2009, p. 81), availability of alternative networks
of support, and their willingness to commit to the giving and receiving of feedback were
important factors impacting on their perceptions of peer feedback.

Using a Personal Learning Styles Pedagogy Approach to Inform Peer Feedback Design
Although the specifics of the two interventions were different, they were both underpinned
by a PLSP approach emphasizing holistic assessment designs (Evans, 2013), the promotion
of student agency, and the explicit use of tools to support the development of student selfregulatory skills. The use of the PLSP approach and precise nature of the interventions raise
several important issues for the development of assessment feedback practice.
In Intervention 1, although students were initially relatively negative about peer feedback, the PLSP framework enabled open discussion of views and opportunities to explicitly
consider their own learning and feedback behaviors (Yates, 2000). The opportunity to explore
individual differences within the group was identified as valuable (Trahar, 2007). Students
were carefully prepared to connect with feedback through ongoing discussion, exemplification, and practice (Rae & Cochrane, 2008).The design whereby students had to prepare and
discuss their work orally with other students in each session, repeatedly having to justify,
clarify, and refine their focus was identified as supporting their own self-regulatory development. One student noted, For me, it is a new way of learning, where I need to be flexible,
appreciate new ideas which may cause me to change my existing perceptions (which is a good
thing) (7/1). The ripple effect of the intervention on student feedback practice beyond the
course was also noted, We actually have tried setting up peer support groups informally
having many ideas is useful. It allows me to go deeper into an idea; my idea and my peers
idea equals learning twice as much (11/1). The students could also see how they could apply
the PLSP informed peer feedback approach to their own teaching (Wenghofer, Way, Moxam,
Wu, Faulkner, & Klass, 2006). Although the students felt that the peer feedback intervention
had encouraged them to adopt a more self-regulatory approach (Vermunt & Verloop, 1999),
they noted that it had taken them time to feel comfortable with the peer feedback process
(seePapinczak etal., 2007, for further discussion of this issue). However, the peer feedback
process afforded students opportunities that they acknowledged they would not have engaged
in prior to the intervention and although initially reticent could see the value of peer feedback:
With peers, you can share information and have a good pool of ideas to work with . . . enables
discussion.. . receive other forms of practices from peers that you are unaware of and helps
to share good practice (7/1).
A positive outcome of the oral peer feedback sessions were students perceptions that the
process had improved their ability to self-check their work and thus their self-regulatory ability:
Teaching you how to self-check is an expectation of a teacher to promote independence. . . .
Giving feedback to others helps me to achieve and be more directed about the targets Ineed
to achieve (10/1). Self-checking, a consequence of the oral peer feedback process was found
useful by most students who noted that self-checking can teach you the importance of selfanalysis (1/1), enables me to be more independent (5/1), pointing to directions to pursue

118 Evans

is beneficial if someone identifies these for you as difficult to see by yourself and makes you
do it(12/1), allows you to understand more about the assessment process (6/1), enables
me being more self-critical and knowing how to assess yourself is important to me(12/1),
helps you to develop skills for future assignments . . . it is very important to explain to a
person so they can make their own progress (5/1), Self-direction is key; sometimes we lack
self-reflection and self-assessment, learning how to self-check enables me to keep progressing when I am on my own; It helps me to continue further (8/1).
The requirement for all students to present their work to different groups of students
during each session and to also provide feedback to others was managed within the PLSP
framework and this was important. Although students had no choice but to engage in the
process, clarifying the rationale for the approach and involving students in open discussions
about their perceptions of the process facilitated student engagement. Considerable amounts
of time were allocated to support students in developing their feedback practice (Orsmond,
Merry, & Reiling, 2005). In terms of management of the process, rotation of groups was seen
as beneficial in not getting stuck with a specific group.
A key difference between Interventions 1 and 2 was in the level and type of choice in
assessment feedback design afforded to students. In the latter case study, students chose
whether to engage in oral and written peer feedback activities as part of a broader holistic
assessment design. Seventeen students chose to engage in the optional oral peer feedback
groups and two students engaged in written peer feedback. When presented with multiple
opportunities for feedback, student self-regulatory capacity became very important. One student, desperate to make use of all the opportunities, commented on how she was unable
to filter and prioritize feedback and needed assistance with this. A key question arises as to
whether in such situations students are able to select and make the most of such feedback
opportunities and assessment choices; it was noted that two students who did less well than
expected on their written assignments had chosen topics that were not ideally suited to their
experiences and skills sets.
When given the choice of receiving more detailed feedback on completed work or focusing on the requirements of future work, all students in Intervention 2 chose the latter option
valuing feedforward over feedback. It was evident in group discussions that many students
who had chosen to attend additional group sessions on assessment preferred to learn vicariously rather than actively participating in many of the discussions. Over time, the students
took greater control of the sessions self-managing their interactions and with the lecturer taking on a more facilitative role. The collaborative process afforded by the group activities was
seen as valuable. Most agreed that it gave them a [place] to come together to discuss their
views, question ideas within an equitable dialogue with the lecturer and to effect change;
this latter point is important in relation to the agency of the student. The collaborative and
constructivist nature of the group learning process and the relative safety it afforded to enable
the sharing of ideas and emotional support featured highly in student responses:
I think it was useful to hear what the other people had going on as well . . . you are
picking up ideas and focuses, and how to improve, and I think the more you hear the
more chance there is that somebody says something that clicks. And I think thats the
sort of way that I tend to view things, that its good to take on lots of advice from different people and different sources, and then you can filter it through, and you go well
that works for me, I understand the way so and so said something, or the way so and

Students Perspectives on the Role of Peer Feedback Initiatives

119

sos explained something, and then you can build that into what you are doing, and you
can sort of, yeah, I think its better to be given loads of advice, and then decide what
applies to you, and what doesnt, than it is to be given, say, just your own advice, and
miss something that you would have picked up had you heard somebody else. (4/2)
Although overall student rankings of the value of different forms of assessment feedback
highlighted that students most valued the oral peer feedback sessions, there were several students who did not make use of this opportunity and others who found it less productive for
them. Three of the 20 students chose not to engage in group discussions but instead opted
for one-to-one sessions with the lecturer. These three students all demonstrated high levels of
self-regulation and were high performers; they valued the opportunity to discuss their work
but did not perceive peer feedback to be an important element for them within the learning process. There were a further three students who participated in the group sessions but
struggled to find a voice and felt they needed support in learning how to be heard both in
oral and online conversations. In supporting self-regulatory practice, 7 out of the 20 students
found the self-check grid highly valuable in supporting their self-regulatory practice. The grid
explicitly mapped specific criteria that the students needed to address in their assignments.
For some, this tool was more effective in supporting their understanding than the oral peer
feedback sessions: I felt that what youd given us almost pulled out and made it clearer than
the guidance had, because the guidance would put it in more vague terms, not explicit like
this linked to the essay (6/2). The grid was used by students in a differential way with one
student noting:
I used it because I had no idea whether my work was good, whether it was bad beforehand, because we hadnt been given grades, so I made sure I included everything in
that grid and thought if I had included everything then it couldnt be bad, it wouldnt
fail. (11/2)
Another student demonstrating a higher level of self-regulation used the grid, it was really useful and I adapted it to use again for my other assignments (7/2).
Reasons cited by students regarding the efficacy of the PLSP approach was the opportunity to be included in discussions of assessment design, explicit discussion of assessment
and feedback within taught sessions, provision of tools and explicit guidance to support their
understanding of what it was to write at masters level. An important issue raised in both
interventions was the need to consider students learning transitions carefully. In Intervention 2, students noted that they were new to collaborative studentlecturer assessment design
and that this took time to assimilate: I think its just the system thats been used, weve never
really had much of an option to what sort of feedback wed like (2/2); We are still learning
to become reflective, are we at the point where we can accept group feedback and reflect
upon what weve done to a certain extent? (14/2). At the same time, students valued the
opportunity to be consulted:
It is kind of like an almost therapeutic aspect, where we can get together . . . and talk about
how we feel about things, and theres a lot of similarities, and its quite reassuring . . . if
anything we do say will improve the course or approaches for future years, I think thats
quite valuable as well. (5/2)

120 Evans

The explicit guidance and focus on assessment feedback in seminar sessions was also
seen as important in supporting student self-regulatory development:
I think the approach of planting the seeds of thought and guiding us into the directions of things . . . I think thats great because we have to be able to work independently
of teachers; we have to be able to make decisions about whats important, what can we
leave, and what is vital to something working, and doing that for yourself, personally,
to start with, is a good starting point. I do think that is what this course is doing . . .
And you know there are a lot of things where Im finding, in seminars, where I think
thats where I went wrong, I didnt get this because I didnt get this first of all. And its
making me rethink my own learning experiences because of that, the course has been
absolutely excellent. (6/2)

DISCUSSION
Students perceptions of the value of peer feedback were variable. Peer feedback did not provide equal benefits to all students; the ability and volition of students to engage in peer feedback, and the nature of engagement are important:
For there to be a good system of feedback, I think its got to be a mutual thing. You
have to want to seek it, and the person whos giving it has to be prepared to go into
detail with you and give you that time. (6/2)
Although the provision of training in how to give effective feedback manages the technical
aspects of feedback (Gan, 2011), tackling the emotional dimension of peer feedback has to
be of paramount importance (Evans, 2013). Although much is written about the benefits of
group work and peer feedback in facilitating self-understanding and self-regulation in learning (Bartram, 2008), tackling students perceptions of this and giving guided support in how
students can work to support themselves and each other from the outset is important. Learning opportunities need to foster trust among participants (Carless, 2009; Friedman et al.,
2008; Su & Beaumont, 2010) and clarify the potential value of peer feedback for students
learning.
Students perceptions of their ability to self-assess and to give peer feedback were important. Although the students in this study could be considered to be high achievers working
at postgraduate level, many of them doubted their self-assessment abilities as characterized in this statement by one student: I dont think I know what to do when I dont know
how to do something. I dont know how to approach this effectively and it concerns me,
I dont ask for help. Early examination of students self-regulatory capacity, perceptions
of their learning community, and available networks of support are important because
these can influence feedback behaviors and learning outcomes (Bliuc, Ellis, G
oodyear, &
Hendres, 2011).
Aspects of design mattered. First, examination of student beliefs about peer feedback
to acknowledge the concerns of many students about engaging in the feedback process
was extremely valuable (Bryan, Krych, Carmichael, Viggiano, & Pawlina, 2005). Attending
to the relational dimension of peer feedback and student discomfort about the process
are vital first steps in developing effective peer feedback designs. Second, students need a

Students Perspectives on the Role of Peer Feedback Initiatives

121

period of a djustment in coming to terms with the requirements of the peer feedback process. Comprehensive induction into the purpose of peer feedback, the processes involved,
along with an understanding of the criteria regarding how students involvement in the
process will be measured, and ongoing supervision and management of such interventions
is essential (McMahon, 2010; Sadler, 2010; Schnrock-Adema et al., 2007; Wilkins, Shin,
& Ainsworth 2009).
Third, the degree of student choice in involvement in peer feedback and how choice is
enacted are important. Inappropriate use of peer assessment feedback can inhibit learning
(Keppell, Au, Ma, & Chan, 2006); participation in peer feedback does not necessarily mean
increased performance (Nicol, 2008); peer feedback is just one element of holistic feedback
designs (Evans, 2013). Although it is important to expose students to different ways of learning, it was evident in Intervention 2, that some students when given a wide choice of potential
assessment feedback options, chose inappropriately regarding their own learning needs and
the requirements of the task. Guided choice is especially important for students with less
developed self-regulatory skills. Although holistic assessment designs have been identified
as being highly effective (Nicol, 2008), the complexity of such holistic designs and too much
choice may ironically be limiting for some students. Fourth, protecting and promoting student
agency within the peer feedback process as an integral element of a PLSP was important.
Agency was promoted through the PLSP via several mechanisms: (a) opportunities for student
voice to be heard regarding opinions of peer feedback and involvement in design of the assessment feedback opportunities, (b) through selection of tools to support the self-regulatory
process, (c) explicit discussion of the feedback process, (d) focus on assessment feedback in
all taught sessions, and (e) student management of the peer feedback process (see Waring and
Evans (2015) for further discussion of these mechanisms). Indemonstrating the last point, in
Intervention 1, although students had to engage in oral peer feedback, they managed what and
how they wanted to present to peers and also chose how they used the peer feedback received.
In seeking to use peer feedback appropriately and to close the feedback loop, it is important
for students to give feedback on the feedback they have received (Kim, 2009). Evidence suggests that although it is difficult to find evidence of a relationship between the quality of peer
feedback received and the quality of students own work, there is evidence of a relationship
between the quality of peer feedback given by the student and the quality of their own work (Li
et al., 2010). If as educators we see peer feedback as an important way of developing student
self-regulatory capacity, this should be acknowledged in summative assessment. However, to
maintain student agency in the process, summative assessment needs to acknowledge the
central role of the student in the peer assessment process and enable the student being assessed to manage all the feedback and his or her responses to it (McMahon, 2010).

Recommendations for Policy and Practice

Using student feedback and synthesizing this with the literature, it is possible to identify key
elements of effective peer feedback designs (Table 1). These elements include the importance
of setting an appropriate climate for the development of peer feedback practice, acknowledging the role of the student in the process, ensuring authentic use of peer feedback, the need
for explicit guidance on what constitutes effective feedback practice, encouraging students
to critically reflect on their own giving and receiving of feedback, and addressing ongoing
student and lecturer training needs. A key question for educators is how to maximize the

122 Evans
TABLE 1. Effective Peer Feedback Designs

Importance of Preprogram Preparation and Induction

1. Induction needs to acknowledge individual differences.
2.Time is needed to explore beliefs and perceptions of the value of peer feedback to fully
exploit peer feedback opportunities.
3. Awareness is needed of students previous experiences of peer feedback.
Attention to Assessment Including Feedback Design
4.The theoretical framework underpinning the peer feedback design needs to be shared
with students.
5. Peer feedback needs to be perceived as an integral and iterative element of the curriculum.
6. Clear direction needs to be given in relation to peer feedback requirements.
7. The rationale underpinning why peer feedback is being used needs to be transparent.
8.Examples of good practice need to be shared with students in a timely fashion.
Studentsneed training in the elements of effective feedback practice in the context of
the requirements of the specific assessment. Students need to be given opportunities to
develop and critically reflect on their giving and receiving of feedback.
10. Peer feedback opportunities need to be authentic.
11. The timing of assessment needs to enable peer feedback opportunities.
Clarity Regarding Roles
12.The nature of choice, affordances, and limitations of peer feedback requires discussion
(degree of student involvement in assessment design, degree of assessment choice,
ways of working with peers, etc.).
13.The roles and responsibilities of students within the feedback process need to be
negotiated and be explicit.
14. Exploration of and clear direction to support networks need consideration.
15. The relevance of peer feedback to feed-up/professional practice needs to be clear.

affordances of peer feedback designs while at the same time minimize potential constraints
for learners.
The PLSP provided a valuable framework to facilitate integration of the peer feedback process as part of holistic assessment feedback designs. The PLSP enabled explicit discussion of
issues impacting on students use of peer feedback and importantly highlighted issues to do
with curriculum design and individual difference variables (how students accessed and used
feedback, their willingness and readiness to engage in peer feedback, and the networks of
support that they relied on). Further work is needed to test the efficacy of the PLSP approach
in supporting students self-regulatory capacity through the use of peer feedback initiatives.
As part of this, more focused attention is needed on how students effectively seek (Evans,
2013), make use of (Randall & Zundel, 2012), and develop self and peer feedback skills (Van
Gennip, Segers, & Tillema, 2010).
It is important that peer feedback becomes part of the self-assessment process rather
than being a distinct process in its own right (McMahon, 2010). Peer feedback can support
the self-assessment process if its role within summative assessment is reconceptualized

Students Perspectives on the Role of Peer Feedback Initiatives

123

to acknowledge the responsibility of students in the feedback process to reflect on the

quality of the feedback they give and receive. It is important that the students being assessed manage their own feedback and have received appropriate, explicit, and ongoing
training regarding their roles within the feedback process to make best use of peer feedback opportunities.

REFERENCES
Arthur, J., Waring, M., Coe, R., & Hedges, L. (2012). Research methods and methodologies in education.
London, United Kingdom: Sage.
Bartram, B. (2008). Supporting international students in higher education: Constructions, cultures and
clashes. Teaching in Higher Education, 13, 657668.
Bliuc, A.-M., Ellis, R. A., Goodyear, P., & Hendres, D. M. (2011). Understanding student learning in
context: Relationships between university students social identity, approaches to learning, and academic performance. European Journal of Psychology Education, 26, 417433.
Blom, D., & Poole, K. (2004). Peer assessment of tertiary music performance. Opportunities for understanding performance assessment and performing through experience and self-reflection. British
Journal of Music Education, 21, 111125.
Bloxham, S., & West, A. (2004). Understanding the rules of the game: Marking peer assessment as a
medium for developing students conceptions of assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education, 29, 721733.
Boud, D., & Associates. (2010). Assessment 2020: Seven propositions for assessment reform in higher education.
Sydney, Australia: Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
Bouzidi, L., & Jaillet, A. (2009). Can online peer assessment be trusted? Educational Technology & Society,
12, 257268.
Bryan, R. E., Krych, A. J., Carmichael, S. W., Viggiano, T. R., & Pawlina, W. (2005). Assessing professionalism in early medical education: Experience with peer evaluation and self-evaluation in the gross
anatomy course. Annals Academy of Medicine Singapore, 34, 486491.
Carillo-de-la-Pea, M. T., Baills, E., Casereas, X., Martnez, A., Ortet, G., & Prez, J. (2009). Formative assessment and academic achievement in pre-graduate students of health sciences advances.
Advances in Health Science Education, 14, 6167.
Carless, D. (2009). Trust, distrust and their impact on assessment reform. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 34, 7989.
Chen, N.-S., Wei, C.-W., Wu, K.-T., & Uden, L. (2009). Effects of high level prompts and peer assessment
on online learners reflection levels. Computers & Education, 52, 283291.
Cowan, J. K., & Creme, P. (2005). Peer assessment or peer engagement? Students as readers of their
own work. LATISS: Learning and Teaching in the Social Sciences, 2, 99119.
De Grez, M., Valcke, M., & Berings, L. (2010). Peer assessment of oral presentation skills. Procedia:
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2, 17761780.
Evans, C. (2013). Making sense of assessment feedback in higher education. Review of Educational
Research, 83(1), 70120.
Evans, C., & Waring, M. (2009). The place of cognitive style in pedagogy: Realising potential in practice.
In L. F. Zhang & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Perspectives on the nature of intellectual styles (pp. 169208).
New York, NY: Springer Publishing.
Evans, C., & Waring, M. (2015). The personal learning styles pedagogy implementation framework. In
M. Waring & C. Evans (Eds.), Understanding pedagogy: Developing a critical approach to teaching and
learning (pp. 188212). Oxford, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Falchikov, N. (1986). Product comparisons and process benefits of collaborative self and peer group
assessments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 11, 146166.

124 Evans
Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis
comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70, 287322.
Friedman, B. A., Cox, P. L., & Maher, L. E. (2008). An expectancy theory motivation approach to peer
assessment. Journal of Management Education, 32, 580612.
Gan, J. S. M. (2011). The effects of prompts and explicit coaching on peer feedback quality (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2292/6630
Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Onghena, P. (2011). An inventory of peer assessment diversity. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 137155.
Gipps, C. (2002). Sociocultural perspectives on assessment. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for
life in the 21st century (pp. 7383). Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.
Hatzipanagos, S., & Warburton, S. (2009). Feedback as dialogue: Exploring the links between formative
assessment and social software in distance learning. Learning Media and Technology, 34, 4559.
Keppell, M., Au, E., Ma, A., & Chan, C. (2006). Peer learning and learning-oriented assessment in
technology-enhanced environments. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 453464.
Kim, M. (2009). The impact of an elaborated assessees role in peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation
in Higher Education, 34, 105114.
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, 525536.
Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in
Higher Education, 11, 279290.
Liu, E. Z.-F., & Lin, S. S. J. (2007). Relationship between peer feedback, cognitive and metacognitive
strategies and achievement in networked peer assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology,
38(6), 11221125.
Lomax, P. (2002). Action research. In M. Coleman & A. Briggs (Eds.), Research methods in educational
leadership and management (pp. 122140). London, United Kingdom: Sage.
McMahon, T. (2010). Peer feedback in an undergraduate programme: Using action research to overcome students reluctance to criticise. Educational Action Research, 18, 273287.
Nicol, D. (2008). Transforming assessment and feedback: Enhancing integration and empowerment in the first
year. Scotland, United Kingdom: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
ODonovan, B., Price, N., & Rust, C. (2004). Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of
assessment standards and criteria. Teaching in Higher Education, 9, 325335.
Orsmond, P. (2006). Self- and peer assessment: Guidance on practice in the biosciences. York, UnitedKingdom:
Higher Education Academy.
Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2005). Biology students utilization of tutors formative feedback:
A qualitative interview study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 369386.
Papinczak, T., Young, L., & Groves, M. (2007). Peer assessment in problem-based learning: A qualitative
study. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 12, 169186.
Price, M., Handley, K., Millar, J., & ODonovan, B. (2010). Feedback: All that effort, but what is the
effect? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 277289.
Rae, A. M., & Cochrane, D. K. (2008). Listening to students: How to make written assessment feedback
useful. Active Learning in Higher Education, 9, 217230.
Randall, L., & Zundel, P. (2012). Students perceptions of the effectiveness of assessment feedback as a
learning tool in an introductory problem-solving course. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, 3, 116.
Richards, L. (2009). Handling qualitative data (2nd ed.). London: United Kingdom: Sage.
Riese, H., Samara, A., & Lillejord, S. (2012). Peer relations in peer learning. International Journal of
Qualitative Studies in Education, 25, 601624.
Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, 535550.

Students Perspectives on the Role of Peer Feedback Initiatives

125

Schnrock-Adema, J., Heijne-Penninga, M., Van Duijn, M. A. J., Geertsma, J., & Cohen-Schotanus,
J. (2007). Assessment of professional behaviour in undergraduate medical education: Peer assessment enhances performance. Medical Education, 41, 836842.
Smith, J. (Ed.). (2003). Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods. London, United Kingdom:
Sage.
Strijbos, J. W., & Sluijsmans, D. (2010). Unravelling peer assessment: Methodological, functional, and
conceptual developments. Learning and Instruction, 20, 265269.
Su, F., & Beaumont, C. (2010). Evaluating the use of a wiki for collaborative learning. Innovations in
Education and Teaching International, 47, 417431.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Topping, K. J. (2010). Methodological quandaries in studying process and outcomes in peer assessment.
Learning and Instruction, 20, 339343.
Trahar, S. (2007). Teaching and learning: The international higher education landscapeSome theories and
working practices. Bristol, United Kingdom: ESCalate.
Tseng, S. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Taiwan college students self-efficacy and motivation of learning in
online peer assessment environments. Internet and Higher Education, 13, 164169.
Van der Pol, J., Van den Berg, B. A. M., Admiraal, W. F., & Simons, R. P. J. (2008). The nature, reception, and use of online peer feedback in higher education. Computers & Education, 51, 18041817.
Van Gennip, N. A. E., Segers, M. S. R., & Tillema, H. H. (2010). Peer assessment as a collaborative
learning activity: The role of interpersonal variables and conceptions. Learning and Instruction, 20,
280290.
Vermunt, J. D., & Verloop, N. (1999). Congruence and friction between learning and teaching. Learning
and Instruction, 9, 257280.
Vickerman, P. (2009). Student perspectives on formative peer assessment: An attempt to deepen
learning? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34, 221230.
Waring, M., & Evans, C. (2015). Understanding pedagogy: Developing a critical approach to teaching and
learning. Oxford, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Wenghofer, E. F., Way, D., Moxam, R. S., Wu, H., Faulkner, D., & Klass, D. J. (2006). Effectiveness
of a peer assessment program: Introducing education into self-regulatory assessment. Journal of
Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26, 199208.
Wilkins, E. A., Shin, E. K., & Ainsworth, J. (2009). The effects of peer feedback practices with elementary
education teacher candidates. Teacher Education Quarterly, 36, 7993.
Yates, G. C. R. (2000). Applying learning style research in the classroom: Some cautions and the way
ahead. In R. J. Riding & S. G. Rayner (Eds.), International Perspectives on Individual Differences: Vol.1.
Cognitive styles (pp. 347364). Stamford, CT: Ablex.
Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to Carol Evans, Faculty of Social and Human
Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton Education School, University of Southampton,
Building 32, Southampton, S0 17 1BJ. E-mail: [email protected]

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.