Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

ISSN: 0260-2938 (Print) 1469-297X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/caeh20

Giving or receiving feedback: which is more

beneficial to students’ learning?

Georgeta Ion, Angelina Sánchez Martí & Ingrid Agud Morell

To cite this article: Georgeta Ion, Angelina Sánchez Martí & Ingrid Agud Morell (2018): Giving or
receiving feedback: which is more beneficial to students’ learning?, Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1484881

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1484881

Published online: 15 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 96

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=caeh20
ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1484881

Giving or receiving feedback: which is more beneficial to

students’ learning?
Georgeta Iona , Angelina S
anchez Mart
ıb and Ingrid Agud Morellb
a
Departament de Pedagogia Aplicada, Universidad Autonoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain;
b
Departament de Pedagogia Sistematica i Social, Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Assessment is a key component of the education process and strategies Peer-feedback; learning;
involving peer-feedback are considered beneficial to student learning. assessment; professional
This study aims to analyse the benefits giving and receiving feedback skills; social skills
have for students’ development of cognitive and metacognitive, affect-
ive and professional competences. One-hundred and eighty-eight stu-
dents enrolled in teacher education answered a survey. Results indicate
that, after providing feedback, the students perceived a better learning
experience and an increased sense of commitment to their own learn-
ing and their colleagues’ progress. A key finding from this study was
the role of students in their own learning. As most participants recog-
nised, providing feedback helped them improve their learning, which is
a clear indicator that students want to adopt an active role in their own
learning and consider their involvement critical in the design of teach-
ing and learning experiences. To achieve the greatest advantages, feed-
back must be accompanied by tutoring and mentoring to ensure
positive connections with the task, address doubts and clarify the com-
ments received.

Introduction
In the constructivist approach to education, assessment is a key component of learning and
teaching activities required for the reflective construction of knowledge. This approach highlights
the students’ active involvement in assessment for learning, and includes a variety of forms
such as the involvement of students in understanding and designing criteria, collaboration with
teachers and involvement in peer feedback. These practices involving students as active partners
in the assessment process give them the opportunity to develop their capacity to self-regulate
their learning (Panadero, Jonsson, and Strijbos 2016). Strategies that entail peer assessment are
commonly used in higher education and have greatly impacted assessment procedures (e.g.
Gielen and De Wever 2015). Peer assessment is a central principle of formative assessment and is
linked to the notion that assessment is critical for learning (Panadero and Brown 2017).
The ‘learning element of peer-assessment’ is represented by peer feedback (Liu and Carless
2006, 1). Peer feedback transforms the role of students and requires them to target, generate
and interpret feedback while communicating and engaging with each other (Ion, Cano, and
Fern
andez 2017). This method includes qualitative comments involving groups of students or
peers and benefits student learning by increasing accountability, encouraging reflection and

CONTACT Georgeta Ion [email protected]

ß Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 G. ION ET AL.

assessing their own or their peers’ performance, and developing evaluative expertise (Harris and
Brown, 2013).
Peer feedback has been shown to be beneficial in many learning situations (Nicol, Thomson,
and Breslin 2014), particularly for those receiving comments (Van den Hurk, Houtveen, and Van
de Grift 2016). However, the benefits of peer feedback to the reviewer, i.e. the student providing
the feedback, have not been thoroughly investigated in the field of teacher education.
This study explores the perceived benefits in terms of learning achievements, self-regulation
of learning, conception of assessment and social competencies in peer feedback group experien-
ces by comparing the assessors’ and assessees’ perceptions of the feedback.

Peer feedback and its benefits to student learning

Peer assessment processes are increasing in popularity in tertiary educational institutions given
their potential to contribute to a student-centred approach to learning (Simpson and Clifton
2015) and formative assessment. Feedback has been revealed to facilitate student learning,
enable students to become active, responsible and reflective practitioners, improve the quality of
learning and provide formal accountability and accreditation of knowledge (Quinton and
Smallbone 2010). Formative feedback represents information which enables students to form a
series of expectations about themselves and their decisions, which influences their own practices
(Shute 2008). Numerous studies have illustrated the conditions and benefits in promoting learn-
ing of feedback as an assessment process based on defined criteria (e.g. Leahy et al. 2005;
Shute 2008).
Peer feedback is one of the forms of feedback provided by ‘equal status learners’ (Topping
1998, 3) in terms of ‘age or class-level of students, but there are evidently individual differences
that affect perceived status and may impact peer feedback perceptions and subsequent perform-
ance’ (Strijbos, Narciss, and D€
unnebier 2010, 3). Peer feedback can be considered both a form of
formative assessment, i.e. the counterpart of teacher feedback, and a form of collaborative learn-
ing (Van Gennip, Segers, and Tillema 2010). Both feedback and peer feedback cover different
types of information that can be directed to the task, process, self-regulation or personal levels
(Hattie and Timperley 2007).
In this study, peer feedback is considered to rely upon social constructivism, which, as
proposed by Vygotsky (1978), is the joint construction of knowledge through discourse and
other types of interactions in which communication and social skills are implicit. The Vygotskian
concept of scaffolded learning presumably depends on whether the peer assessor merely identi-
fies weaknesses in the assessed work or also identifies strengths and provides recommendations
for improvement. In addition, we related peer feedback to the Piagetian model of cognitive con-
flict, which involves students who have equal status (Ibarra, Rodr
ıguez, and Go
mez 2012), but
who might be different in terms of levels of competence and knowledge (Strijbos et al. 2010).
Thus, an interaction occurs between the students and their knowledge (Wen, Tsai, and Chang
2006) in which students engage in re-conceptualising integrating and re-creating previous
knowledge and experiences.
To obtain maximum benefits, the content of feedback must be related to one or more aspects
of the learning, a product (work), the process (what has already been achieved) and the progress
recorded (improvement over time) in the student’s learning (Stiggins 2008).
Peer feedback is particularly beneficial to student learning, and Panadero and Dochy (2014)
and Gielen and De Wever (2015) show that students enhance their learning experiences not only
when they receive feedback but also when they provide feedback to their peers by providing an
intermediate assessment of the performance against criteria, accompanied by feedback regarding
strengths, weaknesses and/or suggestions for improvement (Boud and Falchikov 2006). In add-
ition, peer feedback is linked to the development of ‘work-ready’ skills in students such as
 ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION 3

student teachers’ skills, teacher’s understanding of the assessment and learning process, practical
skills, good classroom interaction skills, and instructional, communication and assessment skills
(Al-Barakat and Al-Hassan 2009), and is associated with ‘authentic learning’ (Thomas, Martin, and
Pleasants 2011). Peer feedback is also linked with the acquisition of higher order thinking
skills (Snowball and Mostert 2013) in Bloom’s taxonomy (Bloom and Krathwohl 1956) and self-
regulated learning (Ion, Cano, and Fern
andez 2017; Panadero and Brown 2017).
Peer feedback can occur in a variety of forms: verbal or written, anonymous or public, individ-
ual or team-based, and singular or a component of a feedback loop (Simpson and Clifton 2015).
Peer feedback has been analysed both in individual learning experiences and group learning set-
tings. In group contexts, the opportunities for students to collaborate productively are widened
by emerging forms that promote ‘a rich dialogue in relation to feedback and peer- and self-
assessment activities which, by their nature, place the student at the centre of the educational
process as an active participant in constructing knowledge’ (Hatzipanagos and Warburton 2009,
15). Recent developments have identified feedforward as proactive feedback (Ion, Barrera, and
Tomas 2016) in which students are able to uptake the feedback received and use it in future
tasks in both academic and professional contexts (Boud and Molloy 2013). Thus, feedback
involves not only detecting and correcting errors but also anticipating and preventing possible
mistakes. This prospective dimension of feedback suggests that the definition of feedback must
expand beyond correction and unidirectional action from teachers providing information regard-
ing the gap between the level of achievement of the current task and the desirable level of
development (Boud and Falchikov 2006). The alternative proposed definition is feedback in
which the student plays an active and central role (Carless and Chan 2016) with clear implica-
tions for the students’ self-regulated learning. Consistently, Li, Liu, and Steckelberg (2010) noted
the potential of feedback in the self-regulation of students’ actions. Students’ self-regulation
depends not only on the feedback received but also on the feedback provided and the inter-
action among peers. Analysing other students’ work allows students to interpret the assessment
criteria, which leads to an understanding of a good performance and helping students to adjust
their actions to meet the expected results.

The role of students in peer feedback

In student-involved approaches to assessment, students are considered active agents who share
responsibilities, reflect, collaborate and conduct a continuous dialogue with the teacher or their
peers (Kim 2009).
In the peer feedback process, the students play the roles of both the assessor and the asses-
see, and each role has implications for student learning and their cognitive competences. As
assessor, the students are involved in reviewing, summarising, clarifying, providing feedback,
diagnosing misconceptions, identifying gaps in knowledge and considering deviations from the
ideal (Topping 1998). These tasks are all cognitively and metacognitively demanding activities
that can help consolidate, reinforce and deepen the student assessor’s understanding. As asses-
see, the role of students is described in more passive way, being considered as a recipient for
peer feedback. Studies conducted by Kim (2009) overcame this perspective and focused on the
role of assessee as an active partner in the peer feedback process, able to engage in dialog with
the assessor and taking advantage of the process at least as much as their peer. The findings
reveal that assesses reported higher metacognitive awareness in their learning process, received
better scores in the task and felt more motivated towards the peer assessment.
Providing feedback in small groups is beneficial to both the assessor (e.g. Topping 2009) and
the assessee (e.g. Tsivitanidou, Zacharia, and Hovardas 2011) and represents an excellent oppor-
tunity for learning (e.g. Carless and Chang 2016). In collaborative contexts students clarify their
4 G. ION ET AL.

understanding of the topics (e.g. Boud and Molloy 2013), increase their engagement and
empower their learning (Panadero and Dochy 2014).
Performing feedback requires peer assessment skills (Gielen and De Wever 2015). As an
assessor, the learners must be able to recognise and assess criteria, judge the performance of a
peer, and eventually provide feedback. In contrast, the assessee must ‘critically review the peer-
feedback they have received, decide which changes are necessary to improve their work
and proceed with making those changes’ (Hovardas, Tsivitanidou, and Zacharia 2014, 135). In
addition, the assessee’s role in most peer assessment practices has been described in a very
passive manner: the assessee’s role is usually merely receiving feedback (Kim 2009).
The peer feedback component of the assessment process can promote active learning and
the development of skills related to teamwork, verbal communication, negotiation and
diplomacy (Neugebauer, Ray, and Sassenberg 2016). Learning to provide and accept criticism,
justify one’s position and reject suggestions are all forms of social and assertion skills. Student
engagement in peer evaluation situations can help facilitate subsequent employee evaluation
skills (Ion, Cano, and Fern
andez 2017). In certain projects, peer assessment is targeted as a
transferable professional skill, and can change the students’ own views regarding the role of
assessment in the academic process (Hannaford 2017).
Despite recent advances in studies analysing the agents involved in peer feedback, the
activity of providing feedback is predominantly analysed as a critical factor in learning-oriented
assessment. Most studies have focused on the benefits of peer feedback to the assessee’s role
and have not focused on the assessor. We aim to fill this gap and provide new insights into
the role of feedback in the assessor’ learning and competency development. Particularly in pre-
service teacher education, the use of alternative assessment strategies such as peer feedback
changes pedagogical beliefs (Sahin-Taskin 2017). In this study, peer feedback was integrated
with learning, and providing feedback is considered a key component of learning.

Methods
This study specifically addresses the following issue: In the context of peer feedback, which role,
i.e. assessor or assessee, is perceived as more beneficial to learners? To answer this research
question, this study examines the relationship between students’ perception of learning while
‘providing’ and ‘receiving’ feedback with an emphasis on the following areas: (1) cognitive and
metacognitive learning, (2) the development of discipline-related and professional academic
skills, and (3) academic emotions or other affective aspects.

Setting
The experience was implemented in a mandatory course during the first year of the bachelor’s
degree programme in Teacher Education. The feedback provided by the peer-team was consid-
ered a part of the learning process, and the students were not involved in grading. The quality
of the project and peer feedback was assessed by the lecturer.
The students provided peer feedback in a three-part written submission (draft group report),
which constituted the final research project. The draft group reports were developed over a
6-week period by groups of four to five students. The working groups were formed by the pro-
fessors to avoid pre-existing social relations among members. The report was approximately
3000 words in length. After receiving feedback, the peer group had two weeks to incorporate
changes and submit the final group report. The students were asked to provide their feedback
using the “track changes” feature in their word processor software. This feature marks and shows
the changes in a document, allowing for a review of the revisions at any time.
 ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION 5

To support and mentor students it is essential for the learner to engage with the feedback
core task (Deiglmayr 2017). Therefore, lecturers provided a 2 h training session to explain the
process, the types of feedback, how to provide and incorporate it in the own work before
the task. Guidelines for the development of the project were uploaded to the virtual campus
containing information about the structure, content, assessment criteria and format details.
To assess the group projects, students were asked to provide feedback following three indica-
tors in order to foster an analytical and holistic assessment of the following aspects:

I. Aspects related to the development of the task: selectivity (the most important aspects of the
task are discussed); belonging (refers to the objectives of the task); contextualisation (the
feedback comments refer to the evaluation criteria of the task); transfer (referrals can be
transferred to other learning situations or practices); balance (refers to both the negative
and positive aspects of the task); reflection (focuses on self-regulatory processes); involve-
ment (the peer is invited to reflect upon his/her involvement in the activity performed); and
acquisition of competencies (refers to the development of subject competencies).
II. Formal aspects: linguistic correction (clarity, spelling, punctuation and general formatting)
and structure (coherence, the use of vocabulary and the unity of ideas).
III. Emotional aspects: motivation (encourages advancement); reinforcement of self-esteem
(highlights and encourages strengths); and assertiveness (provides security and firmness in
one's own assessment regardless of whether it is negative or positive but in a bal-
anced way).

The process of the feedback is illustrated in Figure 1.

Instrument and measurements

In this study, peer feedback was considered under the theoretical framework of social construct-
ivism, which describes the joint construction of knowledge through discourse and other interac-
tions between the assessor and assessee. Communication and social skills appear to be implicit,

Each group develops

assignment

Group delivers final Each group writes the

report first report dra

Group incorporates The group submits

comments (assessee the dra to peer
work) group (assessee work)

Peer-group provides
feedback
(assessor work)

Figure 1. Process of the peer-feedback experience.

6 G. ION ET AL.

and communication between agents leads to the development of internal processes as proposed
by Vygotsky (1978). Considering the Vygotskian concept of scaffolded learning, we designed an
online questionnaire using the SurveyMonkey platform entitled ‘Peer-evaluation strategies and
feedback’ (EAIF, after its Spanish acronym). The questionnaire design considers the mechanisms
through which peer feedback might generate its effects. The domains included in the question-
naire are as follows:

1. The impact of peer feedback on cognitive and metacognitive student development (peer
feedback leads to comparisons, reflection, contrasting, communication skills, considering
deviation from the standards, and learning through models).
2. The impact of peer feedback on the development of social skills and competencies (i.e. devel-
opment of group work skills, active learning, acceptance of criticism, argumentation and
assertiveness).
3. The impact of peer feedback on future professional skills. This domain includes aspects
related to the impact of peer assessment on the students’ perception of the assessment
competencies, their level of confidence in the assessment, their level of confidence in their
peers, and conceptions of future professions.
4. The impact of peer feedback on the development of affective features (i.e. anxiety, sense of
belonging, personal responsibility, and level of acceptance of negative comments).

Sample
In total, 248 students were enrolled in the degree programme and participated in the peer feed-
back experience. The study sample consisted of 188 students (80.3% female), who consented to
participate in the research study. The sample size calculation was performed retrospectively
considering a 95% confidence level for finite populations (p and q ¼ 0.5), indicating that the mar-
gin of error was ±0.035. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 39 years old (M ¼ 19.74;
SD ¼2.735).

Procedure and data analysis

The questionnaire was completed in class after the experience at the end of the course in May
2017. The questionnaire was administered to the students who were in class at that time, which
allowed for the attainment of a representative sample and the use of exhaustive questionnaires
with complex questions while avoiding the non-responders (Torrente and Bosch 1993). Once the
data were gathered, univariate and multivariate statistical analyses were performed using IBM
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS v.20) and Systeme portable pour l’analyse des
donn
ees (SPAD_N v.5.6). We used the ‘criterion variable method’ in the programme SPAD_N
(S
anchez-Mart
ı and Ruiz-Bueno 2018). Like all multivariate analyses, this method considers all var-
iables recorded. The statistical treatment allows for the characterisation of the values (categories)
of a variable based on all other variables and considers that each group must be the most
homogeneous among its members and the most heterogeneous in relation to the others. Thus,
we obtained profiles from the total scores of the students’ perceptions of learning during the
exercise of “providing” and/or ‘receiving’ feedback.

Results
According to the univariate analysis, which was performed to describe the application of peer
feedback, the experience was a useful learning strategy (M ¼ 4.68; SD ¼ 1.497) and significantly
improved their assignments (M ¼ 4.61; SD ¼ 1.446). The students believed that despite its
 ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION 7

significance, the feedback was more useful in improving the tasks of others (M ¼ 5.11;
SD ¼1.245) than in improving the tasks performed by their group (M ¼ 4.89; SD ¼ 1.460). These
statements are valued above the midpoint on the scale (the items ranged from 1 to 7). The differ-
ence between providing and receiving feedback was analysed according to the overall assessment
of each action. Indices were obtained by averaging all actions related to providing and receiving
feedback. Then we compared both indices by performing a paired-samples t-test. The difference
between the means of the two conditions (providing and receiving) was sufficiently large and was
not due to chance. The t-value was positive, indicating that the first condition (providing feedback)
had a higher mean (M ¼ 4.75; SD ¼ 0.090) than the second condition (receiving; M ¼ 4.63;
SD ¼ 1.145); thus, we may conclude that providing feedback caused significantly more reported
benefits than receiving feedback (t(183)¼2.504; p ¼ 0.013). The results were consistent in the
students’ responses, and a robust significant correlation was observed (r ¼ 0.812; p ¼ 0.000).
The students agreed with the comments they received (M ¼ 4.80; SD ¼ 1.533) and incorpo-
rated these comments to improve their activities and projects (M ¼ 5.37; SD ¼ 1.348). However,
the students’ satisfaction with the received feedback (M ¼ 4.96; SD ¼ 1.600) was lower than that
with the provided feedback (M ¼ 5.52; SD ¼ 1.234). The means appear to be above the midpoint
of the scale but are frequently lower regarding ‘receiving feedback’, likely reflecting higher
expectations of peer feedback.
However, we aimed to carefully examine these benefits and determine the extent to which
the students’ role as assessors and assessees are perceived to be more beneficial for their learn-
ing. The students believed that they learned more by providing feedback (M ¼ 3.84; SD ¼ 1.640)
than by receiving feedback (M ¼ 4.02; SD ¼ 1.655). Thus, ‘providing’ and ‘receiving’ feedback dis-
criminatory variables were analysed in greater depth because it appears to have sufficient
explanatory power to locate differences between these processes.
During the data analysis process, we realised that the variables linked to the questions ‘I have
learned more by giving feedback than by receiving it’ (Item 7.2 of the questionnaire) and ‘I have
learned more by receiving feedback than by giving it’ (Item 7.3) showed internal consistency.
Students who were more in agreement with having learned more by providing feedback were,
in turn, less in agreement with having learned more by receiving feedback, and vice versa.
However, we also identified that several students did not follow this pattern of linearity, and
therefore, we chose to create three groups based on this result. The students were classified as
students who said they learned more by providing feedback (designated ‘assessors’); students
who said they learned more by receiving feedback (designated ‘assessees’); and students whose
responses showed a lack of coherence between these two variables (designated ‘ambivalent’).
Then, we performed a profile analysis based on these three groups. Subsequently, we completed
our analyses by considering criterion variable items 7.2 and 7.3 and creating groups of high and
low perception of learning.

Students as ‘assessors’
In this profile (23.4% of the sample; n ¼ 44) the students are not satisfied with the peer feedback
experience. These students are neither satisfied with the feedback received (p ¼ 0.028) nor with
the comments provided by their colleagues regarding their work (p ¼ 0.004).
The students with this profile are named ‘assessors’ because they believe that they have
learned more by providing feedback than by receiving feedback (p ¼ 0.000). However, their
answers do not significantly correlate with variables related to the impact of the peer assessment
activity in terms of the development of academic and professional skills, the improvement of
metacognitive or cognitive learning, and other affective aspects.
In their profile, multiple statistically significant correlations linked to the evaluation of feedback
as an activity are observed, showing that these students are dissatisfied with variables related to
8 G. ION ET AL.

the benefits they should have obtained from the implemented activity. These students do not
believe that providing feedback was useful or meaningful for improving their work (p ¼ 0.034).
These students also feel that the impact of the peer-provided feedback did not increase their confi-
dence with others (p ¼ 0.001) or improve their acceptance by others (p ¼ 0.024). In Table 1, the
statistically significant correlations that have emerged in this profile are shown.
Considering our partial analyses, the values of questions 7.2 (I have learned more by providing
feedback than by receiving feedback) and 7.3 (I have learned more by receiving feedback than by
giving feedback) as the criterion variables, and cases in which ambivalent answers were detected
in both questions, the results more clearly depict the benefits of assuming the role of the
‘assessor’. The students who agreed that they learned more by providing feedback (32.5% of the
sample ([n ¼ 188]; n ¼ 61) stated that being the assessors has helped them better understand
their future tasks (p ¼ 0.031). The assessor role has also enabled these students to become aware
of the responsibility of evaluating others (p ¼ 0.021) and being more assertive (p ¼ 0.021). These
two elements imply that this role contributes to the development of certain competencies and
affective skills. Despite these positive implications, the opposite task (i.e. receiving feedback) has
caused anxiety in these students (p ¼ 0.012).

Students as ‘assessees’
This group (33.5% of the sample; n ¼ 63) constitutes students who believe that they have learned
more by receiving feedback than by providing feedback (p ¼ 0.000). Overall, the students who
identify with this profile are satisfied with the feedback received (p ¼ 0.004), agree with the
comments received from their peers (p ¼ 0.006), and, as a consequence, have incorporated the
feedback to improve their work (p ¼ 0.046).
In terms of cognitive and metacognitive development, receiving feedback was a useful learn-
ing strategy for these students (p ¼ 0.017) and has enabled them to learn more actively

Table 1. Perception of greater learning as an assessor.

Group: Perception of greater learning as an assessor (n ¼ 44; 23.4%)
Dimension Variables Categories Test value p
Profile Perception of having learned Assessor 13.86 0.000
more as …
Profile I have learned more by giving Agree 11.17 0.000
feedback than by not receiving it.
Profile I have learned more by receiving Disagree 7.25 0.000
feedback than by not giving it.
EMO Giving feedback has increased my Disagree 3.01 0.001
confidence in others.
EVA_FED I agree with the comments received. Disagree 2.69 0.004
EVA_FED You learn the same by giving and Disagree 2.04 0.021
receiving feedback.
CP Giving feedback has improved my Disagree 1.98 0.024
acceptance by others.
EVA_FED I am satisfied with the Disagree 1.91 0.028
feedback received.
EVA_FED Giving feedback has been meaningful Disagree 1.83 0.034
in improving my work.
C Receiving feedback has allowed me Disagree 1.82 0.035
to compare my previous
knowledge with the knowledge
of others.
Note: Dimension abbreviations. EVA_FED: evaluation of the peer-feedback experience; EMO: academic emotions or other
affective aspects; CP: the development of discipline-related and general academic skills and competencies; C: cognitive
and metacognitive learning.
 ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION 9

(p ¼ 0.004). The peer assessment process was also helpful in improving the group
tasks (p ¼ 0.017).
Results showing that students who consider themselves ‘assessees’ also highlight the benefits
of ‘providing feedback’ (see Table 2). These students likely consider peer feedback as a part of a
continuum in which ‘providing’ and ‘receiving’ are processes that feed each other. In contrast to
the previous profile (‘assessors’), in this case, these students are satisfied with the experience,
which inevitably has implications. The students believe that receiving feedback is important
(p ¼ 0.004) and conclude that feedback provides a significant opportunity to improve the group
project (p ¼ 0.003).
Following the same analytical process described in the previous section, we repeated the
analysis using the total score on questions 7.2 and 7.3 as the criterion variables. The students
perceived that being ‘assessees’ allowed them to become more aware of the objectives of the
subject (p ¼ 0.042), provide more value to the tasks (p ¼ 0.027) and understand the importance
of using different strategies each time (p ¼ 0.012).
The profile of the students who agreed that they learned more by receiving feedback
(42.6% of the sample ([n ¼ 188]; n ¼ 80) say that being ‘assessees’ has helped them integrate
the subject knowledge (p ¼ 0.026) and better accept their errors (p ¼ 0.012). Regarding compe-
tencies, receiving feedback has helped these students improve their ability to argue
(p ¼ 0.031), their teamwork competence (p ¼ 0.0.31) and their ability to communicate more
effectively with their peers (p ¼ 0.033). Receiving feedback also had an impact on the develop-
ment of other important affective aspects. The students displayed an increased trust in others
(p ¼ 0.000), improved their acceptance by others (p ¼ 0.017) and reported a greater sense of
belonging to the group (p ¼ 0.025). Interestingly, in contrast to their counterparts from the
previous section, the students also believed that receiving feedback has not caused them
anxiety (p ¼ 0.012).

Ambivalent: students who show ambivalence in their answers

We identified another group of students who did not adopt the ‘assessor’ or ‘assessee’ role; thus,
we designated these students ‘ambivalent’. For certain reasons, these students did not identify
with the peer assessment experience performed in class and did not agree that ‘providing’ or

Table 2. Perception of greater learning as an assessee.

Group: Perception of greater learning as an assessee (n ¼ 63; 33.51%)
Dimension Variables Categories Test value p
Profile Perception of having learned more as … Assessee 15.06 0.000
Profile I have learned more by receiving feedback than by not giving it. Agree 12.21 0.000
Profile I have learned more by giving feedback than by not receiving it. Disagree 7.60 0.000
EVA_FED Receiving feedback has been significant in improving my work. Agree 2.74 0.003
EVA_FED Receiving feedback is important. Agree 2.68 0.004
C Receiving feedback has helped me learn more actively. Agree 2.66 0.004
CP Giving feedback has helped me improve my ability to argue. Agree 2.64 0.004
EVA_FED I am satisfied with the feedback received. Agree 2.62 0.004
EVA_FED I agree with the comments received. Agree 2.54 0.006
Profile Female. Gender 2.38 0.009
CP Receiving feedback has been helpful in improving the tasks of my group. Agree 2.27 0.011
C Receiving feedback is a useful learning strategy for me. Agree 2.13 0.017
C Giving feedback is a useful learning strategy for me. Agree 2.11 0.017
CP Giving feedback has helped me communicate with my group. Agree 2.04 0.020
EMO Giving feedback has increased my confidence in others. Agree 1.98 0.024
C Giving feedback has helped me integrate the knowledge of the subject. Agree 1.94 0.026
EVA_FED I have incorporated the comments received. Agree 1.68 0.046
Note: Dimension abbreviations. EVA_FED: evaluation of the peer-feedback experience; EMO: academic emotions or other
affective aspects; CP: the development of discipline-related and general academic skills and competencies; C: cognitive
and metacognitive learning.
10 G. ION ET AL.

‘receiving’ feedback had implications for improving their projects and gaining important know-
ledge and skills. The students with this profile, who constituted a considerable percentage of the
sample (43.1%; n ¼ 81), devoted little time to the peer-assessment project (p ¼ 0.029). These
students disagreed that they have learned more by receiving feedback than by providing feed-
back (p ¼ 0.000), and simultaneously, they also disagree with the idea of having learned more by
providing feedback than by receiving feedback (p ¼ 0.003). In contrast to the previous profiles,
these students firmly believe that the learning achieved by ‘providing’ and ‘receiving’ feedback is
the same (p ¼ 0.007). These students do not consider receiving feedback more important
(p ¼ 0.025), and furthermore, they are not satisfied with the feedback they have provided to their
peers (p ¼ 0.004).
Regarding the implications of this ‘ambivalence’ in peer assessment (see Table 3), these
students do not believe that receiving feedback is a useful learning tool (p ¼ 0.049) or a tool that
can improve group activities (p ¼ 0.042). Similarly, they do not believe that providing feedback
has helped them become more aware of the responsibility of evaluating others (p ¼ 0.044),
which is perhaps closely related to the short time spent on this activity. However, these students
believe that the feedback received from their peers has improved their self-esteem (p ¼ 0.048).

Discussion and conclusions

This study examined the benefits of the roles of assessor and assessee in peer assessment on
student learning. During the process, the students performed different roles, which differentially
impacted their learning (Kim 2009; Li, Liu, and Steckelberg 2010). The incorporation of peer feed-
back in a group report was considered to have learning benefits by providing the students with
an educational opportunity. Thus, our results are consistent with previous studies (e.g. Simpson
and Clifton 2015). Although the students perceived that their learning was more improved by
‘providing feedback’ than by ‘receiving feedback’ (Lundstrom and Baker 2009), according to the
statistical analyses, their experiences in relation to the role of ‘assessor’ or ‘assessee’ are dispar-
ate. Certain students identified with the profile of assessors, certain students identified with the
profile of assessees, and certain students showed an ambivalent profile. The implications and
experiences of peer-feedback vary depending on these roles. The students tend to adopt a role
and hold assumptions regarding that role.
The students who identified as ‘assessors’ obtained more from the experience, which
impacted on the given assignment. Providing feedback is highly associated with improvement in

Table 3. Perception of equal learning as ‘assessors’ and ‘assessees’.

Group: Perception of equal learning as ‘assessors’ and ‘assessees’ (‘ambivalent’) (n ¼ 81; 43.09%)
Dimension Variables Categories Test value p
Profile Perception of having learned more as … Ambivalent 15.63 0.000
Profile I have learned more by receiving feedback than by not giving it. Disagree 5.16 0.000
Profile Gender. Masculine 3.17 0.001
Profile I have learned more by giving feedback than by not receiving it. Disagree 2.80 0.003
EVA_FED I am satisfied with the feedback given. Disagree 2.61 0.004
EVA_FED You learn the same by giving and receiving feedback. Agree 2.46 0.007
EVA_FED Receiving feedback is important. Disagree 1.95 0.025
Profile Hours devoted to the feedback experience. <5 h 1.89 0.029
EVA Receiving feedback has allowed me to better evaluate the work of peers. Disagree 1.84 0.033
CP Receiving feedback has been helpful in improving the tasks of my group. Disagree 1.73 0.042
EVA Giving feedback can increase awareness of the responsibility of evaluating others. Disagree 1.70 0.044
EMO Receiving feedback has helped me improve my self-esteem Agree 1.69 0.045
Profile Pathway followed to access higher education CFGS 1.67 0.048
C Receiving feedback is a useful learning strategy for me. Disagree 1.66 0.049
Note: Dimension abbreviations. EVA_FED: evaluation of the peer-feedback experience; EMO: academic emotions or other
affective aspects; CP: the development of discipline-related and general academic skills and competencies; C: cognitive
and metacognitive learning.
 ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION 11

the current task and in transferring the knowledge to future tasks. Thus, the feedback became
feedforward (Ion, Barrera, and Tomas 2016). Providing feedback rendered the students more
active and involved in their learning, enhanced their responsibility and commitment to the task,
and developed their assertiveness skills. Thus, this study fills a gap in the literature (Topping
et al. 2000) and provides new insights into the benefits of providing peer review in student
learning. Active involvement by students is directly linked to students’ empowerment
(Panadero and Dochy 2014) and has the potential of contributing to lifelong-learning process
and professional skill development (Li, Liu, and Steckelberg 2010). Providing comments to
improve their peers’ work highlighted the educational benefits of peer-assessment and increased
positive perception of peer reviewing as a process in which students are appropriately skilled to
contribute (Simpson and Clifton 2015). Students perceived that the feedback helped them
improve their argumentative capacity, connect better with their work team and improve their
communication skills.
In addition, this study contributes by advancing the discussion regarding the role of received
feedback in student learning. The students perceived that receiving feedback helped them
improve their projects (Simpson and Clifton 2015), contributed to the development of cognitive
and metacognitive skills (Bautista, Monereo, and Scheuer 2014), enhanced their active learning
and commitment to the tasks, had important implications for their empowerment in the learning
process (Panadero and Dochy 2014) and improved their group tasks (Gielen and De Wever
2015). In addition, receiving feedback is highly associated with the integration of knowledge
(Boud and Molloy 2013) and the acceptance of errors as cognitive aspects involved in the learn-
ing process. Establishing a peer feedback design enables the acquisition of social and profes-
sional skills, which are highly connected to their future profession as teachers. Peer feedback is
especially beneficial in the context of teacher education programmes adding specific benefits for
future teachers work. Involving students in peer feedback can be a useful tool for developing
student teachers’ ability to be reflexive on their own and on their colleagues’ work, and helps
them to enhance the professional development competences contributing to a deeper analysis
of the teaching and learning settings (Al-Barakat and Al-Hassan 2009; Crichton and Valdera
Gil 2015).
This study additionally contributes to the understanding of how students learn, and the bene-
fits acquired through peer assessment, adding new insights to the literature not only regarding
the role of assessors but also regarding the role of assessees. By focusing on the benefits stu-
dents acquire in each of the roles, this study supports the theory of the active construction of
knowledge through student interaction and negates the concept of the passive role of students
engaged only in receiving feedback. Moreover, to fully enhance learning, the assessee’s role in
peer assessment must be articulated to utilise it as a more effective learning strategy (Kim 2009).
This study has several practical implications for the field of education, particularly teacher
education programmes in higher education. This study supports that students engaged in the
peer feedback process require specific skills. As reviewers or assessors, the students must be able
to recognise and assess particular criteria, judge the quality of their peers’ work and make deci-
sions regarding the comments they submit to their colleagues. In contrast, while receiving feed-
back, the students must critically review the feedback and make decisions regarding the value
and necessity of including the comments and making changes in their work (Hovardas,
Tsivitanidou, and Zacharia 2014), which require high level cognitive capacities, such as summaris-
ing, explaining and identifying errors and gaps in their learning.
All these competences are especially critical for future teachers. Being involved in peer
feedback activities contributes to the development of skills required as teachers, aiding reflection
for developing effective practice in the classroom and being able to effectively assess pupils
learning. Being involved in the assessment process might contribute to the active construction
of the student teachers’ conception of evaluation as learning process. However, providing and
up-taking feedback are complex processes and, due to this complexity, tutors play a critical role
12 G. ION ET AL.

to maximise the benefits. Accompanying students through solid pre-implementation training and
continuous guiding during the process help students to positively connect with the task and
resolve intra and interpersonal conflicts that distance the students from the implicit benefits of
peer assessment processes.
A key finding was the role of students in their own learning. As most participants recognised,
providing feedback helped them improve their learning, which is an indicator that students want
to perform an active role in their own learning and consider their involvement critical in the
design of teaching and learning experiences. However, to enhance this benefit, classroom experi-
ences should facilitate deep involvement in students during all learning and assessment proc-
esses to enhance the students’ professional future competencies as assessors.
The implications of this study are that in the field of teacher education, assessment performed
in higher education not only has a critical impact on students’ grades but also serves as indirect
teaching models for the active construction of professional skills. Thus, assigning students to the
role of assessor of their peers and designing instructional interventions that enhance the effect-
iveness of assessment appear to be critical strategies for promoting the necessary skills in higher
education teacher education programmes.
This study presents some limitations that should be acknowledged for future research. To
avoid pre-existing social interactions among students, we composed randomly selected groups.
However, this does not ensure that certain predispositions and likings will take part in the ration-
ale and processes of peer feedback. Although lectures provided a training session before the
feedback experience, we did not measure the adequacy or the impact of the session. Future
research in this regard will help understand the training’s influence on the results, considering
that one of the reasons why peer-feedback often does not achieve its full impact is because of
insufficient training for students (Deiglmayr 2017).
The results of this study emphasise the importance of peer feedback as part of the assess-
ment process in teacher education programmes in which pre-service teachers are experiment-
ing with new methodologies that they may use in their future practice. These practices have
the potential to change the students’ conceptions of evaluation and contribute to shift contra-
dictory beliefs. An in-depth analysis of how being involved in peer feedback contributes to
change the future teachers’ teaching paradigm might be a field of interest for further
research, especially considering that pedagogical principles are resistant to change (Sahin-
Taskin 2017).
Summing up, this study supports the idea of the role of peer feedback for student learning,
both for those receiving but especially for those giving feedback, and has the potential to sup-
port students to become motivated and self-regulated learners. To achieve this aim, feedback
has to be contextualised as part of the teachers’ initial and continuous training and professional
development.

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona- Oficina de Qualitat docent under Grant for
Innovation projects 2016 for providing the funding and allowing this innovative learning-teaching experience to be
performed in eight different groups of students in the Faculty of Education; we also thank the professors in charge
of the classes where the experiences were applied who enabled the development of this study.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interests was reported by the authors.
 ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION 13

Notes on contributors
Georgeta Ion is an associate professor at the Faculty of Educational Sciences departament of Applied Pedagogy,
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Her research interest inlude students' assessment and evidence-informed prac-
tices in education.

Angelina Sa
nchez-Mart
ı is a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Systematic and Social Pedagogy at the
Faculty of Educational Sciences, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Her research interests includereflexive learning
and thinking in higher education and research methodology.
Ingrid Agud-Morell is a Tenure Track professor in the Department of Systematic and Social Pedagogy (Theory and
History of Education) at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Her research interests include the improvement of
assessment and the inclusion of gender perspective in higher education.

ORCID
Georgeta Ion http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9915-0698
Angelina S
anchez Mart
ı http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4719-4688
Ingrid Agud Morell http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3759-5784

References
Al-Barakat, A., and O. Al-Hassan. 2009. “Peer Assessment as a Learning Tool for Enhancing Student Teachers’
Preparation.” Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 37 (4): 399–413. doi: 10.1080/13598660903247676.
Bautista, A., C. Monereo, and N. Scheuer. 2014. “The Peer Review Process as an Opportunity for Learning/La
Evaluacio
n Por Pares Como Oportunidad Para El Aprendizaje.” Infancia Y Aprendizaje, Journal for the Study of
Education and Development 37 (4): 665–686. doi: 10.1080/02103702.2014.977105.
Bloom, B. S., and D. R. Krathwohl. 1956. “Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational
Goals.” In Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, edited by B. S. Bloom, 56–72. New York, NY: David McKay Company.
Boud, D., and N. Falchikov. 2006. “Aligning Assessment with Long-Term Learning.” Assessment and Evaluation in
Higher Education 31 (4): 399–413. doi: 10.1080/02602930600679050.
Boud, D., and E. Molloy. 2013. “Rethinking Models of Feedback for Learning: The Challenge of Design.” Assessment
and Evaluation in Higher Education 38 (6): 698–712. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2012.691462.
Carless, D., and K. K. H. Chan. 2016. “Managing Dialogic Use of Exemplars.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education 42 (6): 930–941. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2016.1211246.
Crichton, H., and F. Valdera Gil. 2015. “Student Teachers’ Perceptions of Feedback as an Aid to Reflection for
Developing Effective Practice in the Classroom.” European Journal of Teacher Education 38 (4): 512–524. doi:
10.1080/02619768.2015.1056911.
Deiglmayr, A. 2017. “Instructional Scaffolds for Learning from Formative Peer Assessment: Effects of Core Task, Peer
Feedback, and Dialogue.” European Journal of Psychology of Education 33 (1): 185–198. doi: 10.1007/s10212-017-
0355-8.
Gielen, M., and B. De Wever. 2015. “Scripting the Role of Assessor and Assessee in Peer Assessment in a Wiki
Environment: Impact on Peer Feedback Quality and Product Improvement.” Computers and Education 88:
370–386. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.012.
Hannaford, L. 2017. “Motivation in Group Assessment: A Phenomenological Approach to Post-Graduate Group
Assessment.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 42 (5): 823–836. doi: 10.1080/
02602938.2016.1195787.
Harris, L. R., and G. T. L. Brown. 2013. “Opportunities and Obstacles to Consider When Using Peer- and Self-
Assessment to Improve Student Learning: Case Studies into Teachers’ Implementation.” Teaching and Teacher
Education 36: 101–111. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.008.
Hattie, J., and H. Timperley. 2007. “The Power of Feedback.” Review of Educational Research 77: 81–112. doi:
10.3102/003465430298487.
Hatzipanagos, S., and S. Warburton. 2009. “Feedback as Dialogue: Exploring the Links between Formative
Assessment and Social Software in Distance Learning.” Learning, Media and Technology 34 (1): 45–59. doi:
10.1080/17439880902759919.
Hovardas, T., O. E. Tsivitanidou, and Z. C. Zacharia. 2014. “Peer versus Expert Feedback: An Investigation of the
Quality of Peer Feedback among Secondary School Students.” Computers and Education 71: 133–152. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.019.
14 G. ION ET AL.

Ibarra, M. S., G. Rodr
ıguez, and M. A. Go
mez. 2012. “La Evaluacio
n Entre Iguales: Beneficios Y Estrategias Para Su
Pr
actica En La Universidad.” Revista de Educacio
n 359: 206–231. doi:10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2011-359-092.
Ion, G., E. Cano, and M. Fern
andez. 2017. “Enhancing Self-Regulated Learning through Using Written Feedback in
Higher Education.” International Journal of Educational Research 85: 1–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ijer.2017.06.002.
Ion, G., A. Barrera, and M. Tomas. 2016. “Written Peer-Feedback to Enhance Students’ Current and Future Learning.”
International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 13 (15): 1–11. doi: 10.1186/s41239-016-0017-y.
Kim, M. 2009. “The Impact of an Elaborated Assessee’s Role in Peer Assessment.” Assessment and Evaluation in
Higher Education 34 (1): 105–114. doi: 10.1080/02602930801955960.
Leahy, S., C. Lyon, M. Thompson, and D. Wiliam. 2005. “Classroom Assessment: Minute by Minute, Day by Day.”
Educational Leadership 63 (3): 19–24.
Li, L., X. Liu, and A. L. Steckelberg. 2010. “Assessor or Assessee: How Student Learning Improves by Giving and
Receiving Peer Feedback.” British Journal of Educational Technology 41 (3): 525536. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
8535.2009.00968.x.
Liu, N. F., and D. Carless. 2006. “Peer Feedback: The Learning Element of Peer Assessment.” Teaching in Higher
Education 11 (3): 279–290. doi: 10.1080/13562510600680582.
Lundstrom, K., and W. Baker. 2009. “To Give Is Better than to Receive: The Benefits of Peer Review to the
Reviewer’s Own Writing.” Journal of Second Language Writing 18 (1): 30–43. doi: 10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002.
Neugebauer, J., D. G. Ray, and K. Sassenberg. 2016. “When Being Worse Helps: The Influence of Upward Social
Comparisons and Knowledge Awareness on Learner Engagement and Learning in Peer-to-Peer Knowledge
Exchange.” Learning and Instruction 44: 41–52. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.02.007.
Nicol, D., A. Thomson, and C. Breslin. 2014. “Rethinking Feedback Practices in Higher Education: A Peer Review
Perspective.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 39 (1): 102–111. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2013.795518.
Panadero, E., and G. T. L. Brown. 2017. “Teachers’ Reasons for Using Peer Assessment: Positive Experience Predicts
Use.” European Journal of Psychology of Education 32 (1): 133–156. doi: 10.1007/s10212-015-0282-5.
Panadero, E., and F. Dochy. 2014. “Student Self-Assessment: Assessment, Learning and Empowerment.” Assessment
& Evaluation in Higher Education 39 (7): 895–897. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2013.871412.
Panadero, E., A. Jonsson, and J. W. Strijbos. 2016. “Scaffolding Self-Regulated Learning through Self-Assessment and
Peer Assessment: Guidelines for Classroom Implementation.” In Assessment for Learning: Meeting the Challenge of
Implementation, edited by D. Laveault and L. Allal, 311–326. Boston, MA: Springer.
Quinton, S., and T. Smallbone. 2010. “Feeding Forward: Using Feedback to Promote Student Reflection and
Learning—A Teaching Model.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 47 (1): 125–135. doi: 10.1080/
14703290903525911.
S
anchez-Mart
ı, A., and A. Ruiz-Bueno. 2018. “An
alisis de clasificacio
n con variable criterio en SPAD [Classification
Analysis with Criterion Variable Using SPAD].” Revista d’innovacio
i recerca en educacio

11 (1): 41–53.
Sahin-Taskin, C. 2017. “Effects of Active Learning Environments Supported with Self- and Peer Assessment on Pre-
Service Teachers’ Pedagogical and Self-Efficacy Beliefs.” Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education. doi: 10.1080/
1359866X.2017.1355049
Shute, V. J. 2008. “Focus on Formative Feedback.” Review of Educational Research 78 (1): 153–189. doi: 10.3102/
0034654307313795.
Simpson, G., and J. Clifton. 2015. “Assessing Postgraduate Student Perceptions and Measures of Learning in a Peer
Review Feedback Process.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 41 (4): 501–514. doi: 10.1080/
02602938.2015.1026874.
Snowball, J. D., and M. Mostert. 2013. “Dancing with the Devil: Formative Peer Assessment and Academic
Performance.” Higher Education Research and Development 32 (4): 646–659. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2012.705262.
Stiggins, R. J. 2008. Student-Involved Classroom Assessment. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Strijbos, J.-W., S. Narciss, and K. D€ unnebier. 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 (4): 291–303. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.008.
Thomas, G., D. Martin, and K. Pleasants. 2011. “Using Self-and Peer-Assessment to Enhance Students’ Future-
Learning in Higher Education.” Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice 8 (1): 5.
Topping, K. J. 1998. “Peer Assessment Between Students in Colleges and Universities.” Review of Educational
Research 68 (3): 249–276. doi: 10.3102/00346543068003249.
Topping, K. J. 2009. “Peer Assessment.” Theory into Practice 48 (1): 20–27. doi: 10.1080/00405840802577569.
Topping, K. J., E. F. Smith, I. Swanson, and A. Elliot. 2000. “Formative Peer Assessment of Academic Writing
Between Postgraduate Students.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 25 (2): 149–169. doi: 10.1080/
713611428.
Torrente, D., and J. L. Bosch. 1993. Encuestas Telefo
nicas Y Por Correo. Cuadernos Metodolo
gicos, 9. Madrid: Centro
de Investigaciones Sociolo
gicas.
Tsivitanidou, O. E., Z. C. Zacharia, and T. Hovardas. 2011. “Investigating Secondary School Students’ Unmediated
Peer Assessment Skills.” Learning and Instruction 21 (4): 506–519. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.08.002.
 ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION 15

Van den Hurk, H. T. G., A. A. M. Houtveen, and W. J. C. M. Van de Grift. 2016. “Fostering Effective Teaching
Behavior Through the Use of Data-Feedback.” Teaching and Teacher Education 60 (November): 444–451. doi:
10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.003.
van Gennip, N. A. E., M. S. R. Segers, and H. H. Tillema. 2010. “Peer Assessment as a Collaborative Learning Activity:
The Role of Interpersonal Variables and Conceptions.” Learning and Instruction 20 (4): 280–290. doi: 10.1016/
j.learninstruc.2009.08.010.
Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wen, M. L., C. C. Tsai, and C. Y. Chang. 2006. “Attitudes towards Peer Assessment: A Comparison of the
Perspectives of Preservice and Inservice Teachers.” Innovations in Education and Teaching International 43 (1):
83–92. doi: 10.1080/14703290500467640.