Importance of Peer Review Technique for Enhancing Learning and Teaching Quality at University Level
This research paper explored the peer review strategy's use at the university postgraduate classroom level for enhancing students learning and quality teaching. A phenomenological study design was adopted to capture the experiences of the teachers and students. The findings indicated that peer review enhances students' understanding of curricular tasks, ability to review their own work, and ability to provide constructive feedback to others. While peer review improves one's reasoning, writing, and communication skills, in contrast, students also experience negative behaviors during peer reviewing tasks such as lack of attention related to process, biasedness, favoritism, a lack of patience, and improper language usage. University postgraduate students must be trained in peer review training because it enhances their analysis capabilities and productiveness and promotes academic integrity and ethics among students, while teachers can benefit from enhanced teaching quality.
-
Peer Review, Feedback, Students, Quality Teaching, Enhanced Learning
-
(1) Shumaila Mahmood
Assistant Professor, University of Education, Division of Education, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan
(2) Farah Shafiq
Assistant Professor, University of Education, Division of Education, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan.
(3) Nida Sharif
University of Education, Division of Education, Lahore, Punjab, Pakistan
- Abdel-Fattah, M. A. K., & Galal-Edeen, G. H. (2009). Why an interpretive paradigm is needed for evaluating e-government systems. In 9th European Conference on e- Government, 1-10.
- Al-Jamal, D. (2009). The impact of peer response in enhancing ninth graders’ writing skills. Umm Al-Qura University of Educational and Psychologic Sciences.
- Allan, G. (2020). Qualitative research. In Handbook for research students in the social sciences, 177-189. Routledge.
- Allington, R. L. (1983). The Reading Instruction Provided Readers of Differing Reading Abilities. The Elementary School Journal, 83(5), 548–559. https://doi.org/10.1086/461333
- Biggs, J. & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does. (3rd ed.). Phildelphia, Pa.: Society for Research into Higher Education. Open University Press.
- Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and practice (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
- Bowtell, E. C., Sawyer, S. M., Aroni, R. A., Green, J. B., & Duncan, R. E. (2013). “Should I send a condolence card?†Promoting emotional safety in qualitative health research through reflexivity and ethical mindfulness. Qualitative Inquiry, 19(9), 652-663.
- Braine, G. (2003). From a teacher-centered to a student-centered approach. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 13(2), 269– 288. https://doi.org/10.1075/japc.13.2.05bra
- Burgess, R. G. (1984). In The Field: An Introduction to Field Research. London: Allen & Unwin.
- Byrne, B. (2004). Qualitative interviewing. Researching society and culture, 217-236. Sage Publications Ltd.
- Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2011). Learning by reviewing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 73–84 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021950
- Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2010). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 629–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9146-1
- Cresswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approach. (2nd ed. ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
- Cresswell, J. W. (2005). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
- Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
- Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.
- Crossman, J. M. & Kite, S.L. (2012). Facilitating improved writing among students through directed peer review. Active Learning in Higher Education, 13 (3), 219- 229.
- De Chesnay, M. (2014). Nursing research using participatory action research: Qualitative designs and methods in nursing. New York, NY: Springer.
- De Guerrero, M. C. M., & Villamil, O. S. (2000). Activating the ZPD: Mutual Scaffolding in L2 Peer Revision. The Modern Language Journal, 84(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00052
- Demiraslan Çevik, Y. (2015). Assessor or assessee? Investigating the differential effects of online peer assessment roles in the development of students’ problem- solving skills. Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 250–258 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.056
- Diab, N. M. (2011). Assessing the relationship between different types of student feedback and the quality of revised writing. Assessing Writing, 16(4), 274–292 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2011.08.001
- Doody, O., Slevin, E., & Taggart, L. (2013). Focus group interviews in nursing research: part 1. British Journal of Nursing, 22(1), 16–19. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjon.2013.22.1.16
- Dowse, R., Melvold, J., & McGrath, K. (2018). Students guiding students: Integrating student peer review into a large first year science subject. A Practice Report. Student Success, 9(3), 79-86.
- Ferris, D. R. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Ferris, D., Brown, J., Liu, H. S., & Stine, M. E. A. (2011). Responding to L2 Students in College Writing Classes: Teacher Perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, 45(2), 207–234. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.247706
- Finlay, L.(2011). Phenomenology for therapists: Researching the lived world. West Sussex, UK: Wiley Blackwell.
- Fraser, S., & Robinson, C. (2004). Paradigms and philosophy. In S. Fraser, V. Lewis. Mukherji, P. &Albon, D. (2015). Research Methods in Early Childhood.
- Ge, Z. G. (2011). Exploring e-learners’ perceptions of net-based peer-reviewed English writing. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 75–91 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-010-9103-7
- Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., &Smeets, S. (2010). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback and various forms of peer feedback forms in a secondary school writing curriculum. British Educational Research Journal, 36(1), 143-162.
- Gorgi, A. (2009). The descriptive phenomenological method in psychology: A modified Husserlian approach. Pittsburg, PA: Duquesne University.
- Groenewald, T. (2004). A Phenomenological Research Design Illustrated. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 3(1), 42– 55. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690400300104
- Guardado, M., & Shi, L. (2007). ESL students’ experiences of online peer feedback. Computers and Composition, 24(4), 443– 461 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2007.03.002
- Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein J. A. (2000). Analyzing interpretive practice. In N.K. Denzin, & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed), 487– 508. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Guilford, W. H. (2001). Teaching peer review and the process of scientific writing. Advances in physiology education, 25(3), 167-175.
- Gustafsson, Jertfelt, I. H., Blanchin, A., & Li, S. (2016). Cultural perspective in open ended interviews–The importance of being adaptable. Culture & Psychology, 22(4), 483-501.
- Hammersley, M. (2008), Troubles with triangulation, in (Ed) M. Bergman, Advances in Mixed Methods Research, London, Sage, 22-36.
- Hansen, J. G. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal, 59(1), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci004
- Heale, R., & Forbes, D. (2013). Understanding triangulation in research. Evidence-based nursing, 16(4), 98-98
- Ho, M. C. (2015). The effects of face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review on EFL writers’ comments and revisions. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 31(1), 1-15 https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.495
- Hoffmann, E. A. (2007). Open-ended interviews, power, and emotional labor. Journal of contemporary ethnography, 36(3), 318-346.
- Hounsell, D., McCune, V., Hounsell, J., & Litjens, J. (2008). The quality of guidance and feedback to students. Higher Education Research & Development, 27(1), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360701658765
- Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language Teaching Research, 9(3), 321–342. https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168805lr169oa
- Hu, G., & Lam, S. T. E. (2009). Issues of cultural appropriateness and pedagogical efficacy: exploring peer review in a second language writing class. Instructional Science, 38(4), 371–394. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9086-1
- Hughes, P. (2010). Paradigms, methods and knowledge in G. MacNaughton, S. Rolfe and I. Siraj-Blatchford (Eds.), Doing Early Childhood Research, (2nd ed.,) Maidenhead: Open University Press.
- Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Ibarra Sáiz, M. S., RodrÃguez Gómez, G., & Gómez Ruiz, M. Ã. (2012). La evaluación entre iguales: beneficios y estrategias para suprácticaen la universidad. Revista de educación.
- Ingadóttir, B. (2006). The lived experience of a chronic illness: challenges, dialogues and negotiations in adherence and non- adherence: a phenomenological study from the perspective of the person with diabetes. Skemman.
- Jensen, W. & Fischer, B. (2005). Teaching technical writing through student peerevaluation. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 35 (1), 95- 100.
- Kamal, S. S. L. B. A. (2019). Research paradigm and the philosophical foundations of a qualitative study. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences, 4(3), 1386-1394.
- Kamimura, T. (2006). Effects of peer feedback on EFL student writers at different levels of English proficiency: A Japanese context. TESL Canada Journal, 23(2), 12-39. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v23i2.53
- Kelly, J., Sadeghieh, T., &Adeli, K. (2014). Peer review in scientific publications: benefits, critiques, & a survival guide. Ejifcc, 25(3), 227.
- Kivunja, C. &Kuyini, A.B. (2017). Understanding and Applying Research Paradigms in Educational Contexts. International Journal of Higher Education. 6(5). https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v6n5p26
- Kuehner, A., Ploder, A., & Langer, P. C. (2016). Introduction to the special issue: European
- Lai, Y. (2010). Which do students prefer to evaluate their essay: Peers or computer program. British Journal of Education Technology, 41(3), 432-454.
- Lam, R. (2010). A peer review training workshop: Coaching students to give and evaluate peer feedback. TESL Canada Journal, 27(2). https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v27i2.1052
- Larkin, M.(2011). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Introduction. http://prezi.com/dnprvc2nohjt/interpretative-phenomenological-analysis
- Laverty, S. M. (2003). Hermeneutic Phenomenology and Phenomenology: A Comparison of Historical and Methodological Considerations. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(3), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690300200303
- Lee, G., & Schallert, D. L. (2008a). Constructing Trust Between Teacher and Students Through Feedback and Revision Cycles in an EFL Writing Classroom. Written Communication, 25(4), 506–537 https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088308322301
- Lichtman, M. (2013). Qualitative research for the social sciences. SAGE publications.
- Liu, J., & Hansen Edwards, J. (2002). Ebooks Corporation. Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
- Liu, J., & Sadler, R. W. (2003). The effect and affect of peer review in electronic versus traditional modes on L2 writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(3), 193– 227. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1475-1585(03)00025-0
- Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002
- Ma, J. (2010). Chinese EFL learners' decision- making while evaluating peers' texts. International Journal of English Studies, 10(2), 99-120.
- Mantzoukas, S. (2005). The inclusion of bias in reflective and reflexive research: A necessary prerequisite for securing validity. Journal of Research in Nursing, 10(3), 279-295.
- McLafferty, I. (2004). Focus group interviews as a data collecting strategy. Journal of advanced nursing, 48(2), 187-194.
- McMurry, A. I. (2004). Preparing students for peer review. Unpublished master’s project. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University
- Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
- Merriam, S.(2009). Qualitative research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco, CA: John-Wiley & Sons, Inc.
- Min, H. T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003
- Min, H. T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 118–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.003
- Min, H. T. (2008). Reviewer stances and writer perceptions in EFL peer review training. English for Specific Purposes, 27(3), 285– 305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2008.02.002
- Montgomery, J. L., & Baker, W. (2007). Teacher-written feedback: Student perceptions, teacher self-assessment, and actual teacher performance. Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(2), 82–99 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2007.04.002
- Mulligan, A. (2005). Is peer review in crisis?. Oral Oncology, 41(2), 135-141
- Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102-122.
- Ozogul, G. & Sullivan, H. (2009). Student performance and attitudes under formative evaluation by teacher, self and peer evaluators. Education Tech Research Development, 57, 393-410.
- Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- Rahimi, M. (2013). Is training student reviewers worth its while? A study of how training influences the quality of students’ feedback and writing. Language Teaching Research, 17(1), 67–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168812459151
- Reiners, G. (2012). Understanding the Differences between Husserl’s (Descriptive) and Heidegger’s (Interpretive) Phenomenological Research. Journal of Nursing & Care, 01(05). https://doi.org/10.4172/2167-1168.1000119
- Ren, H. W., & Hu, G. W. (2012). Peer review and Chinese EFL/ESL student writers. English Australia Journal, 27(2), 3-16 https://repository.nie.edu.sg/bitstream/10497/16145/1/EAJ-27-2-3.pdf
- Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cci003
- Ruegg, R. (2015). The relative effects of peer and teacher feedback on improvement in EFL students’ writing ability. Linguisticsand Education, 29, 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2014.12.001
- Smith, J. A. (2004). Reflecting on the development of interpretative phenomenological analysis and its contribution to qualitative research in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 1, 39–54.
- Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2007). Interprtative Phenomenological Analysis
- Smythe, E., & Spence, D. (2012). Reviewing literature in hermeneutic research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 11(1), 12-25.
- Suri, H. (2011). Purposeful Sampling in Qualitative Research Synthesis. Qualitative Research Journal, 11(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3316/qrj1102063
- Swain, M., Brooks, L., & Tocalli-Beller, A. (2002). 9. PEER-PEER DIALOGUE AS A MEANS OF SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 22, 171–185. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0267190502000090
- Swanson-Kauffman, K.M., & Schonwald, E. (1988). Phenomenology. In B. Sater (Ed.). Paths to knowledge: Innovative research methods for nursing. 97-105. New York, NY: National League for Nursing.
- Teo, A. K. (2006). Social-interactive writing for English language learners. The CATESOL Journal, 18, 160–178
- Thomas, G., Martin, D., Pleasants, K. (2011). Using self- and peer-assessment to enhance students’ future-learning in higher education. Journal of University Teaching and Learning, 8 (1).
- Thompson, C. (2002). Teaching critical thinking in EAP courses in Australia. TESOL Journal, 11, 15–20.
- Todd, V. & Hudson, J.C. (2007). Using graded peer evaluation to improve student’s’ writing skills, critical thinking ability, and comprehension of material in a principle of public relations course. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 4 (10), 39-46.
- Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer Assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577569
- Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative Peer Assessment of Academic Writing Between Postgraduate Students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/713611428
- Triangulation, D. S. (2014, September). The use of triangulation in qualitative research. In Oncology nursing forum, 41(5)
- Vagle, M. D. (2014). Crafting phenomenological research. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press
- 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(4), 280-290.
- Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Sinagub, J. M. (1996). Focus group interviews in education and psychology. Sage.
- Vickerman, P. (2009). Student perspectives on formative peer assessment: an attempt to deepen learning? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930801955986
- Vorobel, O., & Kim, D. (2013). Focusing on Content: Discourse in L2 Peer Review Groups. TESOL Journal, 5(4), 698–720 https://doi.org/10.1002/tesj.126
- Walsham, G. (1995). The emergence of interpretivism in IS research. Information systems research, 6(4), 376-394.
- Ware, M. (2008). Peer review: benefits, perceptions and alternatives.
- Warwick, P., & Maloch, B. (2003). Scaffolding speech and writing in the primary classroom: A consideration of work with literature and science pupil groups in the USA and UK. Reading Literacy and Language, 37, 54–63.
- Wilkins, E. A., Shin, E. & Ainsworth, J. (2009). The effects of peer feedback practices with elementary education teacher candidates. Teacher Education Quarterly.
- Willis, J. (1995). A recursive, reflective instructional design model based onconstructivist-interpretivist theory. Educational technology, 35(6), 5- 23.
- Willis, J. W. (2007). Foundations of qualitative research: interpretive and critical approaches. London: Sage.
- Wojnar, D. M., & Swanson, K. M. (2007). Phenomenology. Journal of Holistic Nursing, 25(3), 172–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898010106295172
- Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 179–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2006.09.004
- Yang, Y. (2010). Students’ self-reflection on online self-correction and peer review to improve writing. Computers & Education, 55, 1202-1210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.05.017
- Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (2011). Interpretive Approaches to Research Design: Concepts and Processes. Netherlands: Routledge.
- Zhao, H. (2010). Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feedback on writing: A comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assessing Writing, 15(1), 3–17 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asw.2010.01.002
- Zhao, H. (2014). Investigating teacher- supported peer assessment for EFL writing. ELT Journal, 68(2), 155–168 https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/cct068
- Zhu, W. (2001). Interaction and feedback in mixed peer response groups. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(4), 251–276 https://doi.org/10.1016/s1060-3743(01)00043-1
- Zhu, W., & Mitchell, D. A. (2012). Participation in Peer Response as Activity: An Examination of Peer Response Stances From an Activity Theory Perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 46(2), 362–386 https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.22
Cite this article
-
APA : Mahmood, S., Shafiq, F., & Sharif, N. (2022). Importance of Peer Review Technique for Enhancing Learning and Teaching Quality at University Level. Global Educational Studies Review, VII(II), 361-374. https://doi.org/10.31703/gesr.2022(VII-II).34
-
CHICAGO : Mahmood, Shumaila, Farah Shafiq, and Nida Sharif. 2022. "Importance of Peer Review Technique for Enhancing Learning and Teaching Quality at University Level." Global Educational Studies Review, VII (II): 361-374 doi: 10.31703/gesr.2022(VII-II).34
-
HARVARD : MAHMOOD, S., SHAFIQ, F. & SHARIF, N. 2022. Importance of Peer Review Technique for Enhancing Learning and Teaching Quality at University Level. Global Educational Studies Review, VII, 361-374.
-
MHRA : Mahmood, Shumaila, Farah Shafiq, and Nida Sharif. 2022. "Importance of Peer Review Technique for Enhancing Learning and Teaching Quality at University Level." Global Educational Studies Review, VII: 361-374
-
MLA : Mahmood, Shumaila, Farah Shafiq, and Nida Sharif. "Importance of Peer Review Technique for Enhancing Learning and Teaching Quality at University Level." Global Educational Studies Review, VII.II (2022): 361-374 Print.
-
OXFORD : Mahmood, Shumaila, Shafiq, Farah, and Sharif, Nida (2022), "Importance of Peer Review Technique for Enhancing Learning and Teaching Quality at University Level", Global Educational Studies Review, VII (II), 361-374
-
TURABIAN : Mahmood, Shumaila, Farah Shafiq, and Nida Sharif. "Importance of Peer Review Technique for Enhancing Learning and Teaching Quality at University Level." Global Educational Studies Review VII, no. II (2022): 361-374. https://doi.org/10.31703/gesr.2022(VII-II).34