Literacy Matters - Vol 21 - Winter 2021

Challenges of the Peer Review Process Multiple challenges related to providing and receiving effective peer reviews hinder consistent positive outcomes from the process (Topping, 1998). Topping argued individuals’ socially-perceived status of being conceptual equals influenced whether or not higher education students made suggested changes from peer reviewers. Issues of social status sometimes influenced suggested changes due to tensions regarding students being upfront or forthcoming in feedback. Critical peer feedback may be withheld for fear of hurting a classmate’s feelings or social repercussions (Howard et al., 2010). Investigating peer review behaviors and expectations, Liu and Lee (2013) found students expected high quality feedback from peers in substantial amounts. While these students did not use all peer recommendations, they reviewed recommendations, researched the suggestions for themselves, and made appropriate changes to assignments to score higher course grades. While some students opt to disregard feedback based on the perceived quality of the critique, others may discount it due to its type. Through an analysis of feedback content, Walker (2015) identified five types of feedback: (1) content, (2) skills development, (3) motivating, (4) de-motivating, or (5) other learning that extended relevant concepts of an assignment. Walker found 51% of students ignored feedback from their peers and only 36% made significant changes to their work. In Walker’s study, the feedback comments that received the most attention addressed the assignment’s ability to meet the course criteria. Lack of motivation and low self-esteem play a role in students’ decisions to heed peer critiques and make changes. In a study of undergraduate writing projects, Wingate (2010) found assignments that were turned in following peer feedback did not result in large changes in writing quality or students’ assigned grades. Follow- up interviews linked low-scoring students with having a lack of motivation to make changes based on the feedback provided or poor self-perceptions of themselves as writers. Other research has shown, when feedback comes from known peers, students’ perceptions of the peers’ competencies influence decisions to make improvements (Boase-Jelinek, 2010; Walker, 2015). Designing and Implementing Peer Review Activities Preservice teachers need guidance, modeling, and structure to provide quality peer reviews (Gielen & De Wever, 2015). When guidance is structured, learners perceive feedback as more profound and are more likely to make changes (Gielen & De Wever, 2012). Checklists, templates, and rubrics are structured in nature, though rubrics have been found more effective when used as formative evaluations that do not result in course grades (Boase-Jelinek et al., 2013; Knight & Steinbach, 2011). Structured protocols are important when working across institutions with students who are unfamiliar with one another since interactions and communication do not form organically through shared local experiences. Yet, using less structured feedback protocols have been shown to promote high levels of informal reflection among preservice teachers in other learning contexts, such as when there are partnerships that extend across a semester (Caudle et al., 2017).

Review of Literature Peer critiques urge preservice teachers to develop an

appreciation for diverse perspectives as they critically deconstruct the work of others, ultimately reflecting on their own work as well (Buchanan & Stern, 2012; McCarthy, 2017). Providing this type of feedback improves preservice teachers’ critical thinking, content knowledge, pedagogical practices, and perceptions of their abilities (Beaver & Beaver, 2011; Lynch et al., 2012; Nicol, Thomson, & Breslin, 2014; Ratminingsih et al., 2017). Peer reviews can vary greatly in design and implementation, which impacts their effectiveness. Anonymous Peer Reviews Anonymous peer feedback has been shown to effectively allow higher education students opportunities to create critical, constructive responses to work being reviewed (Boase-Jelinek et al., 2013; Howard et al., 2010). Howard et al. (2010) found preservice teachers providing peer reviews through computer- mediated communication were five times more likely to deliver substantive and critical feedback than the same process with preservice teachers whose identities were known. They were also four times as likely to provide reasons behind their thinking and suggest possible alternatives. Anonymous feedback activities have the potential to allow individuals to feel more secure in providing constructive criticism and alleviate worries rooted in social perceptions of peers. While the participating preservice teachers in this study were not anonymous, they did not have prior knowledge of one another before being assigned partnerships. The unfamiliarity between dyads was advantageous because it removed some social biases that are often associated with peer reviews (Getcheli & Amicucci, 2014). Perceptions of Higher Education Students Student perceptions are a crucial component to the authenticity of peer review processes in higher education. In their investigation of peer feedback in virtual role-playing scenarios among a class of graduate students, Ching and Hsu (2016) found most students felt more comfortable providing peer feedback when engaged in role-playing compared to traditional feedback methods. Through content analysis, these researchers found role-playing feedback included more identification of problems, posing of questions, and provision of support and suggestions. However, these researchers still found hesitancies among students in terms of interpersonal barriers in critiquing the work of classmates. Within two undergraduate courses across an academic year, McCarthy (2017) surveyed students’ perceptions of three types of feedback models: instructor-to-student, peer- to-peer in class, and peer-to-peer online. Students were asked to share perceptions of the effectiveness of each model and their preferred formats. McCarthy also evaluated the quantity and quality of feedback and interactions across situations. McCarthy found the instructor-to-student model to be most popular, and it included the most critical feedback when compared to the others. Considering the face-to-face and virtual feedback models, students were more critical in their feedback online and it aligned more with assessment criteria. A majority of students also preferred this format compared to face-to-face feedback.

Reading Matters Writing Matters

| 58 | Literacy Matters | Volume 21 • Winter 2021

CLICK HERE TO RETURN TO TABLE OF CONTENTS