Many SMEs ask about using peer review in their courses. Peer review assignments offer a lot of great advantages. They provide opportunities for students to receive constructive feedback from multiple folks, build comfort around giving and receiving feedback, and offer the opportunity for students to improve their own skills by seeing how others perform the same tasks. Peer review also provides the opportunity for students to receive more feedback on their assignments, resulting in higher-quality work.
Considerations
While there are many advantages to peer review, peer review assignments do require a lot of preparation to make sure they are set up appropriately to support all of the advantages listed previously. Before developing a peer review assignment, consider the following questions:
- How will students benefit from providing peer review?
- Do students have the knowledge and skills to provide competent feedback?
- Will a peer review assignment directly support a weekly objective or course-level outcome?
Peer Review Assignment Development
When developing peer review assignments, include the following:
- Explicit reasons for the peer review. Explain how peer review relates specifically to course-level outcomes.
- Specific peer review guidelines that identify what the reviewer should provide feedback on.
- Clear timelines for the assignment. Describe when students should submit their paper for review and when reviewers should complete their reviews.
- Examples of appropriate feedback.
- Clear grading expectations. Will students receive a grade for their feedback? What criteria will be used to grade their feedback? (See the sample rubric below)
- Practice! Assign students a sample paper to review as a class using peer review guidelines before the peer review assignment so that they become comfortable with the process and can ask questions about the guidelines.
- Time to use the Feedback. Most importantly, students should have the opportunity to use the feedback from the peer review process to update their work before submitting the final assignment. Ideally, peer reviews should take place at least one week before the assignment is due.
If you’d like to use a Peer Review Assignment in our course, please connect with your eLearning partner!
Sample Rubric
Sample Rubric
| Criteria | Full Engagement | Developing Engagement | Basic Engagement | Limited to No Engagement | Points |
| Peer Review Guidelines and Timelines | All aspects of the assignment are clearly included. Deadlines for submissions and posts are met. Submits a complete draft with all the required elements. | Most aspects of the assignment guidelines are clearly included. Deadlines for submissions and posts are mostly met. And/Or Submits a mostly complete draft with most of the required elements. | Submits a somewhat complete draft with half of the required elements submitted. Deadlines for submissions and posts are not met but draft and feedback posts are submitted. | Does not follow assignment guidelines, does not demonstrate a clear understanding of the assignment’s purpose, does not submit the paper. Or, no draft or feedback posts are submitted. | 30 |
| Participation | Posts a response for the required number of peers who submit on time. Each response thoroughly addresses all of the feedback prompts, provides constructive feedback to help their peer improve the draft, and accurately applies course concepts. | Posts a response for most of the required number of peers who submit on time. Responses mostly address the feedback prompts, provides mostly constructive feedback to help their peer improve the draft, and mostly applies course concepts accurately. | Posts a response for less than the required number of peers who submit on time. Responses somewhat address the discussion prompts, provide somewhat constructive feedback to help their peer improve the draft, and somewhat applies course concepts accurately. | Rarely or never posts responses to classmates. Comments inhibit classmates’ further contributions. Or, no draft or feedback posts are submitted. | 50 |
| Writing Conventions | Follows standard conventions of written English (mechanics, grammar, structure) in a way that enhances reading and understanding. Minimal to no errors present. Correctly follows APA style college paper conventions. | Follows standard conventions of written English (mechanics, grammar, structure) that enable reading and understanding, although there are several errors present. Mostly follows APA style college paper conventions. | Frequent errors in mechanics, grammar & structure that inhibit reading or understanding. Somewhat follows APA style college paper conventions. | Numerous errors in mechanics, grammar and structure that seriously impede reading and understanding; or no posts made. Or, no draft or feedback posts are submitted. | 20 |
Reference
Center for Teaching Innovation. (n.d.). Teaching students to evaluate each other. https://teaching.cornell.edu/resource/teaching-students-evaluate-each-other