View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Enhancing the Structure of Feedback Forms Increases Trustworthiness and Usefulness of Peer Feedback

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Enhancing the Structure of Feedback Forms Increases Trustworthiness and Usefulness of Peer Feedback
Language: English
Authors: Jessica Quinton (ORCID 0000-0002-6931-7984), Lorien Nesbitt (ORCID 0000-0002-4018-1825), Johanna Bock (ORCID 0009-0000-1376-9300)
Source: Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 2025 50(5):760-774.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 15
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Tests/Questionnaires
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: Feedback (Response), Peer Evaluation, Student Attitudes, Evaluation Methods, Reflection, Undergraduate Students, Reports, Foreign Countries
Geographic Terms: Canada
DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2025.2468848
ISSN: 0260-2938
1469-297X
Abstract: Peer feedback is commonly used in higher education for both practical and pedagogical reasons. However, peer feedback has been criticized by teachers, researchers, and students for being superficial, harsh, uncritical, and/or detached from learning objectives. This study contributes to the existing literature on how to enhance the effectiveness of peer feedback by examining the impact of increasing the structure of peer feedback forms. Student participants were assigned to use either an open-ended peer feedback form or a structured form with predetermined options created by the teaching team. After giving and receiving feedback, students completed a brief survey about their experience. Feedback underwent quantitative content analysis to support interpretation and contextualization of survey results. We found that students receiving feedback from the structured form perceived the feedback to be more useful and trustworthy than those receiving feedback from the unstructured form. There was limited evidence that the structured feedback form impacted the experience of providing feedback, including student's perceived level of self-reflection during the feedback process. The findings suggest that structured feedback forms can be used to address student concerns about the usefulness and trustworthiness of peer feedback without negatively impacted self-reflection during the feedback process.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1484967
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGYztDntUKIEtzJRDzuYEijAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPA_ere1tlX1ipcx8QIBEICBm3_ME97ZCyw-QLe6boqRb8-Hrx8VDbV0CCWvWXHeGdQnDEXahPjbEZhmbsxgX8CViI0LIFrQB7T-URHie7YT0luC7DPqpdmXHwwwOvSfJ8ZQmGaQ3YiKNftUVnKMp-Ihd5Rg7ACIjdrC5UCrlTG0CfCtw2mzQcNvQ_Z55hKb5ehYTJDT_SO54EV_Qkd7VDHWEFQdHFXIhaqECHZw
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0187097794;eva01aug.25;2025Aug05.05:38;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0187097794-1">Enhancing the structure of feedback forms increases trustworthiness and usefulness of peer feedback </title> <p>Peer feedback is commonly used in higher education for both practical and pedagogical reasons. However, peer feedback has been criticized by teachers, researchers, and students for being superficial, harsh, uncritical, and/or detached from learning objectives. This study contributes to the existing literature on how to enhance the effectiveness of peer feedback by examining the impact of increasing the structure of peer feedback forms. Student participants were assigned to use either an open-ended peer feedback form or a structured form with predetermined options created by the teaching team. After giving and receiving feedback, students completed a brief survey about their experience. Feedback underwent quantitative content analysis to support interpretation and contextualization of survey results. We found that students receiving feedback from the structured form perceived the feedback to be more useful and trustworthy than those receiving feedback from the unstructured form. There was limited evidence that the structured feedback form impacted the experience of providing feedback, including student's perceived level of self-reflection during the feedback process. The findings suggest that structured feedback forms can be used to address student concerns about the usefulness and trustworthiness of peer feedback without negatively impacted self-reflection during the feedback process.</p> <p>Keywords: Peer feedback; student perception; collaborative learning; peer learning</p> <hd id="AN0187097794-2">Introduction</hd> <p> <emph>Peer feedback</emph> is a process in which equal-status learners evaluate the performance of, and provide guidance for improvement to, each other (Hattie and Timperley [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref1">24</reflink>]; Nicol, Thomson, and Breslin [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref2">39</reflink>]). It can be part of peer assessment, which also includes a grading component (Winstone and Carless [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref3">58</reflink>]), but our focus here is on peer feedback without peer grading. Peer feedback has been employed across a range of disciplines and subjects, grade levels and institutions, learning outcomes and outputs, and oral and written formats (Topping [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref4">51</reflink>]; Gielen, Dochy, and Onghena [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref5">22</reflink>]; Kerman et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref6">27</reflink>]). The benefits and challenges of peer feedback are outlined in the next subsection, followed by an overview of research done on making peer feedback more effective. This study aims to determine whether increasing the structure of peer feedback forms can make feedback more effective by enhancing the benefits of peer feedback (i.e. self-reflection on one's own performance) while addressing some of the challenges (i.e. poor student perceptions of feedback quality and peer assessor's capability to provide feedback).</p> <hd id="AN0187097794-3">Benefits of, and challenges to, peer feedback</hd> <p>There are multiple positive benefits – both practical and pedagogical – associated with peer feedback. In large classrooms, particularly those with fewer teaching resources, peer feedback can supplement limited instructor feedback (Boud, Cohen, and Sampson [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref7">3</reflink>]). When designed as part of formative assessment, peer feedback provides students with a higher quantity of feedback in a timely manner (Cho and MacArthur [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref8">10</reflink>]), allowing them to revise or improve their outputs prior to summative assessment (Gibbs and Simpson [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref9">19</reflink>]). Peer feedback may also provide greater opportunities for dialogic communication regarding the feedback, allowing for clarifications to be made (Van Den Berg, Admiraal, and Pilot [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref10">54</reflink>]; Nicol, Thomson, and Breslin [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref11">39</reflink>]; Zhu and Carless [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref12">61</reflink>]). Receiving feedback from peers, rather than instructors, can reduce the effect of power imbalances and negative emotions that may result from instructor feedback (Yang and Carless [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref13">60</reflink>]).</p> <p>Beyond the benefits accrued through <emph>receiving</emph> peer feedback, students also gain knowledge and skills through <emph>providing</emph> feedback. Providing feedback can lead to greater reflection and self-evaluation, as students compare their work to that of their peers and the evaluation criteria (Nicol, Thomson, and Breslin [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref14">39</reflink>]; McConlogue [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref15">34</reflink>]). It has even been shown to result in <emph>greater</emph> improvements than receiving peer feedback due to its higher level of cognitive engagement (Lundstrom and Baker [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref16">33</reflink>]; Nicol, Thomson, and Breslin [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref17">39</reflink>]). Indeed, students have indicated that they perceive reviewing work and giving feedback to benefit their learning more than receiving feedback (Gaynor [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref18">18</reflink>]). Peer feedback can increase student engagement with the feedback process, helping them to develop feedback literacy – particularly when they are trained or coached in how to carry out the feedback process (Carless and Boud [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref19">7</reflink>]). It also helps students develop critical thinking, teamwork, and interpersonal and communication skills (Topping [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref20">51</reflink>]; Dochy, Segers, and Sluijsmans [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref21">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite these many benefits of peer feedback, several concerns have been raised. The quality and quantity of peer feedback can vary depending on the commitment and skill/knowledge levels of the peer assessor (Cartney [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref22">8</reflink>]). Studies of student perceptions of peer feedback have indicated that some students doubt the ability of their peers (and themselves) to provide useful and meaningful feedback (Hanrahan and Isaacs [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref23">23</reflink>]; Strijbos, Narciss, and Dünnebier [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref24">50</reflink>]; Panadero [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref25">41</reflink>]). Such perceptions are particularly salient when students are asked to assign grades to the work of their peers (Liu and Carless [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref26">32</reflink>]). Students may also doubt that their peers take the exercise seriously enough or that peer feedback matters if they are not the ones assigning grades (Artemeva and Logie [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref27">1</reflink>]; Patton [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref28">44</reflink>]). The content of peer feedback has been criticized by teachers and researchers for being uncritical, superficial, focused on trivial issues, harsh or mean-spirited, inaccurate, and/or inconsistent with learning requirements or expectations (Nilson [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref29">40</reflink>]). Negative student perceptions and low quality of peer feedback may limit uptake and improvements in learning outcomes (van Gennip, Segers, and Tillema [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref30">55</reflink>]; Ruegg [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref31">48</reflink>]; Wu and Schunn [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref32">59</reflink>]; but see Strijbos, Narciss, and Dünnebier [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref33">50</reflink>]; Kaufman and Schunn [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref34">26</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187097794-4">Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback</hd> <p>Given the potential benefits of peer feedback, and the difficulties in providing high-quality peer feedback that learners will use, there has been much research conducted on how to make peer feedback more effective. While there is no one-size-fits-all approach, some researchers have developed overarching guidelines for effective feedback. According to such guidance, feedback should be: sufficient in detail and frequency; focused on student performance, learning, and actions under their control; provided in sufficient time so students can make adjustments; focused on the purpose and criteria of the assignment; clear on what constitutes good performance; able to facilitate self-assessment; encouraging of dialogue around learning; able to encourage motivation and self-esteem; and designed to provide opportunities to close gaps between current and desired performance levels (for an overview of the research informing these guidelines, see Gibbs and Simpson [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref35">19</reflink>]; Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref36">38</reflink>]; Fleckney, Thompson, and Vaz-Serra [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref37">17</reflink>]). To be effective, feedback needs to be received, attended to, and acted upon (Gibbs and Simpson [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref38">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>In line with this guidance, studies have examined the effect of various interventions to determine whether they can improve the effectiveness of peer feedback. This includes studies finding that increased levels of instruction and guidance on how to provide peer feedback can improve feedback quality, skills, and students' attitudes towards it (Topping [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref39">52</reflink>]; van Zundert, Sluijsmans, and van Merriënboer [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref40">56</reflink>]; Patton [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref41">44</reflink>]; Winstone and Carless [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref42">58</reflink>]). Receiving feedback from multiple peers improves effectiveness by allowing students to compare different feedback to determine its relevance (Van Den Berg, Admiraal, and Pilot [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref43">53</reflink>]); exposing them to the knowledge and skills of multiple students (Villamil and de Guerrero [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref44">57</reflink>]); and generating a greater quantity of feedback for the students (Cho and MacArthur [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref45">10</reflink>]). The provision of oral feedback, and allowing the feedback to be discussed, supports the effectiveness of peer feedback by allowing for clarification and further explanation (Van Den Berg, Admiraal, and Pilot [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref46">54</reflink>]; Zhu and Carless [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref47">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>The type of intervention of particular interest to this study involves changes to the form used to elicit peer feedback, particularly its level of structure. Although research has documented variability in the structure of peer feedback (Gielen, Dochy, and Onghena [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref48">22</reflink>]), relatively few studies have directly compared different levels of structure to determine their impact. Previous research in this area has found that increasing the structure of peer feedback templates improved the quality of feedback and student outputs (Gielen and De Wever [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref49">21</reflink>]) and resulted in more elaboration (but see Elizondo-Garcia et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref50">14</reflink>]) and more critical feedback (Gielen and De Wever [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref51">20</reflink>]). However, there has been no comparison of how student perceptions of feedback quality, and their level of reflection, differ between peer feedback form formats.</p> <hd id="AN0187097794-5">Our study</hd> <p>Our study was motivated by the literature outlined above, as well as our previous experiences as part of the teaching team for an undergraduate course that employed peer feedback. In our experience, the feedback provided was often superficial with many students writing 'nothing' under the suggestions for improvement. Thus, this study aimed to determine whether increasing the structure of peer feedback forms (i.e. by developing a list of feedback options for students to select amongst) led to 1) more positive student perceptions of the quality of feedback they received; and 2) greater self-reflection during the process of providing feedback to their peers. This approach allowed us to gather insights on the impact of both receiving and providing peer feedback, the latter of which has been understudied despite existing evidence indicating the importance of providing feedback for student development (van Zundert, Sluijsmans, and van Merriënboer [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref52">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>Based upon existing literature on what constitutes and supports the provision of effective peer feedback, we hypothesized that increasing the structure of peer feedback would improve student perceptions of feedback as the predetermined (by the teaching team) options may be better aligned with the assignment criteria, focused on actions under student control, contain sufficient detail, and so on. We also hypothesized that it would improve self-reflection during the provision of feedback because the predetermined options would reiterate to students what the criteria were, prompting them to apply the criteria to their own performance.</p> <hd id="AN0187097794-6">Methods</hd> <p>The study population consisted of 73 students enrolled in a third-year undergraduate course at the University of British Columbia (UBC). As part of the course, students were required to have weekly group discussions about the course readings. The students took turns facilitating the discussions, and their group members provided formative feedback on their facilitation through an online form. The students were expected to use this feedback to inform their second facilitation that occurred later in the semester.</p> <p>The students self-assigned to discussion groups of 4–5 students for the first round of group discussions. Odd-numbered groups were assigned the open-ended feedback form used in previous iterations of the course; even-numbered groups were assigned a new, structured feedback form. The open-ended peer feedback format provided students with an open text box and asked them to respond to two questions: 1) What are 1–3 things your facilitator did particularly well today? and 2) What are 1–3 things your facilitator could improve for next time? The structured peer feedback format asked the same questions but provided students with a list of options (which were presented in randomized order) to select from (Appendix 1), and students were limited to selecting a maximum of three feedback options. The options were created by the teaching team based upon resources we provided to students to guide them in preparing for their facilitation. This list also included an 'Other, please specify' option to allow students to add additional suggestions if necessary.</p> <p>Students were not asked to assign a grade to their peers. Rather, students received full marks for simply completing their facilitation and received participation grades for completing the feedback forms for their peers. The students were not given any training on peer feedback in this course, as we wanted to test the effect of the format of the peer feedback form in the absence of training. Implications of this choice – and suggestions for future research – are discussed further in the Discussion.</p> <p>Once each student had facilitated one group discussion, the feedback was collated and released to the students online. The comments were semi-anonymous, as no names were attached to the comments. However, given the small size of the discussion groups, there were only a small number of people from whom the feedback could have come. Once the students had received their feedback, they were asked to complete a brief, anonymous student perception survey about their experience giving and receiving peer feedback. We also asked students to consent to having the contents of their feedback forms analyzed to help interpret the survey findings. The study was approved by UBC's Research Ethics Board (#H23-03085).</p> <hd id="AN0187097794-7">Survey: data collection and analysis</hd> <p>The student perception survey <emph>(n</emph> = 54) consisted of 15 slider-scale questions (Nesbitt et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref53">37</reflink>]) that asked students to indicate their agreement with the provided statement. The scale ranged from 0 (<emph>Strongly disagree</emph>) to 10 (<emph>Strongly agree</emph>) and allowed responses to include 1 decimal point. The statements were arranged into five constructs (Table 1) to test different aspects of student perceptions of both receiving and providing peer feedback, to develop a multidimensional understanding of the impacts of the two formats of peer feedback. These constructs were in part adapted from the Feedback Environment Scale (Steelman, Levy, and Snell [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref54">49</reflink>]), Instructional Feedback Orientation Scale (King, Schrodt, and Weisel [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref55">28</reflink>]), and the Feedback Perceptions Questionnaire (Strijbos, Narciss, and Dünnebier [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref56">50</reflink>]). They were designed to evaluate the impact that feedback format had on multiple factors that have been identified as influencing the effectiveness of peer feedback.</p> <p>Table 1. Constructs and statements evaluated in the survey. The rationales are based on literature outlining what constitutes 'good' feedback (Gibbs and Simpson [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref57">19</reflink>]; Hattie and Timperley [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref58">24</reflink>]; Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref59">38</reflink>]) and previous survey instruments used to evaluate perceptions of feedback (King et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref60">28</reflink>]; Steelman et al. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref61">49</reflink>]; Strijbos et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref62">50</reflink>]).</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Construct</td><td>Rationale</td><td>Statements used in the survey</td></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Receiving feedback</td><td>Usefulness</td><td>Peer feedback is likely to be more effective if students perceive it to be useful (e.g. sufficiently detailed, relevant, etc.) for improving their performance.</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>The feedback I received was useful.</p></list-item><list-item><p>The feedback I received was helpful.</p></list-item><list-item><p>The feedback I received provided clear guidance.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Source credibility</td><td>Peer feedback is likely to be more effective if students believe their peers were able to provide them with meaningful feedback.</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>I trust the peer feedback I received.</p></list-item><list-item><p>I have confidence in the peer feedback I received.</p></list-item><list-item><p>My peers provided me with valid feedback.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Sensitivity</td><td>Peer feedback is likely to be more effective when it contributes to a positive effect and does not damage self-esteem.</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>The feedback I received hurt my feelings.</p></list-item><list-item><p>The feedback I received upset me.</p></list-item><list-item><p>The feedback I received offended me.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Providing feedback</td><td>Self a crediblesource</td><td>Students sometimes lack confidence in their ability to provide meaningful feedback, which could undermine their engagement in the peer feedback process.</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>I was able to provide useful feedback to my peers.</p></list-item><list-item><p>I was able to identify strengths and weaknesses in my peers' facilitations.</p></list-item><list-item><p>My feedback will help my peers improve on their next facilitation.</p></list-item></list></td></tr><tr><td>Self-reflection</td><td>Providing feedback improves student performance by encouraging reflection on their own work.</td><td><list list-type="Bullet"><list-item><p>Providing peer feedback made me think about my own facilitation performance.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Providing peer feedback made me think about how to improve my next facilitation.</p></list-item><list-item><p>Providing peer feedback made me reflect on my own facilitation.</p></list-item></list></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Descriptive statistics were calculated for each statement and used for initial comparisons between the two feedback formats. Due to the type of data produced by the slider scales (and the non-normal distribution of the results), the non-parametric Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to make statistical comparisons of each statement between the feedback formats. The R v 4.3.2 (R Core Team [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref63">45</reflink>]) base package was used for the Wilcoxon tests, and z-scores for the Wilcoxon tests were calculated using the <emph>qnorm</emph>() function.</p> <hd id="AN0187097794-8">Feedback form content: data collection and analysis</hd> <p>In total, 54 students consented to having the feedback forms they filled out analyzed, yielding 181 forms for analysis. The forms were quantitatively assessed to determine the following for the open-ended and structured feedback formats: 1) the number of forms with 'nothing' in response to the question about suggestions for improvements; and 2) the average number of suggestions for improvement provided per form. The aim of the content analysis was not to provide general inferences about structured vs open-ended feedback forms but to contextualize the results of the survey. Thus, we did not conduct statistical analyses on the content data.</p> <p>The suggestions for improvement in the open-ended feedback forms underwent content analysis (Krippendorff [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref64">29</reflink>]) to explore whether the suggestions differed from those identified in the structured forms. Coding took a combined deductive and inductive approach (Bingham and Witkowsky [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref65">2</reflink>]), with the options provided in the structured feedback form acting as an initial set of codes and additional codes added as necessary to capture any novel suggestions.</p> <hd id="AN0187097794-9">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187097794-10">Student perceptions of receiving peer feedback</hd> <p>While feedback from both formats was generally seen as useful (Figure 1), the structured feedback was perceived as significantly more useful (<emph>z</emph> = −2.28, <emph>p</emph> = 0.02) and helpful (<emph>z</emph> = −2.19, <emph>p</emph> = 0.03), and having provided clearer guidance (<emph>z</emph> = −2.49, <emph>p</emph> = 0.01).</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. Student ratings of agreement in response to three statements making up the usefulness construct.</p> <p>Feedback from both formats was perceived as fairly credible (Figure 2). Students who received the structured feedback had significantly higher trust (<emph>z</emph> = −2.51, <emph>p</emph> = 0.01) and confidence (<emph>z</emph> = −2.04, <emph>p</emph> = 0.04) in the credibility of their peers. However, there was no significant difference in terms of the perceived validity of the feedback between formats (<emph>z</emph> = −1.24, <emph>p</emph> = 0.22).</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 2. Student ratings of agreement in response to three statements making up the source credibility construct.</p> <p>Neither form of feedback was perceived to be insensitive (Figure 3), and there were no significant differences in this perception between the two feedback types (<emph>p</emph> > 0.05 for all statements).</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 3. Student ratings of agreement in response to three statements making up the sensitivity construct.</p> <hd id="AN0187097794-11">Student perceptions on providing peer feedback</hd> <p>Overall, students somewhat agreed that they were able to provide useful feedback to their peers (Figure 4). There was no significant difference between feedback formats for the ability to provide useful feedback (<emph>z</emph> = −1.29, <emph>p</emph> = 0.20) or identify strengths/weaknesses (<emph>z</emph> = −0.29, <emph>p</emph> = 0.78). However, those with structured feedback were significantly more likely to agree that their feedback would help their peers improve for their next facilitation (<emph>z</emph> = −2.60, <emph>p</emph> = 0.009).</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 4. Student ratings of agreement in response to three statements making up the self as a credible source construct.</p> <p>Overall, students generally agreed that providing peer feedback made them reflect on/think about their own performance (Figure 5). The level of agreement was significantly higher for the structured feedback format when it came to thinking about their own performance (<emph>z</emph> = −3.03, <emph>p</emph> = 0.003) but insignificant for resulting in reflection (<emph>z</emph> = −1.15, <emph>p</emph> = 0.25) or causing them to think about how to improve for next time (<emph>z</emph> = −1.82, <emph>p</emph> = 0.07).</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 5. Student ratings of agreement in response to three statements making up the self-reflection construct.</p> <hd id="AN0187097794-12">Suggestions for improvement</hd> <p>When pooling data from the feedback forms across all weeks and groups, the average number of suggested improvements per feedback form was higher for the structured form compared to the open-ended form (1.25 vs 0.79). The number of suggested improvements per feedback form remained relatively stable for the open-ended form over the 5 weeks but declined for the structured feedback form (1.44 in Week 1 to 1.07 in Week 5).</p> <p>Only 35.6% of suggestions in the open-ended format aligned with those found in the structured format's predetermined options. 'Nothing' made up a much greater proportion of total suggestions for the open-ended format compared to the structured format (25.7% vs 9.7%). Six of the seven groups using the unstructured format had some 'nothing' responses, whereas only two of the eight groups using the structured format had some 'nothing' responses.</p> <p>Including 'nothing', there were seven categories of suggestions for improvement seen in the open-ended format that we had not included in our structured format. Some of these suggestions were vague, such as comments about 'increasing the structure of the discussion,' and it was unclear what steps could be taken. Other suggestions were not criteria on which we asked them to assess their peers (e.g. creating their own discussion questions) or were more personal (e.g. be more confident). Two suggestions commonly selected in the structured feedback format but never suggested in the open-ended format were 'asking for clarification when someone's comment/question was unclear' (11.2% of total structured format suggestions) and 'making connections between comments/questions from multiple group members' (8.9%).</p> <hd id="AN0187097794-13">Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0187097794-14">Usefulness and trustworthiness of peer feedback</hd> <p>Negative student perceptions and low quality of peer feedback may limit the uptake of feedback and subsequent improvements in learning outcomes (van Gennip, Segers, and Tillema [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref66">55</reflink>]; Ruegg [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref67">48</reflink>]; Wu and Schunn [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref68">59</reflink>]). Our results indicate that students receiving feedback from the structured feedback form perceived this feedback to be significantly more useful/helpful/clear than those who received feedback from the open-ended form (Figure 1). Existing literature suggests that for feedback to be useful, it has to be sufficiently detailed, relevant to the assignment criteria, and actionable (Gibbs and Simpson [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref69">19</reflink>]; Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref70">38</reflink>]). As the teaching team was responsible for developing the predetermined feedback options in the structured feedback form, we were able to ensure that the feedback options were aligned with the facilitation guidance we provided and included actions that could be conducted in the next round of facilitations.</p> <p>Our analysis of the feedback content indicated that the structured feedback forms resulted in more suggestions for improvement per form than the open-ended forms, and contained fewer 'nothing' responses in this section. This suggests that students receiving the structured feedback forms received a greater number of suggested improvements, which may have contributed to the more positive perception of feedback quality. While previous research has indicated that a greater quantity of feedback may actually be perceived as <emph>less</emph> useful (Misiejuk, Wasson, and Egelandsdal [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref71">35</reflink>]), our feedback form limited students to choosing 1–3 suggestions for improvement, which may have allowed for sufficient detail without being overwhelming. Further, some of the open-ended feedback was vague (e.g. 'improve the structure of the discussion' without clarifying how that could be done) or less actionable (e.g. be more confident) which may have contributed to it being perceived as less useful.</p> <p>Two of the three statements in the trustworthiness construct indicated that students who received feedback from the structured forms had more trust/confidence in the feedback they received (Figure 2). While students may appreciate and implement peer feedback in some circumstances (van Zundert, Sluijsmans, and van Merriënboer [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref72">56</reflink>]), several studies have suggested there is still a preference for instructor feedback due to their higher levels of expertise and competence (e.g. Brown et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref73">4</reflink>]; Bryant and Carless [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref74">5</reflink>]; Kaufman and Schunn [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref75">26</reflink>]). This is despite evidence that there is a high level of correlation between peer and instructor feedback and assessment (Topping [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref76">51</reflink>]; Falchikov and Goldfinch [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref77">16</reflink>]; van Zundert, Sluijsmans, and van Merriënboer [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref78">56</reflink>]). As the students had been informed at the beginning of the semester that the structured feedback forms included predetermined feedback options developed by the teaching team, this may have contributed to student confidence in the feedback they received, as it was more greatly influenced by the expertise/competence of the course instructors than the open-ended form. Previous research has indicated greater satisfaction where peer assessment is combined with instructor assessment, rather than peer assessment alone (Kaufman and Schunn [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref79">26</reflink>]). Further, students have been shown to make judgments about the expertise/competence of their peer assessor based upon the spelling/grammar and level of detail of the comments (e.g. Bryant and Carless [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref80">5</reflink>]; Strijbos, Narciss, and Dünnebier [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref81">50</reflink>]). Since the feedback in the structured feedback form was written by the teaching team, it may have suggested to students a higher level of expertise and competence.</p> <hd id="AN0187097794-15">Emotional response to peer feedback</hd> <p>There were no significant differences in the perceived emotional impact of feedback from the open-ended or structured feedback forms (Figure 3). The feedback comments were somewhat anonymous – while we did not attach student names to the comments they provided, the assessed student knew the comments could have come from one of 2–4 people, depending on how many group members were present that day. Previous research indicates that anonymous feedback tends to be more critical (Panadero and Alqassab [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref82">42</reflink>]), and students are less concerned about hurting their peer's feelings when the review is anonymous (Hosack [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref83">25</reflink>]). Given that this review was only semi-anonymous, students may have been more cautious about the feedback they provided, leading to fewer hurtful comments. Further, since the students were offered the opportunity to create their own groups, they were more likely to be in a group with their friends. Previous research has indicated that students can be hesitant to provide critical feedback to their friend for fear of hurting their feelings, and instead they prefer/tend to provide nice and positive comments (Reinholz [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref84">46</reflink>]) and assign them higher grades (Falchikov [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref85">15</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0187097794-16">Providing feedback</hd> <p>There was limited evidence to suggest that students with the structured peer feedback form had more confidence in their ability to provide useful feedback to their peers, as only one of the three statements had a significantly higher level of agreement for the structured form users (Figure 4). Existing literature indicates that providing guidance or criteria for peer assessment increases student confidence in their ability to provide helpful feedback (Cushing et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref86">11</reflink>]). Thus, we expected that providing predetermined feedback options to choose from would increase student confidence in the feedback they provided. It could be that due to the lack of training on providing feedback, and how new the concept of facilitation was to the students, the students had difficulty using the 'criteria' (i.e. the predetermined options) to assess their peers (see Moore and Teather [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref87">36</reflink>]). Previous research has indicated that providing feedback multiple times throughout a course increases student confidence in their ability to provide meaningful feedback (Donia, O'Neill, and Brutus [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref88">13</reflink>]). All the students in the course provided feedback to their peers 3–4 times prior to completing the survey, thus, it could be that the feedback process had more influence on self-confidence than the feedback instruments. Indeed, research has shown that while providing rubrics for assessment is immediately beneficial, combining them with repeated instances of providing feedback is best for long-term gains in self-efficacy (Bürgermeister, Glogger-Frey, and Saalbach [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref89">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>There was also limited evidence to suggest that students with the structured peer feedback form had higher levels of self-reflection during the process of providing peer feedback, with only one statement having a significantly higher level of agreement for the structured forms (Figure 5). While research has found that providing students with criteria or guidance can improve student understanding of expectations and prompt self-evaluation based on such expectations (Falchikov and Goldfinch [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref90">16</reflink>]; Panadero and Jönsson [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref91">43</reflink>]), this does not seem to have had the positive influence on their perceived level of self-reflection that we expected. It could be that students are reflecting on their performance regardless of their clarity of the standards expected. For example, students with the open-ended feedback form may have made suggestions for improvement that we considered to be irrelevant (e.g. creating one's own discussion questions) and using this to reflect on their own performance (e.g. thinking they did well because they made up their own discussion questions). Thus, while the extent to which students are thinking about their work may not have differed, its impact on their subsequent performance might be impacted if they are not reflecting on the assessment criteria developed by the teaching team.</p> <hd id="AN0187097794-17">Limitations and future research</hd> <p>This study focused on student perceptions of the feedback process and used a quantitative survey and content analysis of the feedback forms to help explain student perceptions. While studying student perceptions is useful, it did not give us any indication of how the feedback process ultimately affected student performance during the second round of facilitations – although previous research has found that structured feedback forms led to improved end products (Gielen and De Wever [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref92">21</reflink>]).</p> <p>As we alluded to earlier, an interesting avenue of research would be to further explore how the structured feedback form influences self-reflection. We asked students to self-report their perceived levels of reflection, and it may have been difficult for some students to self-assess their own level of reflection. Further, our survey could not ascertain what aspects of their performance (if any) students reflected on. In particular, it would be useful to understand whether the structured feedback form led to self-reflection that was more closely aligned with the assignment criteria compared with the open-ended form.</p> <p>There were potential factors that we did not (or could not) control for that could have influenced our findings regarding the emotional impact of the structured vs open-ended forms. Students were only providing semi-anonymous feedback given their small discussion group size, and many students were in groups with their friends, both of which may have led to kinder, more positive feedback. Future research should examine the effect of structured vs open-ended feedback forms in anonymous and non-anonymous settings, and in situations where peers are and are not evaluating their friends.</p> <p>Our analysis of the feedback content indicated that the proportion of 'nothing' responses in suggestions for improvement increased over time for the structured form group but remained relatively stable for the open-ended group. Further research could directly examine this trend and explore whether any increase in 'nothing' responses for structured forms are due to feedback fatigue; students using the structured form more quickly learning facilitation skills due to self-reflection; or whether students simply realized over time that they could select the 'Other, please specify' option and write 'nothing'.</p> <p>Finally, previous research has indicated that providing students with training improves the quality of feedback provided and increases uptake of peer feedback (Rollinson [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref93">47</reflink>]; Patton [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref94">44</reflink>]; Carless and Boud [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref95">7</reflink>]). Our study did not provide students with any training on providing or using peer feedback, beyond brief instructions on how to use the feedback forms. Future research could examine whether training reduces differences in the effectiveness of peer feedback from structured vs unstructured feedback forms. It is plausible that training would have improved the quality of feedback – particularly of the open-ended feedback – and this may have led to similar levels of perceived usefulness and trustworthiness of feedback between the structured and open-ended feedback formats.</p> <hd id="AN0187097794-18">Implications of using structured vs open-ended feedback forms</hd> <p>Our research indicates that using a structured peer feedback form with options predetermined by the teaching team can improve the perceived usefulness of the feedback received and the confidence students have in their peers to provide them with meaningful feedback (Figures 1 and 2). This suggests that increasing the structure of peer feedback forms may, at least in part, address the commonly raised issue that peer feedback is not always perceived by students to be useful (Hanrahan and Isaacs [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref96">23</reflink>]; Strijbos, Narciss, and Dünnebier [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref97">50</reflink>]; Panadero [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref98">41</reflink>]). This could ultimately lead to greater uptake and implementation of peer feedback in subsequent assessments (van Gennip, Segers, and Tillema [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref99">55</reflink>]; Ruegg [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref100">48</reflink>]; Wu and Schunn [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref101">59</reflink>]).</p> <p>There was less support to indicate that the structured feedback form increased levels of self-confidence in providing peer feedback or the level of self-reflection students perceive themselves as engaging in during the peer feedback process (Figures 4 and 5). This result, in combination with the other results, suggests that a greater degree of structure in peer feedback forms can improve the usefulness of peer feedback received without compromising self-reflection. However, it would be useful for future research to explore what additional interventions could be paired with structured feedback forms to improve self-reflection, as greater levels of self-reflection can enable students to evaluate, and identify gaps in, one's knowledge, and improve academic performance (Lew and Schmidt [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref102">31</reflink>]; Chang [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref103">9</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our analysis of feedback content indicates that students with the open-ended form identified potential areas for improvement that were not captured by the predetermined list from the teaching team. While some of these suggestions for improvement were less actionable and relevant to the assignment, others (such as time management) were and could usefully be added to future iterations of the structured format. Previous studies have indicated that having students participate in developing criteria improves student performance through a greater understanding of criteria (Lai and Hwang [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref104">30</reflink>]), but it may also improve student learning by identifying gaps in existing evaluation criteria. This may be particularly relevant for assignments that are less common (i.e. facilitating group discussions) compared to those for which criteria tend to be fairly consistent (e.g. writing assignments).</p> <hd id="AN0187097794-19">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).</p> <hd id="AN0187097794-20">Appendix 1: List of structured feedback options</hd> <p>What are 1–3 things your facilitator did particularly well today?</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Asked for clarification when someone's comment/question was unclear</item> <p></p> <item> Called on quiet group members to create space for them</item> <p></p> <item> Kept the discussion on the topic</item> <p></p> <item> Asked someone to elaborate further or asked follow-up questions</item> <p></p> <item> Made connections between comments/questions from multiple group members</item> <p></p> <item> Paraphrased or summarized comments</item> <p></p> <item> Broke down a question or asked related questions when no one responded</item> <p></p> <item> Used a creative facilitation aid or activity</item> <p></p> <item> Allowed periods of silence for reflection or thought</item> <p></p> <item> Treated all group members with respect</item> <p></p> <item> Handled conflict or disagreements constructively</item> <p></p> <item> Other, please specify:</item> </ulist> <p>What are 1–3 things your facilitator could improve for next time?</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Ask for clarification when someone's comment/question is unclear</item> <p></p> <item> Calle on quiet group members to create space for them</item> <p></p> <item> Keep the discussion on topic</item> <p></p> <item> Ask group members to elaborate further or ask follow-up questions</item> <p></p> <item> Make connections between comments/questions from multiple group members</item> <p></p> <item> Paraphrase or summarize comments</item> <p></p> <item> Break down a question or ask related questions when no one responds</item> <p></p> <item> Use a creative facilitation aid or activity</item> <p></p> <item> Allow periods of silence for reflection or thought</item> <p></p> <item> Treat all group members with respect</item> <p></p> <item> Handle conflict or disagreements more constructively</item> <p></p> <item> Spend more time listening, rather than contributing their own thoughts/opinions</item> <p></p> <item> Other, please specify:</item> </ulist> <ref id="AN0187097794-21"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref27" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Artemeva, N., and S. Logie. 2003. " Introducing Engineering Students to Intellectual Teamwork: The Teaching and Practice of Peer Feedback in the Professional Communication Classroom." Language and Learning Across the Disciplines 6 (1): 62 – 85. doi: 10.37514/LLD-J.2003.6.1.04.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref65" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bingham, A. J., and P. Witkowsky. 2022. " Deductive and Inductive Approaches to Qualitative Data Analysis." In Analyzing and Interpreting Qualitative Research, edited by C. Vanover, P. Mihas, & J. Saldaña, 133 – 148. SAGE Publications, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref7" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Boud, D., R. Cohen, and J. Sampson. 1999. " Peer Learning and Assessment." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 24 (4): 413 – 426. doi: 10.1080/0260293990240405.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref73" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Brown, G. T. L., S. E. Irving, E. R. Peterson, and G. H. F. Hirschfeld. 2009. " Use of Interactive–Informal Assessment Practices: New Zealand Secondary Students' Conceptions of Assessment." Learning and Instruction 19 (2): 97 – 111. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.02.003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref74" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bryant, D. A., and D. R. Carless. 2010. " Peer Assessment in a Test-Dominated Setting: Empowering, Boring or Facilitating Examination Preparation? " Educational Research for Policy and Practice 9 (1): 3 – 15. doi: 10.1007/s10671-009-9077-2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref89" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bürgermeister, A., I. Glogger-Frey, and H. Saalbach. 2021. " Supporting Peer Feedback on Learning Strategies: Effects on Self-Efficacy and Feedback Quality." Psychology Learning & Teaching 20 (3): 383 – 404. doi: 10.1177/14757257211016604.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref19" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Carless, D., and D. Boud. 2018. " The Development of Student Feedback Literacy: Enabling Uptake of Feedback." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 43 (8): 1315 – 1325. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref22" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cartney, P. 2010. " Exploring the Use of Peer Assessment as a Vehicle for Closing the Gap between Feedback Given and Feedback Used." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35 (5): 551 – 564. doi: 10.1080/02602931003632381.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref103" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Chang, B. 2019. " Reflection in Learning." Online Learning 23 (1): 95 – 110. doi: 10.24059/olj.v23i1.1447.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cho, K., and C. MacArthur. 2010. " Student Revision with Peer and Expert Reviewing." Learning and Instruction 20 (4): 328 – 338. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.006.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cushing, A., S. Abbott, D. Lothian, A. Hall, and O. M. R. Westwood. 2011. " Peer Feedback as an Aid to Learning – What Do We Want? Feedback. When Do We Want It? Now." Medical Teacher 33 (2): e105 – e112. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2011.542522.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dochy, F., M. Segers, and D. Sluijsmans. 1999. " The Use of Self-, Peer and Co-Assessment in Higher Education: A Review." Studies in Higher Education 24 (3): 331 – 350. doi: 10.1080/03075079912331379935.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Donia, Magda, Thomas A. O'Neill, and Stephane Brutus. 2015. " Peer Feedback Increases Team Member Performance, Confidence and Work Outcomes: A Longitudinal Study." Academy of Management Proceedings 2015 (1): 12560. doi: 10.5465/ambpp.2015.21.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elizondo-Garcia, J., C. Schunn, and K. Gallardo, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico, josemaria.elizondo@itesm.m. 2019. " Quality of Peer Feedback in Relation to Instructional Design: A Comparative Study in Energy and Sustainability MOOCs." International Journal of Instruction 12 (1): 1025 – 1040. doi: 10.29333/iji.2019.12166a.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Falchikov, N. 1995. " Peer Feedback Marking: Developing Peer Assessment." Innovations in Education and Training International 32 (2): 175 – 187. doi: 10.1080/1355800950320212.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Falchikov, N., and J. Goldfinch. 2000. " Student Peer Assessment in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Peer and Teacher Marks." Review of Educational Research 70 (3): 287 – 322. doi: 10.3102/00346543070003287.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fleckney, P., J. Thompson, and P. Vaz-Serra. 2025. " Designing Effective Peer Assessment Processes in Higher Education: A Systematic Review." Higher Education Research & Development 44 (2): 386 – 401. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2024.2407083.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gaynor, J. W. 2020. " Peer Review in the Classroom: Student Perceptions, Peer Feedback Quality and the Role of Assessment." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 45 (5): 758 – 775. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1697424.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibbs, G., and C. Simpson. 2004. " Conditions Under Which Assessment Supports Students' Learning." Learning and Teaching in Higher Education 1 : 3 – 31.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gielen, M., and B. De Wever. 2015a. " Structuring Peer Assessment: Comparing the Impact of the Degree of Structure on Peer Feedback Content." Computers in Human Behavior 52 : 315 – 325. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.06.019.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gielen, M., and B. De Wever. 2015b. " Structuring the Peer Assessment Process: A Multilevel Approach for the Impact on Product Improvement and Peer Feedback Quality." Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 31 (5): 435 – 449. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12096.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gielen, S., F. Dochy, and P. Onghena. 2011. " An Inventory of Peer Assessment Diversity." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 36 (2): 137 – 155. doi: 10.1080/02602930903221444.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanrahan, S. J., and G. Isaacs. 2001. " Assessing Self- and Peer-Assessment: The Students' Views." Higher Education Research & Development 20 (1): 53 – 70. doi: 10.1080/07294360123776.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hattie, J., and H. Timperley. 2007. " The Power of Feedback." Review of Educational Research 77 (1): 81 – 112. doi: 10.3102/003465430298487.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hosack, I. 2004. " The Effects of Anonymous Feedback on Japanese University Students' Attitudes towards Peer Review." Language and Its Universe 3 : 297 – 322.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaufman, J. H., and C. D. Schunn. 2011. " Students' Perceptions About Peer Assessment for Writing: Their Origin and Impact on Revision Work." Instructional Science 39 (3): 387 – 406. doi: 10.1007/s11251-010-9133-6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kerman, N. T., S. K. Banihashem, M. Karami, E. Er, S. Van Ginkel, and O. Noroozi. 2024. " Online Peer Feedback in Higher Education: A Synthesis of the Literature." Education and Information Technologies 29 (1): 763 – 813. doi: 10.1007/s10639-023-12273-8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King, P. E., P. Schrodt, and J. J. Weisel. 2009. " The Instructional Feedback Orientation Scale: Conceptualizing and Validating a New Measure for Assessing Perceptions of Instructional Feedback." Communication Education 58 (2): 235 – 261. doi: 10.1080/03634520802515705.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krippendorff, K. 2004. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lai, C.-L., and G.-J. Hwang. 2015. " An Interactive Peer-Assessment Criteria Development Approach to Improving Students' Art Design Performance Using Handheld Devices." Computers & Education 85 : 149 – 159. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.011.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lew, M. D. N., and H. G. Schmidt. 2011. " Self-Reflection and Academic Performance: Is There a Relationship? " Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice 16 (4): 529 – 545. doi: 10.1007/s10459-011-9298-z.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McConlogue, T. 2015. " Making Judgements: Investigating the Process of Composing and Receiving Peer Feedback." Studies in Higher Education 40 (9): 1495 – 1506. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2013.868878.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Misiejuk, K., B. Wasson, and K. Egelandsdal. 2021. " Using Learning Analytics to Understand Student Perceptions of Peer Feedback." Computers in Human Behavior 117 : 106658. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106658.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moore, C., and S. Teather. 2013. " Engaging Students in Peer Review: Feedback as Learning." Issues in Educational Research 23 (2): 196 – 211.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nesbitt, L., M. J. Meitner, B. Chamberlain, J. Gonzalez, and W. Trousdale. 2024. " A Comparison of Value-Weight-Elicitation Methods for Accurate and Accessible Participatory Planning." Journal of Planning Education and Research 44 (4): 2098 – 2109. doi: 10.1177/0739456X231155069.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nicol, D., and D. Macfarlane-Dick. 2006. " Formative Assessment and Self-Regulated Learning: A Model and Seven Principles of Good Feedback Practice." Studies in Higher Education 31 (2): 199 – 218. doi: 10.1080/03075070600572090.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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 – 122. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2013.795518.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nilson, L. B. 2003. " Improving Student Peer Feedback." College Teaching 51 (1): 34 – 38. doi: 10.1080/87567550309596408.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Panadero, E. 2016. " Is It Safe? Social, Interpersonal, and Human Effects of Peer Assessment: A Review and Future Directions." In Handbook of Human and Social Conditions in Assessment. New York, NY: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Panadero, E., and M. Alqassab. 2019. " An Empirical Review of Anonymity Effects in Peer Assessment, Peer Feedback, Peer Review, Peer Evaluation and Peer Grading." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 44 (8): 1253 – 1278. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2019.1600186.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Panadero, Ernesto, and Anders Jönsson. 2013. " The Use of Scoring Rubrics for Formative Assessment Purposes Revisited: A Review." Educational Research Review 9 : 129 – 144. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Patton, C. 2012. " Some Kind of Weird, Evil Experiment": Student Perceptions of Peer Assessment." Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 37 (6): 719 – 731. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2011.563281.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> R Core Team. 2020. " R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing." R Foundation for Statistical Computing. <ulink href="http://www.r-project.org/">http://www.r-project.org/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reinholz, D. L. 2017. " Not-So-Critical Friends: Graduate Student Instructors and Peer Feedback." International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 11 (2): 1 – 9. doi: 10.20429/ijsotl.2017.110210.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rollinson, P. 2005. " Using Peer Feedback in the ESL Writing Class." ELT Journal 59 (1): 23 – 30. doi: 10.1093/elt/cci003.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ruegg, R. 2015. " Differences in the Uptake of Peer and Teacher Feedback." RELC Journal 46 (2): 131 – 145. doi: 10.1177/0033688214562799.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steelman, L. A., P. E. Levy, and A. F. Snell. 2004. " The Feedback Environment Scale: Construct Definition, Measurement, and Validation." Educational and Psychological Measurement 64 (1): 165 – 184. doi: 10.1177/0013164403258440.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Strijbos, J.-W., S. Narciss, and K. Dünnebier. 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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Topping, K. J. 1998. " Peer Assessment Between Students in Colleges and Universities." Review of Educational Research 68 (3): 249 – 276. doi: 10.3102/00346543068003249.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Topping, K. J. 2009. " Peer Assessment." Theory Into Practice 48 (1): 20 – 27. doi: 10.1080/00405840802577569.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Den Berg, I., W. Admiraal, and A. Pilot. 2006a. " Design Principles and Outcomes of Peer Assessment in Higher Education." Studies in Higher Education 31 (3): 341 – 356. doi: 10.1080/03075070600680836.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Den Berg, I., W. Admiraal, and A. Pilot. 2006b. " Designing Student Peer Assessment in Higher Education: Analysis of Written and Oral Peer Feedback." Teaching in Higher Education 11 (2): 135 – 147. doi: 10.1080/13562510500527685.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van Zundert, M., D. Sluijsmans, and J. van Merriënboer. 2010. " Effective Peer Assessment Processes: Research Findings and Future Directions." Learning and Instruction 20 (4): 270 – 279. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Villamil, O. S., and M. C. M. de Guerrero. 2006. " Sociocultural Theory: A Framework for Understanding the Social-Cognitive Dimensions of Peer Feedback." In Feedback in Second Language Writing: Contexts and Issues, -edited by F. Hyland and K. Hyland, 23 – 41. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139524742.004.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Winstone, N., and D. Carless. 2019. Designing Effective Feedback Processes in Higher Education: A Learning-Focused Approach. New York, NY: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781351115940.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu, Y., and C. D. Schunn. 2020. " When Peers Agree, Do Students Listen? The Central Role of Feedback Quality and Feedback Frequency in Determining Uptake of Feedback." Contemporary Educational Psychology 62 : 101897. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101897.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang, M., and D. Carless. 2013. " The Feedback Triangle and the Enhancement of Dialogic Feedback Processes." Teaching in Higher Education 18 (3): 285 – 297. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2012.719154.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhu, Q., and D. Carless. 2018. " Dialogue Within Peer Feedback Processes: Clarification and Negotiation of Meaning." Higher Education Research & Development 37 (4): 883 – 897. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2018.1446417.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Jessica Quinton; Lorien Nesbitt and Johanna Bock</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> <p></p> <p>Dr. Jessica Quinton is a postdoctoral scholar at McGill University's School of Urban Planning. Her research and teaching focuses on governance, management, and environmental justice issues related to urban forests and green spaces.</p> <p>Dr. Lorien Nesbitt is an Assistant Professor in UBC's Faculty of Forestry. She seeks to create more liveable and equitable urban environments through her work. Her research and teaching focus on environmental justice in urban greening and planning, with specific interests in green gentrification, recognition justice in urban greening stewardship, and supporting planetary health during the climate crisis.</p> <p>Johanna Bock is a PhD candidate exploring the connections between nature and mental health, with a focus on the behaviours and values that shape these relationships. With a background in developmental and health psychology, her previous research examined the role of physical activity in positive development. Her current work uses surveys and interviews to understand how people engage with urban nature in daily life and how these interactions influence well-being. She collaborates with working-age adults and immigrant communities across Metro Vancouver, aiming to inform more inclusive and accessible approaches to urban greening and mental health support.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref104"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1484967
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Enhancing the Structure of Feedback Forms Increases Trustworthiness and Usefulness of Peer Feedback
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jessica+Quinton%22">Jessica Quinton</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6931-7984">0000-0002-6931-7984</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lorien+Nesbitt%22">Lorien Nesbitt</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4018-1825">0000-0002-4018-1825</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Johanna+Bock%22">Johanna Bock</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0000-1376-9300">0009-0000-1376-9300</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Assessment+%26+Evaluation+in+Higher+Education%22"><i>Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 50(5):760-774.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 15
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research<br />Tests/Questionnaires
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Feedback+%28Response%29%22">Feedback (Response)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Peer+Evaluation%22">Peer Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluation+Methods%22">Evaluation Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reflection%22">Reflection</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Undergraduate+Students%22">Undergraduate Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reports%22">Reports</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Canada%22">Canada</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/02602938.2025.2468848
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0260-2938<br />1469-297X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Peer feedback is commonly used in higher education for both practical and pedagogical reasons. However, peer feedback has been criticized by teachers, researchers, and students for being superficial, harsh, uncritical, and/or detached from learning objectives. This study contributes to the existing literature on how to enhance the effectiveness of peer feedback by examining the impact of increasing the structure of peer feedback forms. Student participants were assigned to use either an open-ended peer feedback form or a structured form with predetermined options created by the teaching team. After giving and receiving feedback, students completed a brief survey about their experience. Feedback underwent quantitative content analysis to support interpretation and contextualization of survey results. We found that students receiving feedback from the structured form perceived the feedback to be more useful and trustworthy than those receiving feedback from the unstructured form. There was limited evidence that the structured feedback form impacted the experience of providing feedback, including student's perceived level of self-reflection during the feedback process. The findings suggest that structured feedback forms can be used to address student concerns about the usefulness and trustworthiness of peer feedback without negatively impacted self-reflection during the feedback process.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1484967
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1484967
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/02602938.2025.2468848
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 15
        StartPage: 760
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Feedback (Response)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peer Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluation Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reflection
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Undergraduate Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reports
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Canada
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Enhancing the Structure of Feedback Forms Increases Trustworthiness and Usefulness of Peer Feedback
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jessica Quinton
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lorien Nesbitt
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Johanna Bock
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0260-2938
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1469-297X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 50
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1