Technology-enhanced peer review: Benefits and implications of providing multiple reviews

Pantelis M. Papadopoulos*, Thomas D. Lagkas, Stavros N. Demetriadis

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)
5 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

This study analyses the impact of self and peer feedback in technology-enhanced peer review settings. The impact of receiving peer comments ("receiver" perspective) is compared to that of reaching own insights by reviewing others' work ("giver" perspective). In this study, 38 sophomore students were randomly assigned in two conditions and engaged in peer review activity facilitated by a web -based learning environment asking them to provide multiple reviews. In the Peer Reviewed (PR) condition students both reviewed peer work and received peer comments for their own work. By contrast, in the Self Reviewed (SR) condition students provided peer reviews, but did not receive any. Instead, they were asked to perform self reviewing, before proceeding to any revisions of their work. Result showed that the two groups were comparable in all aspects, suggesting that the lack of getting peer reviews can be efficiently alleviated by other type of scaffolds such as a scripted self review process. Overall, the study provides evidence that the review "giver" perspective (as opposed to the typical "receiver" perspective) is a vital option and has noteworthy implications for the design of technological systems that aim to flexibly support more efficient peer review schemes.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)69-81
Number of pages13
JournalEducational Technology and Society
Volume20
Issue number3
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jul 2017
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Free selection
  • Peer review
  • Self review
  • Technology-enhanced learning

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Technology-enhanced peer review: Benefits and implications of providing multiple reviews'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this