Peer Review
Regular and Substantive InteractionPeer Review
Overview
Peer review is a potential RSI method. Instructors should use a combination of methods most appropriate to the discipline and course. Explore this page to understand how to best create peer reviews that target student engagement and accreditation/evaluation requirements.
Not All Peer Reviews Are RSI
- Not RSI:
Peer review activities lack clear guidelines, relevance to course objectives, or meaningful academic discourse. If peer review is treated as a checkbox activity with no follow-up or integration into the learning process, it does not contribute to substantive interaction.
- Gray Area:
In this category would be peer review that includes some elements of academic engagement but lacks structure or instructor involvement to ensure depth and relevance of feedback. There might be criteria for review, but limited guidance on providing substantive feedback or integrating peer feedback into revisions.
- RSI:
Well-structured peer review processes are closely tied to learning objectives, with clear criteria and guidance for providing constructive, substantive feedback. The instructor actively facilitates the process, providing training on how to give and receive feedback, and may integrate peer feedback into the overall assessment.
Self Check
Start with the best example, then click on the other answers for additional guidance!
- Before starting peer reviews, students participate in a training module on effective feedback. They use a detailed rubric aligned with course objectives. The instructor monitors submissions and provides feedback on the reviews themselves.
Definitely RSI: This approach encourages engagement with the content and a collaborative learning environment.
- Students are asked to comment on each other's work with no specific criteria, leading to superficial "good job" responses that don't enhance understanding or offer constructive feedback.
-
NOT RSI: If peer review is treated as a checkbox activity with no follow-up or integration into the learning process, it does not contribute to substantive interaction.
- Peer reviews are conducted with a basic rubric, yet there’s minimal instructor oversight to ensure the quality of the feedback. Students receive comments from peers but with little direction on how to use this feedback for improvement.
-
Gray Area: This would likely be interpreted as borderline RSI.
Can Accreditors and Evaluators Access Peer Reviews?
Start with your best guess, then click on the other answers for additional guidance!
-
No
-
It depends on how they're set up--this is in the gray area. If they are outside of Canvas, the answer is typically no.
-
Gray Area (Conditional Visibility)
-
It depends. In Canvas, peer reviews are sometimes set up so that students can see and respond to feedback from their peers, but there is no easy way for evaluators to access these. Similarly, if they are set up using Google Docs without being set to public, evaluators wouldn't see the content.
However, evaluators/accreditors would be able to see instructor feedback if provided via SpeedGrader.
-
Yes
-
This is in the gray area, but it's possible to set them up so that evaluators and accreditors could see everything, such as if they were set up through the discussion board.
Key Takeaways
- Clear Criteria and Training: Provide students with clear criteria for feedback and training on how to give constructive and substantive critiques.
- Instructor Involvement: Actively monitor peer reviews to ensure quality and relevance of feedback, offering guidance and support where necessary.
Further Examples
Weak Peer Review Example:
Assignment: "Look over your peer's proposed menu and let them know if it sounds good to you."
Why It's Weak: This prompt is overly simplistic and subjective. It doesn't guide students toward evaluating the menu based on culinary principles, thematic cohesion, or target audience preferences.
Stronger Peer Review Example:
Assignment: "Using the provided rubric, critically evaluate your peer's menu designed for a farm-to-table restaurant concept. Focus your review on the following aspects:
-
Thematic Consistency: Assess how well the menu items reflect the farm-to-table theme, considering the use of seasonal and locally sourced ingredients.
-
Menu Balance: Evaluate the variety and balance among appetizers, mains, sides, and desserts, taking into account dietary considerations and flavor profiles.
-
Innovation and Creativity: Consider the originality of the dishes and the creative use of ingredients to offer a unique dining experience.
-
Presentation and Description: Critique the clarity and appeal of the menu descriptions, including how they might influence diner expectations. Provide specific examples from the menu to highlight strengths and suggest areas for improvement. Conclude your review with a summary of the menu's key strengths and opportunities for refinement.
You can expect feedback from me within a week."
Why It's Strong: This prompt provides a clear, structured framework for evaluating a culinary arts project, and includes a rubric and the promise of instructor feedback.