PEER REVIEW IN A PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT COURSE – IMPLEMENTATION AND RECEPTION

PEER REVIEW IN A PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT COURSE – IMPLEMENTATION AND RECEPTION

H. Jonsson, E. Täck, E. Hulthén, A. Eriksson (2022).  PEER REVIEW IN A PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT COURSE – IMPLEMENTATION AND RECEPTION. 576-587.

The use of peer review as a teaching and learning activity has gained lot of ground during the ,last decade. Effective peer response is characterized by students’ engagement and gives students the chance to practice both their ability to review by reading and commenting on other students’ work and to receive and address feedback from others. There is also a driver that using peer reviews can separate formative and summative feedback and make the feedback loop quicker. In this paper we describe the introduction and implementation of a particular peer review intervention involving peer review from many students in a project-based product development course taught in the second year at a five-year mechanical engineering programme at Chalmers University of Technology. To find out how the students’ perceived the peer review activity, a student survey and in-depth interviews with students as well as interviews with supervisors were performed. Overall, the response from the students is positive and more so when a year passed compared to the ones who just completed the course. The few negative aspects are things to improve rather than discarding the method. The supervisors’ response is likewise positive and highlights the additional skills developed by the students, such as critical thinking, resulting in a more effective learning environment. The conclusion is that the peer review in this course benefits students as well as the supervisors. It gives quicker response form more participants. The grades in the course, which are based on a combination of a grade from the group project work and an individual grade based on their peer review, became fairer after implementing peer review.

Authors (New): 
Hanna Jonsson
Elsa Täck
Erik Hulthén
Andreas Eriksson
Pages: 
576-587
Affiliations: 
Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden
Keywords: 
Peer Review
supervisors
group work
project work
Assessment
CDIO Standard 8
CDIO Standard 11
Year: 
2022
Reference: 
Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written corrective feedback for L2 development. Multilingual Matters.: 
Börjeson, F. & Carlsson, C. J. 2021. Talking about Writing – Designing and Establishing Writing Feedback and Tutorials to Promote Student Engagement and Learning. Journal of Academic Writing, 10(1), 128-135.: 
https://doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v10i1.604
Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013). Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 698–712.: 
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2012.691462
Carless, D. (2016). Feedback as Dialogue. In M. Peters (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory (pp. 1–6). Springer.: 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-287-532-7_389-1
Cho, Y. H., and K. Cho. (2011). Peer Reviewers Learn from Giving Comments. Instructional Science 39:629-643.: 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9146-1
Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Charney, D. (2006). Commenting on writing: Typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. Written Communication, 23(3).: 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088306289261
D. R. Brodeur, The CDIO Standards v 2.0, http://www.cdio.org 2010: 
Enelund, M., Larsson S., & Malmqvist J. (2010). INTEGRATION OF A COMPUTATIONAL MATHEMATICS EDUCATION IN THE MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM.: 
Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing. Volume 18, Issue 1.: 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002
Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014) Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39:1, 102-122,: 
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.795518
Go to top