The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Key Principles of Peer Assessments: A Feedback
Strategy to Engage the Postgraduate International
Learner
Roopa Nagori, Matthew Cooper
	
  

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Abstract
The paper reports the findings of a project that assessed the benefits of peer feedback as a formative
assessment intervention for postgraduate international learners in the United Kingdom. The aim wasto improve participants’ understanding of quality in academic writing, and hence improve thesummative assessment scores, by improving the quantity of feedback received in a collaborative
learning environment. The project utilized the action research methodology and qualitative methods
to recommend effective practices for peer assessment. Research findings highlight that although
there was no substantial increase in the average score for the groups that received peer feedback,improvements in summative scores for the higher ability students were observed. All the learners
agreed that the peer feedback should be made a permanent feature of the program; they also
highlighted that the main barriers in giving feedback were lack of experience and hesitation in
critiquing peer’s work. It is recommended that peer assessment is included as a regular feature of
postgraduate programs but with adequate tutor planning and student preparation. Additional
strategies to encourage engagement of postgraduate students with the ‘Peer Feedback’ are required todemonstrate improved results across all ability levels.
Keywords: International Students; Peer Assessment; Peer Feedback; Formative Feedback.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Introduction
In recent years higher education institutions (HEIs) in the UK have witnessed unprecedented growthin the enrolment of students from other countries (Hall and Sung, 2011). Newsome and Cooper(2013) believe that previous academic experiences and expectations may lead to international
students’ dissatisfaction, a current challenge to educational institutes in the UK. As highlighted by
Grimshaw (2011), there is a recognized need for the development of the UK HE provision to meetthe needs and challenges faced by international students. The term ‘international students’ usedfrequently in this paper refers to the students from countries other than the United Kingdom.
Although the issues discussed are relevant to all students entering an unfamiliar academic culture forthe first time, the particular focus of this study is on students from Asia and Africa as the researchers
are involved in the management and delivery of modules on a postgraduate program consisting of ahigh number of overseas students, mainly from these two continents. With this in mind, the authors
initiated a peer feedback project for an assessment on the Masters in Business Administration (MBA)course. The MBA curriculum being content full and consisting of 8 modules with 16 assessments;
finding space and time for feedback to individuals by the tutors was challenging. Further, it wasobserved that tutors’ feedback was not being accurately perceived and effectively utilized by thestudents to improve the scores on summative assessments. As recommended by Orsmond et al.
(2002), tutors felt the need to provide more guidance to students regarding the use of feedback forthe international learner. To address these issues; a peer assessment project was piloted in June 2011.
The aim of the project was to implement and evaluate a new learning strategy for timely formative
feedback in an attempt to clarify ‘quality’ in writing (Sadler, 2010). The potential of formalizing peer
assessment as a feedback mechanism has been widely researched and a number of strategies havebeen tested to utilize this as a formative tool for learners in the work of McConlogue (2012),
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Wimshurst and Manning (2013) and Sadler (2010). The researcher investigates the benefits andchallenges involved in formalizing peer assessment practices, specifically for postgraduate
international students studying at a UK Institution.
Main observations and recommendations from the implementations are included in this paper.
Although this process was initiated in 2011, the initiative for ‘Peer Feedback’ could be strengthened
now to address the institute’s strategic objective for excellence which states ‘delivery of inspirational
teaching and investment in the delivery of teaching’ as a priority for strategic plans (EHWLC, 2013).
In addition, the QAA (2005) has been encouraging the development of peer feedback schemes inhigher education. This paper aims to evaluate the benefits of peer assessment for the international
student and recommend effective practices to engage international learners in feedback through peer
reviews.
The main research objectives are:
1. To investigate the strengths and challenges involved in peer assessment as a feedback
strategy.
2. To evaluate the success of ‘Peer Assessment’ for international students, with respect tofour implementations in a MBA program.
3. To recommend effective practices in ‘Peer Assessment’ as a useful tool to engage theinternational student in reflecting on feedback.
Why introduce Peer Reviews for courses involving a large number of international students?
Various authors (Hall and Sung, 2008; Grimshaw, 2011) have expressed views that the international
students’ barriers to learning relate to the tutors’ perceived problems that overseas students bringwith them, such as poor spoken and written language ability; a low level of participation in group
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

work; a reluctance to display critical thinking in study; problems with reference skills and plagiarism.
Newsome and Cooper (2013) are of the opinion that these issues are linked to the cultural, language
and academic differences in addition to the recent geopolitical events that may stereotype theinternational learner in the UK. They elaborate further that the international students in the UK could
be affected by multiple issues, ranging from profound social or psychological factors to seemingly
superficial but potentially very problematic changes of climate, diet or daily routine. A discussion
with the overseas students on the postgraduate program under discussion revealed that theseacademic, social and psychological factors were some barriers to learning that were affecting theiracademic performance. Clearly, learning strategies to encourage participation and engagement withthe content of the course was required.
The researchers realized that low levels of engagement with feedback needed to be addressed in time
for students to modify their own thinking and behavior to improve learning. Popham (2008)
recommends that the students be involved as partners in the assessment of learning and to beequipped to use the assessment results to change their own learning tactics. Formative assessment
seeks to help students to improve their own learning and is important because feedback given only atthe end of a learning cycle is not effective in furthering student learning (Bollag, 2006). The MBA
program was providing opportunities for formative feedback from the tutor as comments on
submitted work however the main challenge was the difficultly for the tutors to engage in dialogue
with all students, due to the large class sizes. Fluckiger et al. (2010) acknowledges that on somecourses planning time for giving students effective feedback is an important and challenging aspectof the teaching and learning process. The researchers realized the need to investigate learning
strategies that might increase feedback dialogue to engage the international student with theformative feedback. One possible learning strategy that could be used to provide timely and
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

developmental formative feedback is ‘Peer Assessment’. Utilizing the framework recommended by
Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006), the approach adopted was to structure small group break-out
discussions of feedback in class (peer feedback) after students had received tutor comments on theirindividual work. ‘Peer Feedback’ as defined by The Centre of Academic Quality and Development
at Nottingham Trent University is the observation, commenting upon and at times assessment ofstudents’ work by other learners (CADQ, 2013).
The benefits and challenges of introducing peer reviews
McConlogue (2012) is of the opinion that peer feedback prepares students for the kinds of criticalreview skills which their future professional contexts may require of them, especially practice in peer
evaluation and feedback while CADQ (2013) argues that this is a crucial life-skill to offer learners.
The need for peers’ involvement in the feedback process is highlighted by Wimhurst and Manning(2013) who are of the opinion that the students’ understanding of assessment standards iscomplicated by the fact that assessment processes require them to draw upon both explicit and tacitknowledge. The authors believe that this is more relevant in the context of the international learnerwhere, explicit knowledge can be clarified through guidance notes or discussions in lectures. Tacit
knowledge, however, tends to be experiential and is derived from shared understandings developed
among members of academic communities. International learners may not have been exposed to theacademic practices that local students have experienced in their undergraduate studies in the UK.
Students who are still on the periphery of academic communities may not discover these implicit
understandings which usually inform quality work (McConlogue, 2012; Sadler, 2010). It is throughdiscussion of the assessment criteria, peers reviewing others’ work that they begin to get clarity forthe ‘tacit assumptions.’ This is especially true for students from Asian and African continents for
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

whom English may not the first language and tutors may need to invest substantial time todemonstrate the implied meanings in their formative feedback. As emphasized by ASKe (2010), Peer
feedback increases the amount of feedback students receive and they get it more quickly than thetutor route. Another benefit highlighted by Sadler (2010) is that the process of reviewing the work of
their peers clarifies to students what is considered good work, improving their understanding of
quality in writing.
While earlier research on peer assessment identified considerable benefits for student learning, recent
discussions have been more cautious. Wimshurst and Manning (2013) have in their literature
cautioned against attempting to rigorously measure the outcomes of feedback as assessment occurs
within a ‘complex web’ of contextual and relational factors. Bloxham and West (2007) found that
their participants did not enjoy the experience of marking the work of classmates while Cartney(2010) writes of the emotionality and anxiety associated with peer assessment, where students areconcerned about whether some of their fellow markers, in whom they have little confidence, actually
understand the criteria for marking. If the formative and summative assessments are separated bylittle time difference, this may inhibit the effective application for improvement of the summativepiece (CADQ, 2013; Wimhurst and Manning, 2013). These benefits and challenges must be carefully
evaluated in the design and customisation of a peer assessment programme, especially in a diverse
class consisting of international learners.
Reliability of Peer Assessment as compared to Tutor Judgments
Previous research (CADQ 2013, Sadler 2010,) indicates that formative rather than summative peer
feedback is valuable for student development. McConlogue (2012) questions the consistency ingrades awarded to complex tasks and is of the opinion that the value of peer reviews is not as much
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

in assigning marks but more in composing and receiving qualitative peer feedback. The authors
observed that this particularly applied for the international learner for whom a low peer mark has aparticularly disengaging effect. Sadler (2010) is of the opinion that the learning in peer reviews
comes about not through grading but through reading and making assessment judgements aboutpeers’ work; awarding grades to their peers may be an unsettling experience and some culturalbarriers for international learners may inhibit constructive feedback to peers. Awarding grades ormarks to peers could reflect the individualistic view where students compete for grades whereas
formative feedback involving comments rather than grades adopts social constructivism principles
where students expand their knowledge within a social context of interactions and peer learning(Reece and Walker, 1997; CADQ, 2013). Hence, in this context it was decided that the peer review
program should be used for formative and developmental purposes rather than for summativeevaluation purposes.
Guiding Principles for Peer Reviews
A key framework for formative assessment and feedback is provided by Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick,(2006) in which the student is assumed to occupy an active role in all feedback processes. The model
for self-regulated learning and the feedback principles to develop self-regulation in students (Nicoland Macfarlane-Dick, 2006) recommends that the learners are actively involved in monitoring andregulating their own performance through internal and external feedback using the following steps:
1. Clarify what good performance is (goals, criteria, and expected standards);
2. Facilitate the development of self-assessment (reflection) in learning;
3. Deliver high quality information to students about their learning;
4. Encourage teacher and peer dialogue around learning;
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

5. Encourage positive motivational beliefs and self-esteem;
6. Provide opportunities to close the gap between current and desired performance;
7. Use feedback to shape the teaching (Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006, p.203).
In the model, a piece of academic work set by the teacher is the starting point for the feedback cycle.
The learner then engages in actions to achieve these goals by applying tactics and strategies thatgenerate outcomes. Monitoring the goals with the task generates internal feedback while external
feedback to the student might be provided by teachers, peers or others (e.g. placement supervisor).
Peer dialogue is beneficial to student learning as they offer perspectives on alternative approaches
and strategies and it is sometimes easier for students to accept critiques of their work from peers
rather than tutors. The authors found this perspective especially useful since they were dealing withinternational learners; many of whom were not reflecting adequately on the tutor feedback. The
model of self-regulated learning and feedback was applied to four cohorts of international students,
with an emphasis on providing mechanisms for external feedback through peers.

Assessment Standards Knowledge exchange (ASKe), a Centre for Excellence in Teaching and
Learning (CETL) based in the Business School at Oxford Brookes University recommends that peer
reviews utilize a process involving three major steps (Figure 1):
STEP 1

Prior to the peer review session, facilitate marking exercises that give students
practice in assessment and feedback using sample assignments

STEP 2

Prepare for and structure the peer review session

STEP 3

Actively facilitate the peer review session, adhere to a strict timetable and tellstudents exactly what they must do and for how long.

Figure 1. The ASKe Framework for Peer Reviews (Adapted from ASKe, Oxford Brookes University,
2010)
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Step 1 in the model suggests that it is important to spend time in the rehearsal marking session
exploring what is a ‘normal’ marking range, so that students know what to expect. Further, it isrecommended that peer feedback is linked to tutor feedback from the outset, discussing how peer
feedback is a valuable addition to tutor feedback (CADQ 2013; Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006).
To provide a bigger picture of coherence, it is recommended by Wimshurst and Manning (2013) thatthe tutors supply students with any available exemplars of marked assignments with staff feedback
statements. The researchers believe that this would assist the international student in particular, as
language difficulties often make the tacit elements only partially comprehendible. Further,
McConlogue (2012) advises that it is assumed that the tutor is an expert marker and this expertise isgained through years of marking and involvement in standardisation procedures, hence somedemonstration of the tutor techniques is advisable. The above were the frameworks and concepts thatwere considered in the design of the learning intervention of peer feedback for the four cohorts of the
postgraduate international students.
A Learning Intervention; Implementation of Peer Feedback
The project was implemented for a MBA program consisting mainly of international students with
mixed abilities. A new learning strategy using the Model of Self-regulated Learning (Nicol and
Macfarlane-Dick, 2006) and ASKe Framework (Table 1) was proposed and a ‘Peer Assessment’
initiative was designed as an intervention to engage the international learner with feedback. The
author facilitated implementations of Peer Assessments in two phases for an assessment requiring
responses to a complex task. The project utilised the action research methodology using qualitative
data to make improvements in the second phase of the project. An explanation of why ‘Peer

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Assessments’ is appropriate as a feedback strategy for the international learner and some guiding
principles in its potential to improve teaching and learning follow.
The two-phase project:
A qualitative evaluation of four implementations of peer assessment, involving 138 students was
implemented in two phases, between June 2011 to March 2013. This assignment was a piece offormative assessment in the ‘Managing people’ module that required an analysis of Organizational
Behavior (OB) problems, typically involving divergent responses from different learners. This was a
mid-term assessment; hence the feedback would benefit the summative assessment for this course.
The output required from the peer feedback for the first phase was to award a numerical grade to apeer’s work accompanied with detailed comments in the form of qualitative feedback.
First Phase - June 2011 to June 2012: Two groups of learners-one consisting of 42 and the other of
36 learners were assisted to implement the pilot peer reviews as indicated by the ASKe framework(ASKe, 2011).This involved peers assigning grades (Appendix1) as well as providing comments foreach other’s work (Appendix 2). Each learner received feedback from a minimum of two peers.
Following this, the tutor spent time with each group and reviewed the peer comments and marking.
Based on the feedback, the students reflected on the improvements required in their work. The
implementations were evaluated through observation by the tutor and a questionnaire consisting ofsome closed and an open comments section for the learner to reflect on the effectiveness of the peer
review process (as indicated in Appendix 3).
The results from the evaluation of the first phase were used to improve the second phase. Feedback
from the first phase suggested that students needed more guidance on constructing feedback
comments so, in the second phase exemplars, sample feedback comments were supplied for
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

discussion before the peer review session commenced, as recommended by McConlogue (2012).The
results of phase one indicated that when peers were asked to award marks to each other’s work, thefocus was on awarding marks and most learners ignored the crucial aspects of providing qualitative
feedback and suggestions for improvements.
Second Phase - July 2012 to March 2013: Considering the limitations of the numerical grading ofpeer’s work, the technique of the peer feedback was modified for the next two groups to include
mainly qualitative feedback from peers (Appendix 2).The next two groups of students were
instructed to focus on providing their peers with only qualitative feedback, highlighting good
features and advice for improvement. In both phases, all feedback was returned, so students could
incorporate the suggestions for the summative assessment. The implementations were evaluatedthrough observations of the peer assessment sessions and through an online survey that wasadministered two weeks after the peer review sessions. A gap of two weeks was designed to allow
sufficient time for the learners to reflect on the peer feedback and the benefits and challenges of the
new learning strategy.
A comparison group consisting of learners studying the Marketing module on the same MBA course
was selected to determine the reliability of the peer feedback technique. Qualitative data from theopen comment questions in the questionnaire and from summative class scores was analyzed.
Participants were invited at the end of semester to reflect through an online survey (Appendix 3) toevaluate if they found the peer reviews useful and their perceptions of its challenges and benefits.
Eventually, guidelines for effective peer feedback practices for international postgraduate students
are proposed.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Findings from the 2-phase implementation:
The analysis of the open comment questions and tutor reflections on the experience offer some
useful guidelines on the success of the peer reviews, in terms of its benefits and challenges. The
tutors agreed that although the initial set-up for the sessions were difficult to achieve, the actual
process was useful in terms of benefits for the staff and learners. Students seemed to value peer
reviews and felt that they had a growing understanding of tutor expectations and the required quality.
Some comments received from learners in the open comments section of the questionnaire follow:‘Feedback from peers who are objective and have a good level of knowledge is useful. It should be a
regular feature of the MBA programme and could be included for all the subjects and also for exams’(Student A)‘It helps build up our ability to give feedback in our work in the future.’ (Student B)‘The most difficult part was for me to assign a mark for another student, who is also my friend, I
found it difficult to say to him that his work was not of a pass level.’ (Student C)‘I think we need more training before we mark another student’s work, we could practice using someexamples first.’ (Student D)
An analysis of the results of the survey highlighted the key benefits and challenges of the peer
reviews as perceived by the learners:
Q. In your opinion, what are the benefits of peer feedback? Select as many as you think areapplicable.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

The analysis of this question highlighted the main benefits, as perceived by the learners were theopportunity to reflect on and discuss the feedback from the tutor. In addition, the ‘assistance withfocussing on the important aspects of the assignment’ and ‘gaining insights and opinions about
quality of the work expected’ were also listed.
An analysis of the results of the question:
Q. In your opinion, what are the challenges of peer feedback? Select as many as you think areapplicable.
Peer reviews seemed to be an unsettling experience for some international students, resulting inhesitation to participate in the process in future. An analysis of the main challenges revealed thatstudents seemed to be concerned about their own and their peers’ ability to make marking decisions.
They were also concerned about differences in ability and willingness to critique one another’s work.
For many students, this was perhaps the first time they had seen a range of marks and wereconfronted with subjectivity in marking.
The marks awarded by peers were analyzed to test the reliability of peer marking and these were
found to be on an average 12-19% higher than tutor grades. This agrees with previous research thatstates; Peer assessment of long written tasks poses particular problems as these tasks typicallyinvolve complex learning and solving ill-structured problems which require divergent and variable
responses (McConlogue, 2012; Wimshurst and Manning, 2013). For international students, there
may be a tendency to over mark the peers’ work. One reason for this could be the close-knit
community of international students studying similar programs (Langan et al., 2008); another reason
could be the hesitation to critique each other’s work, linked to the culture prevalent in their countryof origin (Newsome and Cooper, 2013).
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

The summative grades achieved by the students who were provided with peer feedback werecompared with the summative grades of learners who did not get the opportunity to receive external
feedback from peers (Table 1). Although the average scores did not increase as a result of the peer
reviews, the proportion of learners achieving scores above 65 (Merit grade) increased asdemonstrated by the figures in Table 1. It was observed that the standard deviation from the averagescores was higher when peer assessment was introduced; a closer examination revealed that thescores at the higher end of the class range increased as a result of introducing the peer feedback
strategy. To test the reliability of these results, benefits of the peer review were evaluated for theMarketing module which demonstrates similar results.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Table 1. Evaluation of Findings for the Managing People in Organisations (MPO) and Marketing
ModulesModuleAverage Scores(Summative)

Percentage of
Merits (>65%)

Standard
Deviation

MPO
No Peer Feedback

61

31.42%

9

Peer Feedback
Provided62

43.75%

13.5

No Peer Feedback49

17.14%

12

Peer Feedback
Provided49

27.77%

19

MarketingNote: Percentage of Merits indicates the ratio of the number of students achieving over 65 out
of 100 marks in the summative assessment on the module. Standard Deviation here measures
the amount of variation of the marks in a module from the average mark.

The benefits of peer reviews are clear from the analysis presented in Table 1; the high performing
students achieve better as a result of the external feedback that they receive from their peers.
Learners in this group are motivated and engaged from the outset, as demonstrated by the quality of
feedback they themselves provided others. However, further investigation is necessary to confirm theextent to which this increase in scores can be attributed exclusively to the feedback strategy of peer
assessments.

Discussion-Implications for practice
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Peer reviews that involve numerical grades tend to limit the amount of quantitative feedback thatpeers provide, the main focus of the review sessions are the grades and conversations that justify themarks awarded. Davies (2006) notes it is important that this process includes feedback in the form ofcomments and not just marks. In the above implementation, peer reviews were utilized to improve
the quality and timeliness of the formative feedback. As a result of this timely feedback, the numberof students achieving a Merit grade in the summative assessment of the MPO module has been
increasing by 10 to 12% over the previous cohorts that did not utilize peer reviews as a formative
feedback strategy. Innovative strategies to engage all learners, especially the learners that find it
difficult to achieve a Pass mark or score higher than 50 % are also necessary.
As highlighted by Popham (2008), consistent use of the above formative assessment has the potential
to transform a traditional, comparison-dominated classroom, where the main purpose of assessment
is to assign grades, into a learning-dominated classroom, where the main purpose of assessment is toimprove the quality of teaching and learning.
Conclusions and Recommendations
This paper discusses experiences from four implementations of ‘Peer assessments’ in a MBAprogram. Results from these implementations demonstrate the benefits and challenges involved inpeer reviews as a feedback strategy for international students studying on postgraduate programs.
Feedback from the learners has highlighted that the main benefits of peer reviews are the opportunity
to reflect on the formative feedback from the tutor. An analysis of the main challenges revealed thatstudents seemed to be concerned about their ability to make decisions about the quality of peers’
output and hesitation to critique each other’s work. Although the benefits of peer reviews are clearer
for the higher performing students, other strategies that can benefit all learners are required.
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Innovative strategies to engage learners across all ability levels are required, that would complement‘Peer Assessment’ as a feedback strategy for international students.
Based on the data gathered from the student surveys and staff interviews, the process for peer
assessments introduced for postgraduate international learners should consider the following guiding
principles:
1. Formative Evaluation - A peer review program should be used for formative anddevelopmental purposes rather than for summative evaluation purposes as recommended by
Huston and Weaver (2008).
2. Rehearse - A simple intervention such as a marking workshop prior to undertaking peer
feedback on an assessed task can significantly increase students’ understanding of theassessment criteria and improve their performance of the task.
3. Specific descriptors - Exact description of the level that should be achieved need to be
included, there should be no ambiguity in the assessment criteria and it should not be open to
diverse interpretation.
4. Provide Exemplars - Tutors could supply students with any available exemplars of marked
assignments with staff feedback statements to provide a variety of comments for students in
use in their feedback
5. Question tutor judgements - Using exemplars, prompt student questioning of tutor assessment
judgements; McConlogue (2012) suggests that this questioning, which involves otherstudents in an open discussion of the tutor’s comments, helps students develop their thinking
in a supportive ‘learning relationship.’

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

6. Plan follow-up sessions - Organize sessions for any learners needing clarification/additional
support. For example, demonstration by a previous student as to how the peer review
improved his/her scores. This would be helpful for learners who do not seem to perceive thebenefits of peer feedback in the initial sessions.
7. Encourage students to foster their own peer feedback cultures e.g. through informal study
groups, reading groups, online discussions and social media/forums. Most international
students frequently form relationships with other international students, and these sometimes
endure years after the study abroad experience. Grimshaw (2011) is of the opinion that if thisculture of peer feedback endures, the learners could benefit from a truly cross-culturalexperience.
These guidelines hope to create a productive classroom climate, engaging the international
student in the process of giving and receiving peer feedback, where the focus is on learning
rather than on grading.
Should Peer Reviews be included as a regular feedback strategy in the design and delivery of the
postgraduate provision of the institute?
Formative peer reviews have the potential to involve students as partners in assessment and use thestrengths of the close knit community of international students to enhance the teaching and learning
process. The authors recommend ‘Peer Assessments’ to be accommodated as a permanent feedback
strategy in at least one or two modules in postgraduate qualifications, especially those involving alarge number of international students.
Specific strategies need to be further innovated to engage a diverse range of abilities in a classinvolving international learners. For every group engaging in peer reviews, a workshop could be
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

introduced to discuss the concept and practices of peer review, distinguish formative assessment
from summative peer review and help participants develop review skills and hence confidence withthe process. If peer reviews can be made a part of a postgraduate course’s learning strategy, the result
would be that individuals are interacting with and learning from, a range of peers with diverse
backgrounds and abilities. The inclusion of peer reviews as an integral component of a programme
would engender a culture of critical review (CADQ, 2013). If this culture of peer feedback endures,
Grimshaw (2011) highlights that the learners could benefit by developing cross-cultural interaction
skills that are valuable in a globalised career.
Future research should explore the specific development of cross-cultural skills for international
students in UK through peer reviews. Another area to explore is the innovation of additional learning
strategies to improve the benefits of peer reviews across all ability levels. Further studies could
consider the potential of technology in facilitating the process of peer feedback for the postgraduate
international learner.
Acknowledgements:
We thank our colleagues Akash Puranik and Seth Lewis, whose support and timely comments were
extremely useful in this research. We would like to acknowledge the constructive feedback they
provided in helping us finalize this paper.

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

References
Bloxham, S., & West, A. (2007). Learning to write in higher education: students’ perceptions of anintervention in developing understanding of assessment criteria. Teaching In Higher Education,
12(1), 77-89.
Bollag, B. (2006). Making an art form of assessment. Chronicle of Higher Education, 56(10), A8–
A10.
Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies inContinuing Education, 22(2), 151–67.
CADQ (2013). CADQ Guide, Nottingham Trent University. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://www.ntu.ac.uk/adq/assessment_awards/creating_effective_assessment_feedback/index.html.
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–
64.
Carvalho, A. (2013). Students' perceptions of fairness in peer assessment: evidence from a problembased learning course.Teaching In Higher Education, 18(5), 491-505.
Davies, P. (2006). ‘Peer assessment: judging the quality of students’ work by comments rather thanmarks’. Innovations In Education & Teaching International , 43(1), 69-82.
EHWLC (2013). Strategic Plan 2013. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://staff.wlc.ac.uk/staff_portal.
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Fluckiger, J., Tixier, Y., Rebecca, P., & Danielson, K. (2010). Formative Feedback:Involving
students as Partners in Assessment to Enhance Learning. College Teaching, 58, 136-140.
Grimshaw, T. (2011). Concluding editorial: The needs of international students rethought –implications for the policy and practice of higher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory
and Practice,17(6), 703-712.
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self- regulated learning: amodel and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2),
199–218.
McConlogue, T. (2012). But is it fair? Developing students’ understanding of grading complex workthrough peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(1), 113-123.
Newsome, L., & Cooper, P. (2013). International students' dissatisfaction is a challenge to theuniversity; Obstacles in intercultural communication and educational engagements in Britain.
Oral presentation at the International Conference on Education IAFOR, Brighton, UK, 12 July2013.
Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2002). The use of exemplars and formative feedback whenusing student derived marking criteria in peer and self-assessment. Assessment &Evaluation inHigher Education, 27(4), 309–23.
Oxford Brookes University (2011). ASKe. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://www.brookes.ac.uk/aske/.
Popham, J. (2008). Transformative Assessment. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision andCurriculum Instruction.
	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

QAA (2005). Outcomes from institutional audit: Staff support and development arrangements from
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Retrieved August 10, 2014 fromhttp://heer.qaa.ac.uk/SearchForSummaries/Summaries/Pages/STAFF90.aspx.
Reece, I., & Walker, S. (2007). A Practical Guide to Teaching, Training and Learning. 6th ed.
Sunderland: Business Education Publishers.
Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal,
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535–50.
Wimshurst, K., & Manning, M. (2013). Feed-forward assessment, exemplars and peer marking:evidence of efficacy, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(4), 451-465.

	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  
	
  

	
  

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Appendix 1: Marking Grid
NAME OF STUDENT BEING ASSESSED: ____________________________
Names of peers assessing
2.__________________________

1.

SectionMarks
Assigned

Marks
Assigned

Tutor Mark

Peer 1

Peer 2

Executive Summary

/10

/10

Introduction of the Organization/5/5

Description of the Organizational
Behavior related work problems

/10

/10

A critical analysis of the
problems/issues, using
theories/concepts

/20

/20

Recommendations to improve thesituation using key OB theories in thecontext of the situation

/30

/30

Conclusion

/15

/15

Document Structure and Referencing

/10

/10

	
  

TOTAL

/100

/100

	
  

and Comments

Issue 1
Issue 2

	
  

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Appendix 2. Peer Feedback Comments, Tutor Comments and Learner Reflection
PEER 1 FEEDBACK:
Aspects that the learner has handled well:
1.
2.
3.
Suggestions for improvement:
1.
2.
3.

PEER 2 FEEDBACK:
Aspects that the learner has handled well:
1.
2.
3.
Suggestions for improvement:
1.
2.
3.

Tutor Feedback:Tutor Feedback:Learner Reflection:
For my next assessment, I could work on improvements in the following areas:
Do I think that the peer review of assessment is a useful process?
Here’s how it’s helped me (list two to three points):

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Appendix 3: On-line Survey
Peer Reviews - Usefulness and Limitations for Post Graduate Programs
1. Which course are you enrolled on
Hospitality Management
MBA - General Management
Postgraduate Leadership and Management
MBA-Hospitality Management
2. Have you participated in a peer feedback session during the course of the study?
Yes
No
3. In your opinion, what are the benefits of peer feedback? Select as many as you think areapplicable.
Discuss and reflect on feedback from tutor
Insights and opinions of peers on completed work
Opportunity to learn about each other's organization or work area
Focus on important aspects of the assignment

	
  
	
  

The IAFOR Journal of Education

Volume II - Issue II - Summer 2014

	
  
	
  

Understand marking grid for the module better
4. Do you think peer feedback should involve feedback in the forms of comments only or
should marks also be discussed for the completed piece of work?
Feedback in the form of peer comments only
Feedback in the form of suggested marks from peers
Feedback in the form of marks and comments from peers
5. What are the challenges that you faced in giving and receiving Peer Feedback?
No previous experience in giving feedback
Found it difficult to criticize classmate's work
Confidentiality (of chosen organization that the submission was based on)
Cultural differences
Not equipped to make decisions on assignments
Overall, peers were too generous