A Qualitative Study of Factors That Influence Student Acceptance of Peer Review in Classroom Settings
Keywords:
Peer review, student acceptance, feedback literacy, formative assessment, qualitative research, higher education, NVivo analysis, classroom feedback practicesAbstract
This study aims to explore the key psychological, social, and contextual factors that influence students’ acceptance of peer review practices in university classroom settings. A qualitative research design was employed using semi-structured interviews with 20 university students from Tehran, selected through purposive sampling. Participants represented diverse academic disciplines and were chosen based on their prior engagement with peer review activities in their coursework. Data collection continued until theoretical saturation was achieved. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically using NVivo software. The analysis followed a three-stage coding process: open coding to identify initial concepts, axial coding to categorize subthemes, and selective coding to establish overarching themes. Three major themes emerged from the data: (1) Perceived credibility of peer feedback, which included students’ judgments about peer expertise, feedback objectivity, and the usefulness of structured review formats; (2) Emotional and social responses, such as fear of negative judgment, the role of interpersonal relationships, and the emotional impact of criticism; and (3) Educational context and implementation, highlighting the importance of instructor involvement, peer review training, timing of feedback, and the overall classroom culture. Participants emphasized that trust in the process and reviewer was central to accepting feedback, and emotional safety significantly shaped their willingness to engage with peer evaluations. Student acceptance of peer review is shaped by a complex interplay of cognitive evaluations, emotional reactions, and institutional design. Trust, clarity, and support emerged as critical facilitators of acceptance. These findings suggest that effective peer review implementation requires training, instructor moderation, and the cultivation of a feedback-positive classroom environment.
Downloads
References
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
Carless, D. (2013). Trust and its role in facilitating dialogic feedback. In D. Boud & E. Molloy (Eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education: Understanding it and doing it well (pp. 90–103). Routledge.
Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.006
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), 260–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088306289261
Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta‐analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287–322. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070003287
Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 304–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007
Huisman, B., Saab, N., van Driel, J., & van den Broek, P. (2018). Peer feedback on academic writing: Undergraduate students’ peer feedback role, peer feedback perceptions and essay performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(6), 955–968. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1424318
Kaufman, J. H., & Schunn, C. D. (2011). Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: Their origin and impact on revision work. Instructional Science, 39(3), 387–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9133-6
Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562510600680582
Mulder, R. A., Pearce, J. M., & Baik, C. (2014). Peer review in higher education: Student perceptions before and after participation. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(2), 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787414527391
Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931003786559
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
Patchan, M. M., Schunn, C. D., & Clark, R. (2018). Accountability in peer assessment: Examining the effects of reviewing grades on peer ratings and peer feedback. Studies in Higher Education, 43(12), 2263–2278. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1320374
Topping, K. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405840802577569
Topping, K. J. (2010). Methodological quandaries in studying process and outcomes in peer assessment. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 339–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.003
Van den Bos, F., & Tan, E. (2019). The social side of self-directed learning: The influence of peer interaction on learning and motivation. Studies in Continuing Education, 41(3), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/0158037X.2018.1550905
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wang, Y. (2014). Students’ emotional experiences of peer feedback in EFL writing. Teaching and Teacher Education, 40, 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.01.005
Wen, M. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2006). University students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward (online) peer assessment. Higher Education, 51(1), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6375-8
Downloads
Published
Submitted
Revised
Accepted
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
