How to improve the peer review method: Free-selection vs assigned-pair protocol evaluated in a computer networking course

Abstract

This study provides field research evidence on the efficiency of a "free-selection" peer review assignment protocol as compared to the typically implemented "assignedpair" protocol. The study employed 54 sophomore students who were randomly assigned into three groups: Assigned-Pair (AP) (the teacher assigns student works for review to student pairs), Free-Selection (FS) (students are allowed to freely explore and select peer work for review), and No Review (NR) (control group). AP and FS student groups studied and reviewed peer work in the domain of Computer Networking, supported by a web-based environment designed to facilitate the two peer review protocols. Our results indicate that students following the Free Selection protocol demonstrate (a) better domain learning outcomes, and (b) better reviewer skills, compared to the AP condition. Overall, the study analyzes the benefits and shortcomings of the FS vs. AP review assignment protocol, providing evidence that the FS condition can be multiply beneficial to students who engage in peer review activities.

How to Implement a Technology Supported Free-Selection Peer Review Protocol: Design Implications from Two Studies on Computer Network Education

“…The First study [14] compared the effectiveness of the Free-Selection protocol against the typical Assigned-Pair one, where students work in instructor-defined dyads (playing both the roles of author-reviewer). Results showed that students in the FS group performed significantly better than those in the AP group in acquisition of domain knowledge (p<0.05).…”

Increasing Peer Review Quality in Online Learning Systems

“…Peer reviews are also often biased towards a higher score in comparison to expert reviews (Papadopoulos et al 2012), (Lu et al 2015), which might distort a student's perspective on the quality of their work.…”

Through the Lens of the Reviewer: Information Literacy, an LMS, and Peer Review

“…Additionally, within earlier studies, perception of the task was the main theme found within this field of inquiry (1) but the overall examination of influence and perceived growth of the participants, who conducted the review, was under-investigated. Furthermore, very few investigations (a) define peer review in comparison to peer assessment (16) , (b) examine the peer review process from the vantage of the feedback provider (1) , sometimes referred to in the literature simply as the reviewer, nor (c) examine the use of peer review when using an auto-assign feature found within a more current LMS, such as Canvas, in comparison to externally or proprietary-created tools for peer review management.…”

“…Many researchers have even examined peer review in support of learning in all different conditions, such as: (a) conducted in synchronous (13) or asynchronous formats (14)(15) (b) selecting to use pair-wise reviewer assignment in lieu of free selection processes (16) , (c) utilizing pre-made software programs for the management of the overall peer review process (12) , or (d) for the purpose of using an institutional peer review program to manage first-year student assessment expectations (17) . Additionally, Sondergaard & Mulder (1) (2012) provide a substantial list of advantages for using peer review to establish a deeper learning atmosphere supported by timely feedback and the creation of "an alternative channel for student engagement and participation," (p. 347).…”