Did I mention it’s anonymous?

The triumphs and pitfalls of online peer review

Abstract

The role of student peer review in teaching and learning in higher education has been discussed extensively in the literature (Topping, 1998; Carlson & Berry, 2003; de Raadt, Toleman, & Watson, 2005; Bernstein, Burnett, Goodburn & Savory 2006). It is seen to be particularly useful in online courses as a mechanism for providing students with the tools to conduct criteria-based critical reviews on the work of their peers (Mulder & Pearce, 2007; Cho & Schunna, 2007). This system can work well for both the online learner and instructor particularly when students are provided with specified assessment criteria, grade ranking system and set deadlines. However when factors relating to the management of such activities come into play, such as the misreading of requirements and criteria, the subjectivity of dealing with some material and the need for flexibility in the due dates, peer review as an assessment system can literally fall apart. This paper discusses these issues via two case studies, which showcase two approaches to using peer review to teach coursework Masters students how to write a research paper in arts administration. The first case study uses the anonymous and random online calibrated peer review (CPR^TM) (http://cpr.molsci.ucla.edu/) system developed by UCLA, while the second attempts to simulate the same system using computer mediated peer review (CMPR) within the discussion forum and assignment tools in My eLearning Vista UNSW. This paper presents the triumphs and pitfalls of both systems within the theoretical framework of the higher education literature on teaching and learning and online peer review.