A comparison of peer and tutor feedback
We report on a study comparing peer feedback with feedback written by tutors on a large, undergraduate software engineering programming class. Feedback generated by peers is generally held to be of lower quality to feedback from experienced tutors, and this study sought to explore the extent and nat...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Assessment and evaluation in higher education 2015-01, Vol.40 (1), p.151-164 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 164 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 151 |
| container_title | Assessment and evaluation in higher education |
| container_volume | 40 |
| creator | Hamer, John Purchase, Helen Luxton-Reilly, Andrew Denny, Paul |
| description | We report on a study comparing peer feedback with feedback written by tutors on a large, undergraduate software engineering programming class. Feedback generated by peers is generally held to be of lower quality to feedback from experienced tutors, and this study sought to explore the extent and nature of this difference. We looked at how seriously peers undertook the reviewing task, differences in the level of detail in feedback comments and differences with respect to tone (whether comments were positive, negative or neutral, offered advice or addressed the author personally). Peer feedback was also compared by academic standing, and by gender. We found that, while tutors wrote longer comments than peers and gave more specific feedback, in other important respects (such as offering advice) the differences were not significant. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1080/02602938.2014.893418 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_eric_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1643411546</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ1047673</ericid><sourcerecordid>3552101751</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c427t-1972fc825f8a2cde6eff0510932a75f5adb5af0c6422da19ca71b9e76d0f266b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMtKxDAUhoMoOI6-gULBhauOJ5cmzUqGYbwx4EbBXUhzgY4zTU1aZN7elqpLV2fxf_85nA-hSwwLDCXcAuFAJC0XBDBblJIyXB6hGWZc5kSK92M0G5F8ZE7RWUpbAGAUFzN0s8xM2Lc61ik0WfBZ61zMdGOzru9CzLxzttLm4xydeL1L7uJnztHb_fp19ZhvXh6eVstNbhgRXY6lIN6UpPClJsY67ryHAoOkRIvCF9pWhfZgOCPEaiyNFriSTnALnnBe0Tm6nva2MXz2LnVqG_rYDCcV5mx4DBeMDxSbKBNDStF51cZ6r-NBYVCjEvWrRI1K1KRkqF1NNRdr81dZP2Ngggs65HdTXjc-xL3-CnFnVacPuxB91I2pk6L_XvgGtO9vYw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1643411546</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparison of peer and tutor feedback</title><source>EBSCOhost Education Source</source><creator>Hamer, John ; Purchase, Helen ; Luxton-Reilly, Andrew ; Denny, Paul</creator><creatorcontrib>Hamer, John ; Purchase, Helen ; Luxton-Reilly, Andrew ; Denny, Paul</creatorcontrib><description>We report on a study comparing peer feedback with feedback written by tutors on a large, undergraduate software engineering programming class. Feedback generated by peers is generally held to be of lower quality to feedback from experienced tutors, and this study sought to explore the extent and nature of this difference. We looked at how seriously peers undertook the reviewing task, differences in the level of detail in feedback comments and differences with respect to tone (whether comments were positive, negative or neutral, offered advice or addressed the author personally). Peer feedback was also compared by academic standing, and by gender. We found that, while tutors wrote longer comments than peers and gave more specific feedback, in other important respects (such as offering advice) the differences were not significant.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0260-2938</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-297X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2014.893418</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AEHEED</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Abingdon: Routledge</publisher><subject>Academic Ability ; Cohort Analysis ; College Faculty ; College Students ; Comparative Analysis ; Computer Software ; computing ; Educational Practices ; Engineering Education ; Feedback ; Feedback (Response) ; Foreign Countries ; Gender Differences ; Grading ; New Zealand ; Pedagogy ; Peer Evaluation ; peer review ; Peer tutoring ; Peers ; Programming ; Quality of education ; Responsibility ; Scoring Rubrics ; Software ; Task Analysis ; Tone ; Tutoring ; Tutors ; Undergraduate Students</subject><ispartof>Assessment and evaluation in higher education, 2015-01, Vol.40 (1), p.151-164</ispartof><rights>2014 Taylor & Francis 2014</rights><rights>Copyright Taylor & Francis Ltd. 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c427t-1972fc825f8a2cde6eff0510932a75f5adb5af0c6422da19ca71b9e76d0f266b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c427t-1972fc825f8a2cde6eff0510932a75f5adb5af0c6422da19ca71b9e76d0f266b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1047673$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hamer, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Purchase, Helen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Luxton-Reilly, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Denny, Paul</creatorcontrib><title>A comparison of peer and tutor feedback</title><title>Assessment and evaluation in higher education</title><description>We report on a study comparing peer feedback with feedback written by tutors on a large, undergraduate software engineering programming class. Feedback generated by peers is generally held to be of lower quality to feedback from experienced tutors, and this study sought to explore the extent and nature of this difference. We looked at how seriously peers undertook the reviewing task, differences in the level of detail in feedback comments and differences with respect to tone (whether comments were positive, negative or neutral, offered advice or addressed the author personally). Peer feedback was also compared by academic standing, and by gender. We found that, while tutors wrote longer comments than peers and gave more specific feedback, in other important respects (such as offering advice) the differences were not significant.</description><subject>Academic Ability</subject><subject>Cohort Analysis</subject><subject>College Faculty</subject><subject>College Students</subject><subject>Comparative Analysis</subject><subject>Computer Software</subject><subject>computing</subject><subject>Educational Practices</subject><subject>Engineering Education</subject><subject>Feedback</subject><subject>Feedback (Response)</subject><subject>Foreign Countries</subject><subject>Gender Differences</subject><subject>Grading</subject><subject>New Zealand</subject><subject>Pedagogy</subject><subject>Peer Evaluation</subject><subject>peer review</subject><subject>Peer tutoring</subject><subject>Peers</subject><subject>Programming</subject><subject>Quality of education</subject><subject>Responsibility</subject><subject>Scoring Rubrics</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>Task Analysis</subject><subject>Tone</subject><subject>Tutoring</subject><subject>Tutors</subject><subject>Undergraduate Students</subject><issn>0260-2938</issn><issn>1469-297X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kMtKxDAUhoMoOI6-gULBhauOJ5cmzUqGYbwx4EbBXUhzgY4zTU1aZN7elqpLV2fxf_85nA-hSwwLDCXcAuFAJC0XBDBblJIyXB6hGWZc5kSK92M0G5F8ZE7RWUpbAGAUFzN0s8xM2Lc61ik0WfBZ61zMdGOzru9CzLxzttLm4xydeL1L7uJnztHb_fp19ZhvXh6eVstNbhgRXY6lIN6UpPClJsY67ryHAoOkRIvCF9pWhfZgOCPEaiyNFriSTnALnnBe0Tm6nva2MXz2LnVqG_rYDCcV5mx4DBeMDxSbKBNDStF51cZ6r-NBYVCjEvWrRI1K1KRkqF1NNRdr81dZP2Ngggs65HdTXjc-xL3-CnFnVacPuxB91I2pk6L_XvgGtO9vYw</recordid><startdate>20150102</startdate><enddate>20150102</enddate><creator>Hamer, John</creator><creator>Purchase, Helen</creator><creator>Luxton-Reilly, Andrew</creator><creator>Denny, Paul</creator><general>Routledge</general><general>Taylor & Francis, Ltd</general><general>Taylor & Francis Ltd</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150102</creationdate><title>A comparison of peer and tutor feedback</title><author>Hamer, John ; Purchase, Helen ; Luxton-Reilly, Andrew ; Denny, Paul</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c427t-1972fc825f8a2cde6eff0510932a75f5adb5af0c6422da19ca71b9e76d0f266b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Academic Ability</topic><topic>Cohort Analysis</topic><topic>College Faculty</topic><topic>College Students</topic><topic>Comparative Analysis</topic><topic>Computer Software</topic><topic>computing</topic><topic>Educational Practices</topic><topic>Engineering Education</topic><topic>Feedback</topic><topic>Feedback (Response)</topic><topic>Foreign Countries</topic><topic>Gender Differences</topic><topic>Grading</topic><topic>New Zealand</topic><topic>Pedagogy</topic><topic>Peer Evaluation</topic><topic>peer review</topic><topic>Peer tutoring</topic><topic>Peers</topic><topic>Programming</topic><topic>Quality of education</topic><topic>Responsibility</topic><topic>Scoring Rubrics</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>Task Analysis</topic><topic>Tone</topic><topic>Tutoring</topic><topic>Tutors</topic><topic>Undergraduate Students</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hamer, John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Purchase, Helen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Luxton-Reilly, Andrew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Denny, Paul</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Assessment and evaluation in higher education</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hamer, John</au><au>Purchase, Helen</au><au>Luxton-Reilly, Andrew</au><au>Denny, Paul</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1047673</ericid><atitle>A comparison of peer and tutor feedback</atitle><jtitle>Assessment and evaluation in higher education</jtitle><date>2015-01-02</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>151</spage><epage>164</epage><pages>151-164</pages><issn>0260-2938</issn><eissn>1469-297X</eissn><coden>AEHEED</coden><abstract>We report on a study comparing peer feedback with feedback written by tutors on a large, undergraduate software engineering programming class. Feedback generated by peers is generally held to be of lower quality to feedback from experienced tutors, and this study sought to explore the extent and nature of this difference. We looked at how seriously peers undertook the reviewing task, differences in the level of detail in feedback comments and differences with respect to tone (whether comments were positive, negative or neutral, offered advice or addressed the author personally). Peer feedback was also compared by academic standing, and by gender. We found that, while tutors wrote longer comments than peers and gave more specific feedback, in other important respects (such as offering advice) the differences were not significant.</abstract><cop>Abingdon</cop><pub>Routledge</pub><doi>10.1080/02602938.2014.893418</doi><tpages>14</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0260-2938 |
| ispartof | Assessment and evaluation in higher education, 2015-01, Vol.40 (1), p.151-164 |
| issn | 0260-2938 1469-297X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1643411546 |
| source | EBSCOhost Education Source |
| subjects | Academic Ability Cohort Analysis College Faculty College Students Comparative Analysis Computer Software computing Educational Practices Engineering Education Feedback Feedback (Response) Foreign Countries Gender Differences Grading New Zealand Pedagogy Peer Evaluation peer review Peer tutoring Peers Programming Quality of education Responsibility Scoring Rubrics Software Task Analysis Tone Tutoring Tutors Undergraduate Students |
| title | A comparison of peer and tutor feedback |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T01%3A08%3A29IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_eric_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparison%20of%20peer%20and%20tutor%20feedback&rft.jtitle=Assessment%20and%20evaluation%20in%20higher%20education&rft.au=Hamer,%20John&rft.date=2015-01-02&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=151&rft.epage=164&rft.pages=151-164&rft.issn=0260-2938&rft.eissn=1469-297X&rft.coden=AEHEED&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/02602938.2014.893418&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_eric_%3E3552101751%3C/proquest_eric_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1643411546&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ1047673&rfr_iscdi=true |