We found 147 results that contain "peer"

Peer-Educator Dialogue Guide[*]
This is a "Checklist" guide, not a scaled rating or evaluation form. This guide is intended to be used as a tool to enable educators… “who teach, supervise and/or support students’ learning to gain feedback from one or more colleagues as part of the process of reflecting on their own practices” (University of Exeter). It asks peer-educators to indicate the presence of teaching activities/behaviors already established as indicative of high-quality teaching.  Individual educators, units, departments, etc. can determine which of the items in the categorized lists below reflect their priorities; a targeted set of items per list will make the guide easier for educators to use.
Date:Time:  Instructor-educator name:Course #:Course Title:Modality:No. Students:Peer-Educator name:                                                       
Peer-educator instructions:  Indicate with a check (√) the presence of the following actions and behaviors that indicate high quality teaching.  Leave blank items you do not observe.  Use N/A if an item is not relevant for this experience or the instructor’s teaching style. 
Variety and Pacing of Instruction
The instructor-educator:

uses more than one form of instruction
pauses after asking questions
accepts students’ responses
draws non-participating students into activities/discussions
prevents specific students from dominating activities/discussions
helps students extend their responses
guides the direction of discussion
mediates conflict or differences of opinion
demonstrates active listening
provides explicit directions for active learning tasks (e.g. rationale, duration, product)
allows sufficient time to complete tasks such as group work
specifies how learning tasks will be evaluated (if at all)
provides opportunities and time for students to practice

Examples of instructor-educator actions or behaviors that support the above indications (√):
 
 
Organization
The instructor-educator :

arrives on time
relates this and previous class(es), or provides students with an opportunity to do so
provides class goals or objectives for the class session
provides an outline or organization for the class session
knows how to use the educational technology needed for the class
locates class materials as needed
makes transitional statements between class segments
follows the stated structure
conveys the purpose of each class activity or assignment
completes the scheduled topics
summarizes periodically and at the end of class (or prompts students to do so)

Examples of instructor-educator actions or behaviors that support the above indications (√):
 
 
Presentation Skills
The instructor-educator:

is audible to all students
articulates words so that they are understandable to students, and/or visually represents words that might he difficult for students to hear
varies the tone and pitch of voice for emphasis and interest
speaks at a pace that permits students to understand and take notes
establishes and maintains eye contact
avoids over-reliance on reading content from notes, slides, or texts
avoids distracting mannerisms
uses visual aids effectively (e.g. when appropriate to reinforce a concept, legible handwriting, readable slides)
effectively uses the classroom space

Examples of instructor-educator actions or behaviors that support the above indications (√):

Clarity
The instructor-educator:

notes new terms or concepts
elaborates or repeats complex information
uses examples to explain content
makes explicit statements drawing student attention to certain ideas
pauses during explanations to ask and answer questions

Examples of instructor-educator actions or behaviors that support the above indications (√):
 
 
Content Knowledge
The instructor-educator:

makes statements that are accurate according to the standards of the field
incorporates current research in the field
identifies sources, perspectives, and authorities in the field
identifies diverse sources, perspectives, and authorities in the field
communicates the reasoning process behind operations and/or concepts

Examples of instructor-educator actions or behaviors that support the above indications (√):
 
 
Instructor-Student Rapport
The instructor-educator:

attends respectfully to student comprehension or puzzlement
invites students’ participation and comments
treats students as individuals (e.g. uses students’ names)
provides periodic feedback
incorporates student ideas into class
uses positive reinforcement (i.e. doesn’t punish or deliberately embarrass students in class)

Examples of instructor-educator actions or behaviors that support the above indications (√):

General Peer-Educator Reflection:
What did you observe that went well?
What suggestions for enhancement do you have?
Additional Comments:
 
[*]  Adapted 1/2006 from Chism, N.V.N. (1999) Chapter 6: Classroom Observation, Peer Review of Teaching: A Sourcebook.  Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing, by Angela R. Linse, Executive Director, Schreyer Institute for Teaching Excellence, Penn State.  If you further adapt this form, please include this source citation.

In ISB202, Spring Semester 2020, the final course assignment was an infographic (read more on the assignment instructions in the document). A part of the design of this high impact assessment was peer review. Included here are the instructions and grading rubric for the peer review assignment in which students provide feedback to each other online on their final project.

Introduction
Peer review has long been recognized as a valuable tool in education, offering students an opportunity to develop critical thinking, communication, and collaboration skills while engaging deeply with course material. However, effectively incorporating peer review into a course requires intentionality and a strategic approach.
One effective way to design and implement peer review activities is by using a transparent assignment design framework. This approach ensures that students clearly understand the purpose, tasks, and criteria for peer review, making the process more equitable and impactful.
In this article, we’ll explore a roadmap for integrating peer review into your teaching, weaving in the role of transparency to enhance the experience. From reflecting on your goals to identifying practical tools, we’ll cover five key areas to help you make peer review an enriching experience for your students.
1. Reflecting on Intentionality in Peer Review
Incorporating peer review is most impactful when done with a clear purpose. Before introducing it into your course, ask yourself:

What specific skills or outcomes do I want students to achieve through peer review?
How does peer review support my course objectives?

To make your goals explicit to students, use a transparent assignment design framework. That is, clearly communicate:

The purpose of the peer review activity (e.g., to develop critical thinking or improve a draft).
The specific tasks students will perform and t he related resources needed (e.g., providing feedback and rubric needed to evaluate a peer's work.
The criteria for which their peer review asignment will be graded.

This intentionality and transparency ensure that peer review isn’t just an add-on but an integral part of the learning process.
2. Skills Students Develop Through Peer Review
Peer review offers students a unique opportunity to develop a range of skills that are crucial both academically and professionally:

Critical Thinking: Analyzing peers’ work encourages students to evaluate ideas, apply concepts, and synthesize information.
Communication: Providing constructive feedback helps students articulate their thoughts clearly and diplomatically.
Collaboration: Peer review fosters a sense of community and helps students learn to work effectively with others.
Metacognition: By reviewing others’ work, students reflect on their own learning, recognizing strengths and areas for improvement.

Transparency can further enhance these benefits. For example, providing explicit criteria for feedback helps students focus on specific aspects of their peers’ work, reducing anxiety and promoting constructive critiques.
3. Considering a Peer Review-Focused Course Objective
A course-level learning objective focused on peer review can make its purpose and value explicit to students. For example:

"Provide constructive feedback on a peer’s work, focusing on both strengths and areas for improvement"
"Review a peer’s design proposal for adherence to engineering standards."
"Analyze a peer’s speech draft for clarity, persuasion, and audience engagement."

Transparent assignment design can support this goal by helping students understand how peer review aligns with their broader learning outcomes. This clarity ensures that students see peer review not just as a task but as a meaningful opportunity for growth.
4. Best Practices for Applying Peer Review as an Assessment Strategy
Successfully integrating peer review into your course involves thoughtful planning and execution. Here are some best practices:

Set Clear Expectations: Use the transparent assignment design framework to outline the purpose, tasks, and criteria for peer review.
Train Students: Dedicate some time in-class or offer an asynchronous pre-recorded lecture with resources on how to give constructive and respectful feedback. (e.g., see tips on providing helpful feedback)
Incorporate Reflection: Encourage students to reflect on the feedback they receive and how they can apply it.
Balance Workload: Use peer review for formative purposes (e.g., drafts) as well as summative assessments to avoid overwhelming students.
Monitor the Process: Be available to mediate or guide discussions if necessary, ensuring feedback remains constructive.

Transparency ensures that students understand the "why" and "how" of peer review, reducing confusion and increasing their investment in the process.
5. Tools and Resources for Faciliating Peer Review
Technology can make implementing peer review more efficient and scalable. Some tools to consider:

Learning Management Systems (LMS): While D2L does not offer a native Peer Review feature there are ways of setting up a D2L course so that it can handle Peer Reviews. 
Internal Tools that offer Peer Review functionality: EliReview and Perusall. 
External Dedicated Peer Review Tools: Tools such as Kritik or FeedbackFruits provide specialized features for peer assessments.

Using the transparent assignment design framework, you can integrate these tools effectively by providing clear instructions and rubrics. Additionally, many institutions provide support through teaching and learning centers, offering templates and guides to help you design peer review assignments.
Conclusion
Integrating peer review into your course can transform the learning experience, fostering critical skills and deeper engagement among students. By reflecting on your goals, aligning peer review with course objectives, following best practices, and leveraging transparency, you can create a meaningful and efficient process.
Transparent assignment design enhances every step of this process, making expectations clear and accessible to all students. This not only supports equity but also empowers students to fully engage with peer review as a valuable learning activity.
Have you used peer review in your course? Share your experiences and insights in the comments! If you’re new to peer review, consider trying a small activity in your next course and building from there. For additional support, reach out to the Center for Teaching & Learning Innovation!

Resources:

Transparent Assignment Design, Transparent Grading
Generic Peer Review Assignment Examples
46 Peer Review-Related Learning Objectives

Ask students to work through the following steps on at least two peer drafts:
 
Identifying:
Can you identify the main ideas / thesis in the paper? If so, underline it and evaluate it or give suggestions for strengthening. 
 
Pointing:
Which words, phrases, or passages strike you as important or successful? Which ones feel flat or repetitive? Try to find a word, phrase, or passage in every paragraph. 
 
Elaboration:
What would you want to hear more about?
 
Summarize:
Not the whole piece, but parts. In your own words, write two sentences that summarize the main idea in a paragraph; Write a short paragraph summarizing a section (2-3 page section).
 
Doubting and believing:
Believing: Believe everything and think of other examples, evidence, and ideas to add.
Doubting: Doubt everything and think of what all the counterarguments are.

Introduction
Quality Matters (QM) is a nationally recognized, faculty-centered, peer review process designed to certify the quality of online courses and online components. MSU purchased a campus subscription to the QM Rubric to assist faculty and instructors in creating quality courses that will improve online education and student learning. The initial pilot of using the rubric to inform course design started as an MSU partnership between the Center for Integrative Studies in General Science, College of Arts & Letters, and MSU Information Technology. Currently, MSU maintains its full subscription status on a yearly basis which provides access to the fully annotated QM Rubric and the QM Course Review Management System (CRMS). Additionally, MSU IT Academic Technology consults with faculty and instructors on applying QM standards to their courses and developing new approaches in online and blended learning.
The MSU QM Course Review Process is a faculty-driven, peer review process that emphasizes continuous quality improvement. The QM reviewers experience and review a course from a student perspective and provide feedback based on the Quality Matters Standards. See IT Instructional Technology & Development for information about course development and see IT’s Academic Technology Service Catalog to learn more about QM at MSU. 
Our course review process consists of three parts: 

a self-review done by you to get familiar with the course review process on the MyQM system. 
an internal review by a peer-reviewer to provide initial feedback on the course design. 
after any necessary changes are made and the course has run, a copy of the course can undergo an official review conducted by a team of three QM Reviewers (Master Reviewer, Subject Matter Expert and one additional Reviewer) resulting in Quality Matters Certification [cost $1,000].

Whole programs can also be QM certified whose courses have been peer-reviewed. Information on QM program certification can be found on QM’s website. 
Getting Started
Anyone at MSU can create an account through the Quality Matters website by using their msu.edu email address.
Quality Matters provides a fully annotated course standards rubric, different types of course reviews including a self-review, and discounted QM professional development through its website and MSU’s subscription.
Some of the Quality Matters resources involve added costs and official course reviews require MSU consultation first.
Course Rubric
The QM Rubric is a research-based peer review process that is widely adopted in higher education as a measure of online course quality. It offers weighted best practices in online instruction to improve course quality.
Visit the QM Higher Education Rubric, Sixth Edition to download the rubric.
The rubric is helpful as a tool to consider what elements may be missing from an online or blended course or to generate suggestions for new features.
Self-Review First
Faculty and staff can use the fully annotated, self review materials, within the MyQM CRMS (Course Review Management System). Annotations explaining each standard in greater detail can be accessed within the Self Review tool after logging in to the QM site.
This unofficial self review is a way to become more familiar with QM standards or assess a course prior to an internal or official review. You can also do pre- and post- assessments of your courses to keep a record of improvements, and a private report can be emailed once completed.
What to expect in a peer-review?
The internal and official review are almost identical. Both generally consist of the following steps:


Pre-Review Discussion


Team chair (Lead Reviewer in an internal review) contacts review members and faculty member to set up a conference call or face-to-face meeting at the beginning of the review. The purpose of the conference call/meeting is to discuss the instructor worksheet, ensure that all members have access to the course, establish the team review timeline, and answer any questions from team members before the review begins.


Review Phase


The review begins. Each team member logs into the QM Rubric website and uses the online rubric tool to record their observations about the course. Remember that you are reviewing the course from the student’s perspective. If you have questions during the review, don’t hesitate to contact your team chair.


Post-Review Discussion


Upon completion of the review, the team chair will call for the final conference. This conference will be among the review team members to discuss any discrepancies in the review and to ensure that recommendations are helpful and effective.  All individual reviews will be submitted after this meeting to compile the final report.


Post Review – Revise Course (as needed)


The team chair will submit the final review to the Campus QM Coordinator through the online QM tool. The review findings will be shared with the course instructor who then has an opportunity to respond to the review (using the course Amendment Form in the QM site). If the course does not yet meet standards, the faculty course developer/instructor works to bring the course to standards (with the assistance of an instructional designer, if desired). The review team chair then reviews the changes and determines whether or not the changes move the course to QM standards. In an internal review, revisions are made before submitting for an official review.
Steps for Internal Review
It is good practice to complete a self-review of your course before submitting for internal or official review. This is an optional step and only you see the self-review responses. For a self-review, log into the CRMS (Course Review Management System) on the QM website and use the Self Review tool to conduct a review of your own course.
When you are ready to submit a course for internal review:

Sign up for a SpartanQM Online/Blended Course Peer-Review and wait for an email response. 
Make a copy of your course to be reviewed.
Log in to MyQM at http://www.qmprogram.org/MyQM (Your login name is your email address on file with QM. If you do not have your login info choose "Forgot Username" or "Forgot Password")
Log in to the Course Review Management System (CRMS) and select “Start a Review Application” on the main screen.

Select Michigan State University.
Select David Goodrich as the QM Coordinator.
Select yourself as the Course Representative.
Select Internal Review as the review type.
Scroll down and enter course information. Select Submit Application. You will receive an email that will prompt you to complete the worksheet once it is approved.

Log in to the Course Review Management System (CRMS) to complete the Course Worksheet.
Select My Course Reviews: Open Course Reviews

Here you will choose the "View" next to the applicable course number. 
The Actions section allows you to view, edit and then submit the Course Worksheet. Select edit to input your course information. 
When finished, click “Submit Complete Worksheet.”

Your course will automatically be assigned to a Lead Reviewer who will contact you regarding the course review.
After your review, you may make any necessary changes to your QM Review course as a result of the internal review.
This review is an unofficial course review that provides feedback on meeting the QM Standards before submitting for QM recognition.

Steps for Official Review
When the course is ready for the official review:

Sign up for a SpartanQM Online/Blended Course Peer-Review and wait for an email response. 
Faculty will use the updated copy of the course that was used in the internal review. 
Log in to MyQM at http://www.qmprogram.org/MyQM (Your login name is your email address on file with QM. If you do not have your login info choose "Forgot Username" or "Forgot Password")
Log in to the Course Review Management System (CRMS) and select “Start a Review Application” on the main screen.

Select Michigan State University.
Select David Goodrich as the QM Coordinator.
Select yourself as the Course Representative.
Select QM-Managed Review as the review type. 
Scroll down and enter course information. Select Submit Application. You will receive an email that will prompt you to complete the Course Worksheet once it is approved.

Log in to the Course Review Management System (CRMS) to complete the Course Worksheet.
Select My Course Reviews, Open Course Reviews. 

Here you will choose the "View" next to the applicable course number.
The Actions section allows you to view, edit and then submit the Course Worksheet. Select edit to input your course information.
If you completed an internal review inside the CRMS, you can copy your internal review worksheet.

MSU staff will add the QM review team to the QM Review Course. This can take up to two weeks.
The Course Representative (faculty course developer/instructor) meets virtually or by phone with the QM review team for a pre-review meeting.
A QM Review is scheduled for a 4-6 week review period, which includes approximately 3 weeks of actual review time in addition to pre- and post-review conference calls.
The QM Team Chair will submit the final report which will be sent to the Course Representative.
Once the standards are met, Quality Matters recognition is provided to the Course Representative and the course is listed in the QM Recognized Courses registry.

Recertification Review
Certified courses are reviewed and re-certified after five years.
Resource Links

QM Higher Education Rubric, Sixth Edition
QM at MSU Community: Faculty and staff at MSU can join this D2L Community site to learn more about the QM Rubric, discounted professional development, and course examples for meeting standards.
Quality Matters website: Create an account using your msu.edu email and access the self-review tools on the MyQM site.

Thinking about how to improve your educator practice, tapping in to expertise on campus, or engaging with high-impact peers can feel intimidating. Here are a few etiquette tips to accompany Peer-Educator Dialogue Guide and Protocol.

Remember, peer-educator dialogues can be initiated for multiple reasons including: an instructor-educator looking for peer-educator feedback on a learning session observation, OR a peer-educator looking to observe a peer-educator employ a practice they'd like to incorporate/improve

Regardless, avoid engaging in a learning-expereince as a peer-educator during the first two or three weeks of a semester. 


Before going to observe the class, check with the instructor-educator to see if they would like to meet with you in advance. It helps to find out in advance about the class you will be engaging with— what the course is designed to do, what level the students are at, what the teacher is planning to do in the specific class to be observed and why. This could help you to make more sense of what it is that goes on in the learning-expereince. 

note: if you cannot meet to have this conversation due to the complex nature of schedules, it is recommended that you asynchronously ammend the Peer-Educator Dialogue Guide to ensure the engagement meets goals all around.


Double-check with the instructor-educator prior to the engagement on:

where you sit in the classroom. Many educators may not care where you sit, as long as it doesn’t interfere with instruction, but some may have preferences.

If you didn’t have a chance to meet prior to the observation, ask the instructor-educator when you arrive.


whether or not it’s all right to move around from group to group during group-work activities.
whether or not you are going to participate in activities or just observe. (Generally speaking, it’s  preferable not to participate while doing an observation. When the purpose is to observe instructor-educator, it makes more sense to focus your attention on that task.)


Arrive on time, or early — arriving late is always an interruption. And stay throughout the entire class period. Getting up and leaving early is also an interruption.
No matter how non-threatening and cooperative the peer-educator may be, learning-session observations are a necessary imposition (but an imposition nonetheless). As peer-educators, it’s good to keep this in mind when observing and let it guide your actions.

Also keep in mind that the observation should be a positive experience for both the peer-educator and the instructor-educator. Ideally, both educators will learn something as a result of the observation.


When the learning-experience ends, thank the instructor-educator (and, if possible, the learners) for inviting/allowing you to observe them.
Debriefing should be done as soon as is feasible after the class session, while the events are still fresh in mind.
In general, if you have concerns, you can ask questions to clarify some things that happened in the class

“I’m very interested in learning more about XXXX. Could you explain why you set up the XXXX activity the way you did?”
“How do you think it went?” 
The instructor-educator may have planned something that they thought was going to work marvelously, but didn’t... Or, if they noticed that it didn’t work, they may ask you for your ideas about how it could have been more effective. 


Keep in mind how you would feel if you were the one being observed, and what kinds of feedback would be most useful to you.
If you notice a number of areas where the learning-expereince could be enhanced, try not to overwhelm the instructor-educator with suggestions; limit your feedback to the areas where they are seeking feedback, or perhaps those points that seem most immediately important to address.
Share your notes and onservations from the Peer-Educator Dialogue Guide and Protocol with ONLY the instructor-educator. This practice is purely a itterative dialogue amongst peers, NOT an evaluative report to be shared with administratiors. What an instructor-educator chooses to do with your notes is up to them.

This list has been adapted from the University of Hawai'i, English Language Institute "Guidelines and Etiquette for Observers".Photo by Dom Fou on Unsplash 

After collaborating with Alex Wright (learning about peer mentoring), Dom helped his department establish a peer “buddy” system for first-year graduate students. Incoming students were paired with a returning student for social and orienting activities when they first previewed the program.

Hillary's project sought to develop a peer mentoring system for students in the Department of Physiology. 
 
"I would like the Physiology Graduate Student Council (PSL GSC) to build a sense of community between Physiology grad students and faculty in by addressing student needs and providing opportunities for students to engage with each other." -Hillary Woodworth
 
Presentation: https://iteach.msu.edu/posts/preview_attachments?post_id=1475