Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective

By David J. Nicol, Avril I. Thomson, Caroline Breslin. 2014

912 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7e5f0418f758c6ef06f8add022fa3c69e4683101

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

Citations in the corpus

Developing student feedback literacy through self and peer assessment interventions (2021, positive): “…1 of student feedback literacy) where learners develop capability to make evaluative judgments, first of self then others (Tai et al. 2018). simultaneously, other-awareness via peer-assessment and feedback can prompt comparison with self as one evaluates others (nicol, Thomson, and Breslin 2014).”
Academics’ perceptions of the benefits and challenges of self and peer assessment in higher education (2018, background): “…involved in giving and receiving feedback Closely related to communication skills (both written and oral), some literature suggests that both giving and receiving feedback is one of the fundamental benefits associated with self and peer assessment (Carless 2013; Nicol, Thomson, and Breslin 2014).”
The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback (2018, positive): “Providing comments to peers is often more beneficial than receiving them because it is more cognitively-engaging: involving higher-order processes, such as application of criteria, diagnosing problems and suggesting solutions (Nicol, Thomson, and Breslin 2014).”
Dialogue within peer feedback processes: clarification and negotiation of meaning (2018, background): “The key reason why composing peer feedback seems to be more beneficial than receiving is that it is more cognitively engaging: involving higher order processes such as applying criteria, diagnosing problems and suggesting solutions (Nicol et al., 2014).”
The power of internal feedback: exploiting natural comparison processes (2020, background): “…any case, those using the term monitoring often implicitly, and sometimes even explicitly, refer to comparison alongside monitoring somewhere in their writings, including Butler and Winne (1995), although they don’t usually foreground it (e.g. Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick 2006; Panadero et al. 2019).”
Peer feedback on academic writing: undergraduate students’ peer feedback role, peer feedback perceptions and essay performance (2018, background): “…in authentic contexts indicate that students can perceive the benefits of providing peer feedback (Chen 2010), and that they may even consider this more beneficial to their learning than receiving feedback from peers (Ludemann and McMakin 2014; McConlogue 2015; Nicol, Thomson, and Breslin 2014).”
The development of student feedback literacy: the influences of teacher feedback on peer feedback (2019, background): “Students need to constantly shift between different roles, i.e. writer, reader, assessor and sometimes even cheerleader (e.g. Nicol 2010; Nicol, Thomson, and Breslin 2014; Chang 2015).”
Developing evaluative judgement: enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work (2018, background): “Firstly, Nicol et al. (2014) demonstrated the ability of peer learning activities to facilitate students’ judgement making in higher education settings.”
Eliciting, processing and enacting feedback: mechanisms for embedding student feedback literacy within the curriculum (2020, background): “Carrying out peer review is potentially effective in triggering powerful cognitive processes, including critical thinking, interpretation and application of assessment criteria, and learning transfer from peers’ work to their own work (Nicol et al. 2014).”