Journal Menu
Submit Manuscript via ScholarOne

EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education
Volume 13, Issue 4 (April 2017) - Special Issue on E-assessment and its role and possibility in facilitating future teaching and learning, pp. 1121-1143

DOI: 10.12973/eurasia.2017.00662a

Downloaded 252 times.

Research Article

Published online on Dec 23, 2016

How to reference this article?


The Multiple Faces of Peer Review in Higher Education. Five Learning Scenarios developed for Digital Business

Michael A. Herzog, & Elisabeth Katzlinger


Peer review, as an e-assessment tool incorporates the human factor to treat complexity for rating and grading students. It could address the qualitative more than quantitative aspects with flexible human feedback that leads up to metacognitive knowledge aspects, which e-assessment usually is not able to achieve. Peer review is an internationally well-known method for quality assurance in science; it is now used for teaching and assessment in universities. This paper presents an analysis of five teaching scenarios that use peer review. All scenarios have been working with the same technical setting within different courses in Digital Business and included 765 participants. Regarding e-peer review qualitative and quantitative data from 298 students were collected. The tasks in the different learning scenarios differ between well-structured to complex and cognitively ambitious assignments like academic paper writing. Further analysis of criteria like lead time, support expense, dimension of cognitive processes, meeting of professional standards and social interaction shows how the five scenarios lead to either better or less efficient learning performances.

Keywords: higher education, inquiry-based learning, learning scenarios, peer assessment, peer review, self-directed learning, teaching method

  1. Alias, M., Masek, A., & Salleh, H. H. M. (2015). Self, Peer and Teacher Assessments in Problem Based Learning: Are They in Agreements? Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 204, 309-317. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.157
  2. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., & Bloom, B. S. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives: Allyn & Bacon.
  3. Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. Annual review of information science and technology, 45(1), 197-245.
  4. Breuer, F., & Schreier, M. (2010). Lehren und Lernen qualitativer Forschungsmethoden. In G. Mey & K. Mruck (Eds.), Handbuch Qualitative Forschung in der Psychologie (pp. 408-420): VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
  5. Brill, J. M. (2016). Investigating peer review as a systemic pedagogy for developing the design knowledge, skills, and dispositions of novice instructional design students. Educational Technology Research and Development, 1-25. doi:10.1007/s11423-015-9421-6
  6. De Lievre, B., Depover, C. & Dillenbourg, P. (2006). The relationship between tutoring mode and learners’ use of help tools in distance education, Instructional Science (34), Springer, pp 97 – 129.
  7. Dominguez, C., Cruz, G., Maia, A., & Pedrosa, D. (2012). Online peer assessment: an exploratory case study in a higher education civil engineering course. 2012 15th International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (Icl). doi:978-1-4673-2427-4/12/$31.00
  8. Ehlers, U., & Steinert, A. (2010). Networked Learning in a Networked World. [online],
  9. Ge, Z.-g. (2011). Exploring e-learners’ perceptions of net-based peer-reviewed English writing. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 75-91. doi:10.1007/s11412-010-9103-7
  10. Gehringer, E., Ehresman, L., Conger, S. G., & Wagle, P. (2007). Reusable learning objects through peer review: The Expertiza approach. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 3(5), 4.
  11. Herzog, M. A., & Katzlinger, E. (2016). Peer Review from Teachers’ Perspective. In Y. Li, M. Chang, M. Kravcik, E. Popescu, R. Huang, Kinshuk, & N.-S. Chen (Eds.), State-of-the-Art and Future Directions of Smart Learning (pp. 321-331): Springer Singapore.
  12. Hornung-Prähauser, V., & Wieden-Bischof, D. (2010). Selbstorganisiertes Lernen und Lehren in einer digitalen Umwelt: Theorie und Praxis zu E-Portfolios in der Hochschule Digitale Lernwelten (pp. 245-268): Springer.
  13. Issa, T. (2012). Promoting Learning Skills through Teamwork Assessment and Self/Peer Evaluation in Higher Education. Paper presented at the CELDA 2012.
  14. Katzlinger, E., & Herzog, M. A. (2012). Peer Review as an Activating Learning Method Within University Education. In H. Beldhuis (Ed.), The Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on eLearning, Groningen (pp. 274 - 282). Reading, UK: Academic Publishing International Limited.
  15. Katzlinger, E., & Herzog, M. A. (2014). Didactic Support of Diversity of Learning Styles? Potential Analysis of Three Collaborative Learning Methods within e-Business Education. In E. Popescu, R. H. Lau, K. Pata, H. Leung, & M. Laanpere (Eds.), Advances in Web-Based Learning – ICWL 2014 (Vol. 8613, pp. 239-244): Springer International Publishing.
  16. Katzlinger, E., & Herzog, M. A. (2014). Peer-Review from Learners' Perspective. New Horizons in Web Based Learning, Icwl 2014, 8699, 72-81. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-13296-9_8
  17. Kollar, I., & Fischer, F. (2010). Peer assessment as collaborative learning: A cognitive perspective. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 344-348. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.005
  18. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. THEORY INTO PRACTICE, 41(4).
  19. Lehmann, K., & Leimeister, J.-M. (2015). Assessment to Assess High Cognitive Levels of Educational Objectives in Large-scale Learning Services. Paper presented at the Twenty-Third European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Münster. h;p://
  20. Liou, H.-C., & Peng, Z.-Y. (2009). Training effects on computer-mediated peer review. System, 37(3), 514-525.
  21. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative Content Analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2, Art. 20).
  22. Nagel, L., & Kotzé, T. G. (2010). Supersizing e-learning: What a CoI survey reveals about teaching presence in a large online class. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1), 45-51.
  23. Panadero, E., & Brown, G. T. L. (2016). Teachers’ reasons for using peer assessment: positive experience predicts use. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 1-24. doi:10.1007/s10212-015-0282-5
  24. Rifkin, J. (2014). The zero marginal cost society: The internet of things, the collaborative commons, and the eclipse of capitalism: Palgrave Macmillan.
  25. Scott, K. S., Sorokti, K. H., & Merrell, J. D. (2016). Learning “beyond the classroom” within an enterprise social network system. The Internet and Higher Education, 29, 75-90. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.12.005
  26. Sharples, M., Adams, A., Alozie, N., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Gaved, M., . . . Yarnall, L. (2015). Innovating Pedagogy 2015. Exploring new forms of teaching, learning and assessment, to guide educators and policy makers: The Open University.
  27. Sharples, M., McAndrew, P., Weller, M., Ferguson, R., FitzGerald, E., Hirst, T., . . . Whitelock, D. (2012). Innovating Pedagogy 2012. Exploring new forms of teaching, learning and assessment, to guide educators and policy makers: The Open University.
  28. Song, Y., Hu, Z., & Gehringer, E. F. (2015). Closing the Circle: Use of Students’ Responses for Peer-Assessment Rubric Improvement. In W. B. F. Li, R. Klamma, M. Laanpere, J. Zhang, F. B. Manjón, & W. H. R. Lau (Eds.), Advances in Web-Based Learning -- ICWL 2015: 14th International Conference, Guangzhou, China, November 5-8, 2015, Proceedings (pp. 27-36). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  29. Trautmann, N. M. (2009). Interactive learning through web-mediated peer review of student science reports. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 685-704.
  30. Turner, S., & Perez-Quinones, M. A. (2009). Exploring peer review in the computer science classroom. arXiv preprint arXiv:0907.3456.
  31. van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & van Merriënboer, J. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 270-279. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.004
  32. Weber-Wulff, D., Class, C., Coy, W., Kurz, C., & Zellhöfer, D. (2009). Gewissensbisse: Ethische Probleme der Informatik. Biometrie-Datenschutz-geistiges Eigentum: transcript Verlag.
  33. Wesiak, G., Al-Smadi, M., Höfler, M., & Gütl, C. (2013). Assessment for complex learning resources: Development and validation of an integrated model. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 8(2013), 52-61.
  34. Zenha-Rela, M., & Carvalho, R. (2006). Work in progress: Self evaluation through monitored peer review using the moodle platform. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference, 36th Annual.