Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J. C., Belland, B., Camin, D., Connolly, P., Coulthard, G., Lei, K., & Mong, C. (2007). Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: An exploratory study. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(3), 412–433. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00331.x
Summary
This study by Ertmer et al. (2007) explores the impact of peer feedback on the quality of online discussion posts among graduate students in an educational technology course in the United States. The authors applied Bloom’s taxonomy as a framework to assess the cognitive depth of the posts, categorizing them across six levels: remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating. The primary goal was to determine whether peer feedback could improve post quality over time and foster engagement in an asynchronous online environment. The findings revealed that while peer feedback did not significantly improve the quality of posts over time, it contributed to sustained levels of student engagement and interaction. Students appreciated both giving and receiving feedback, as it helped them reflect on their work and learn from their peers. However, many students preferred instructor feedback, which they found more reliable and authoritative. Logistical challenges, such as delays in providing feedback and inconsistent quality, limited the effectiveness of the peer review process. The authors conclude that peer feedback has potential in online learning environments but requires a structured implementation to address student concerns and logistical issues.
Evaluation
The study by Ertmer et al. (2007) provides valuable insights into how peer feedback influences engagement and learning in online environments. Its use of Bloom’s taxonomy to evaluate the cognitive depth of discussion posts is a key strength, offering a systematic and replicable framework for assessing student contributions. This structured approach highlights the importance of fostering higher-order thinking skills, such as analyzing and evaluating, in online discussions. One notable strength of the study is its dual focus on the benefits of giving and receiving feedback. By engaging in peer review, students developed critical thinking skills and a sense of accountability for their own learning. The study also demonstrates how peer feedback can sustain interaction and build a sense of community in asynchronous learning environments, addressing a common challenge in online education.
However, the study has significant limitations. The small sample size and short duration reduce the generalizability of the findings to other educational contexts. Furthermore, the reliance on student perceptions as a key measure introduces potential bias, as many participants expressed a preference for instructor feedback over peer contributions. This preference may have influenced their attitudes toward the peer review process, limiting the study’s ability to measure its full impact. Furthermore, logistical challenges, such as delayed feedback and inconsistent quality, also undermine the effectiveness of peer feedback. These issues suggest that peer review requires careful planning and support to ensure its success. For example, providing clear guidelines, rubrics, and training for students could improve the quality and timeliness of peer contributions. Despite these challenges, the study’s findings are valuable for educators seeking to enhance engagement and collaboration in online courses. It highlights the potential of peer feedback to promote reflection and interaction, even if it does not significantly improve post quality over time. With adjustments to address logistical and perceptual challenges, peer feedback can become a more effective tool for fostering critical thinking and collaboration in online learning environments.
Reflection
The study by Ertmer et al. (2007) helped me understand both the challenges and opportunities of using peer feedback in online education. I found the idea that students benefit from both giving and receiving feedback particularly useful. This approach aligns with my teaching philosophy of encouraging active participation and reflection. The use of Bloom’s taxonomy in the study is a practical tool that I could apply to assess the quality and depth of student contributions in my classes. I appreciated how the study highlighted the role of peer feedback in building a sense of community among students, which is often hard to achieve in online environments. This reminded me of my own experiences, where collaborative activities have helped students feel more connected and engaged. However, the logistical challenges, like delays and inconsistent feedback quality, stood out as areas to address. These issues made me think about ways to improve the process, such as providing clear instructions and rubrics to guide students in giving better feedback. The finding that students preferred instructor feedback also gave me ideas about balancing peer and instructor input. A combination of both could ensure students receive the guidance they value while still fostering collaboration and critical thinking. Additionally, training students to provide meaningful feedback could make the process smoother and more effective. This study made me reflect on how to make peer feedback work better in my courses. It reinforced the need for careful planning and support to help students succeed in these activities. Moving forward, I plan to experiment with strategies like clear rubrics, timely feedback, and a mix of peer and instructor input to enhance learning and engagement.