Improving student experience and learning through peer review feedback
Updated May 28, 2026
Feedback has a timing problem. Students need it while there is still something to do with it, but staff often provide the most detailed comments after the work has already been marked. Nicol, Thomson and Breslin's paper is useful because it reframes peer review as a feedback design problem, not just a workload solution.
The starting point is familiar across higher education. Students say feedback is too slow, too brief or too hard to use. Staff respond by trying to write more comments, but that can increase workload without improving the student experience. Peer review offers a different route: students receive comments from classmates before final submission and learn by producing comments on other students' work.
That second half matters. Peer review is not only about increasing the amount of feedback students receive. It is also about helping students practise judgement. When students compare a peer's work with the criteria, they often start seeing their own work more clearly.
What the study shows
The paper describes a structured peer review process using Turnitin PeerMark. Students submitted draft work, reviewed peers' submissions anonymously and answered guiding questions set by the teacher. The software handled distribution, which reduced the administrative burden and made participation easier to manage.
The authors argue for comments rather than peer marks. That is a sensible distinction. Students may not trust one another to allocate grades, especially where marks count towards progression. Written comments are less threatening and often more useful, because they focus attention on what can be improved before submission.
Several design choices make the process stronger. Students need a clear reason to take part, so participation should be built into the module rather than presented as optional goodwill. They also need examples of useful feedback, otherwise comments can become thin, vague or overly polite. Multiple reviewers help too. One peer comment may be idiosyncratic; several comments give the recipient a clearer sense of how the work is being read.
The benefit for students receiving feedback is practical. Peer comments are often written in language that students find easier to decode than staff feedback. They also arrive earlier, when students can still revise. That turns feedback from a judgement into a working resource.
The benefit for students giving feedback is just as important. To comment on someone else's argument, structure or evidence, students have to apply the assessment criteria. They notice omissions, unclear reasoning and stronger choices. That comparison can sharpen their own work before they submit it.
What universities can do with this
Peer review should be treated as a taught academic practice. Students need to know what good feedback looks like, what tone is expected, and how they should use comments once they receive them. Without that guidance, the activity can feel like a token exercise.
The safest starting point is formative peer review before a final submission. That keeps the focus on learning and reduces anxiety about fairness. Staff can still monitor the quality of comments, step in where feedback is poor and use common issues to shape follow-up teaching.
Programme teams should also be careful about how they explain the purpose. If students think peer review is a way for staff to avoid giving feedback, trust will fall. If they understand it as a way to see more examples, receive more perspectives and practise assessment judgement, the educational case is stronger.
Student voice teams can look for specific signals in feedback comments: whether peer review helped students improve their final work, whether the criteria became clearer, whether the process felt fair, and whether students trusted the comments they received. Those are more useful questions than simply asking whether students "liked" peer review.
Limits of the evidence
Peer review is not a replacement for staff judgement. Students still need expert guidance, clear criteria and moderation of the process. It also works best when the task gives students enough time to revise after receiving comments. If peer review is squeezed in too late, the main benefit disappears.
FAQ
Q: Should peer review count towards the final mark?
A: It can, but the lower-risk option is to reward participation rather than ask students to mark one another. Comments usually support learning better than peer grades, especially when students are still developing confidence with the criteria.
Q: How can staff stop peer comments being too vague?
A: Use focused prompts, model examples of useful feedback and ask students to connect comments to criteria. Staff should also review a sample of comments so expectations remain visible.
Q: What should institutions measure?
A: Look beyond satisfaction. Check whether students revised their work, understood the criteria better and felt the process helped them act before final submission.
References
[Source Paper] David Nicol, Avril Thomson & Caroline Breslin (2014) Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39:1, 102-122.
DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2013.795518
[1] Higher Education Funding Council for England. 2011. The National Student Survey: Findings and Trends 2006–2010. Bristol: Higher Education Funding Council for England.
URI: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/2560
[2] Beth R. Crisp (2007) Is it worth the effort? How feedback influences students’ subsequent submission of assessable work, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32:5, 571-581.
DOI: 10.1080/02602930601116912
[3] Kaufman, J. H., and C. D. Schunn. 2011. Students’ Perceptions about Peer Assessment for Writing: Their Origin and Impact on Revision Work. Instructional Science, 39,387–406.
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-010-9133-6
[4] Falchikov, N. 2005. Improving Assessment through Student Involvement. London: Routledge–Falmer.
ISBN: 9780415308212
[5] Topping, K. 1998. Peer Assessment between Students in Colleges and Universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276.
DOI: 10.3102/2F00346543068003249
[6] Cho, K., M. Cho, and D. J. Hacker. 2010. Self-Monitoring Support for Learning to Write. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(2), 101–113.
DOI: 10.1080/10494820802292386
[7] Cho, K., and C. MacArthur. 2011. Learning by Reviewing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 73–84.
DOI: 10.1037/a0021950
Request a walkthrough
Book a free Student Voice Analytics demo
See all-comment coverage, sector benchmarks, and reporting designed for OfS quality and NSS requirements.
- All-comment coverage with HE-tuned taxonomy and sentiment.
- Versioned outputs with TEF-ready reporting.
- Benchmarks and BI-ready exports for boards and Senate.
UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround