Improving student experience and learning through peer review feedback

By Marisa Graser

Updated Mar 10, 2026

Students rarely complain that they get too much feedback. They complain that it arrives too late, says too little, or does not help them improve, which is why feedback remains one of the lowest-rated parts of the student experience in UK surveys (Higher Education Funding Council for England 2011).

A natural response is to ask staff to provide more detailed feedback, more quickly. However, research suggests that this approach does little to improve satisfaction, a pattern echoed in evidence that faster feedback policies do not guarantee better NSS results, while increasing workload for teachers (Crisp 2007, Nicol et al. 2014). Nicol et al. (2014) instead propose peer review as a more effective way to improve feedback and learning.

Peer review feedback in practice

In practice, peer review works because students engage with feedback from both sides. They receive comments on their own work and sharpen their judgement by providing feedback on the work of others.

How to implement peer review feedback

One way to implement peer review is through Turnitin's PeerMark feature, as described by Nicol et al. (2014). The software allows teachers to add guiding questions that structure the feedback process and then distributes anonymous peer comments automatically. That reduces the amount of manual coordination required from staff and can make students more comfortable participating in the process (Nicol et al. 2014).

Key points for success

To implement peer review successfully, Nicol et al. (2014) highlight three practical considerations. First, students need a clear reason to participate, for example by making peer review part of the course requirements. Nicol et al. (2014) also note that linking participation to a professionalism mark can improve engagement.

Second, staff need to address the risk of thin or unhelpful comments. Some students criticised peers for not putting enough effort into their feedback (Nicol et al. 2014). Clear expectations, examples of useful comments, and feedback from multiple peers can improve quality while giving students a broader range of perspectives.

Finally, Nicol et al. (2014) suggest asking students to comment on each other's work rather than mark it. Peer assessment is often perceived as unfair or less accurate, and students may feel unqualified to assign marks, concerns that group work assessment best practice addresses through clearer expectations and accountability (Nicol et al. 2014, Kaufman et al. 2011). Qualitative feedback is usually more actionable, less contentious, and more meaningful for learning.

Impact on teachers, student learning and student experience

Both sides of the peer review process, receiving feedback and constructing it, can improve student learning and experience.

Receiving feedback

Peer feedback can be easier for students to understand because it is usually written in more accessible language (Nicol et al. 2014, Falchikov 2005). That helps close the gap between what feedback intends to say and what students actually take from it.

Students also receive more feedback, both in volume and variety, than a time-pressed teacher can usually provide alone (Topping 1998). Seeing their work from different angles helps them understand how different readers interpret their writing, which can improve communication and revision skills (Nicol et al. 2014, Cho et al. 2010).

Another practical advantage is timing. The peer review feedback loop can happen before a final assignment or piece of coursework is submitted, much like formative assessment designed to help students act before the final mark, giving students the chance to act on comments immediately rather than after the final mark has been awarded (Nicol et al. 2014).

Constructing feedback

Giving feedback can be just as valuable as receiving it. When students review a peer's work, they reflect on their own knowledge and writing by instinctively comparing the work of others with their own (Nicol et al. 2014). That makes peer review a learning activity in its own right and can support deeper understanding of a topic (Nicol et al. 2014, Cho and MacArthur 2011).

It also helps students build transferable skills (Cho et al. 2010, Cho and MacArthur 2011). They learn to analyse texts critically, identify problems, and suggest improvements. In other words, peer review strengthens judgement, not just assignment performance.

The teacher’s perspective

From the teacher's perspective, peer review addresses several of the issues students raise about traditional feedback. It can improve the quality, quantity and speed of feedback without requiring staff to write substantially more comments. That makes it one of the few feedback interventions that can improve the student experience without simply asking staff to do more. With suitable software and clear expectations, it can also help students become more active participants in the feedback process, echoing the wider case for student voice in assessment and feedback, and develop into more independent, self-regulated learners (Nicol et al. 2014).

FAQ

Q: How does peer review feedback specifically impact the traditional roles and responsibilities of teachers?

A: Peer review changes the teacher's role from being the sole source of feedback to designing and overseeing a process in which students learn from each other. Staff still set the criteria, model what useful feedback looks like, and monitor quality, but they spend less time writing every comment themselves. The shift is less about stepping back and more about creating the conditions for better feedback and better learning.

Q: What measures are in place to ensure fairness and prevent bias in peer review feedback?

A: Fairness improves when submissions are anonymised, criteria are clear, and students are shown how to give constructive comments. Asking several peers to review each piece of work also reduces the influence of any one student's bias and gives the recipient a more balanced set of perspectives. Staff oversight is still important, especially when comments are inconsistent, overly brief, or unhelpful.

Q: Are there any long-term studies or evidence on the effectiveness of peer review feedback on student performance and learning outcomes?

A: Although this post does not cite specific longitudinal studies, a wider body of research suggests that peer review can improve writing quality, critical thinking and self-regulation over time. The impact depends on how well the process is designed, how much guidance students receive, and whether they can act on feedback before a final submission. Further longitudinal research would help clarify how those benefits develop across different subjects and cohorts.

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.

Prefer email? info@studentvoice.ai

UK-hosted · No public LLM APIs · Same-day turnaround