Journal of Academic Development and Education JADE Issue 10 | Page 46

46 | JADE
ARTICLE #3 | 47
CAROLE WATKINS & VALERIE BALL
2013). Indeed if we are to promote using reflective practice for
lifelong professional development (CSP 2015, HCPC 2012), we need
to promote reflection from the beginning of the course; using writing
reflective accounts to promote deeper learning (Shepherd 2010) in
class, and on placement to nurture student’s confidence to clinically
reason (Roche and Coote 2008).
Race (2005b) identifies that feedback is a key factor underpinning
successful learning and should both help the learner make sense of
their work and enable them to believe they can achieve the intended
learning outcomes of their assignment. He argues that the added
benefit of peer review is the chance to review and apply assessment
criteria to examples of work other than their own (some better, some
not as good) enabling the learner to place their own work in context.
By providing feedback by involving students in each other’s work
also acts to generate deeper thinking than simply receiving feedback
(Race 2005b). However evaluation from Phase 1 suggested that
most students had lacked sufficient knowledge of critical reflection
to be able to provide constructive feedback to their peers without
significant tutor support. Boud (1986, cited in Nicol and Macfarlane-
Dick 2006) emphasises that self and peer assessment skills require
students to not only be able to apply standards/criteria to work but
also be able to make judgements about how work relates to these
standards. Orsmond et al (2002) argue that the use of ‘exemplars’
of performance is a powerful means of clarifying what is required
within assignments as they provide a defined standard against
which students can compare their own work. The Phase 2 evaluation
clearly identified that the addition of the exemplars had not only
provided students with more knowledge and understanding about
critical as opposed to reportive writing but had also facilitated
more understanding of what was required to successfully pass
the assignment. The process of reading, critiquing, marking and
discussing these exemplars may have facilitated a more guided
and objective understanding of expectations, which could then be
applied to their own and their peers work. This also enabled a change
of tutor role from ‘expert marker’ in Phase 1 to ‘facilitator’ in Phase
2; able to help the students develop their understanding/correct
misunderstandings, but no longer the only source of information and
guidance.
Some students in Phase 2 suggested the addition of mid-range
summative exemplars. Whilst it could be argued that a this would
benefit strategic learners i.e. those wanting to do the minimum to
achieve a pass, it could be argued that a mid-range exemplar would
enable students to more effectively perceive the gaps between poor,
average and strong academic performance within the assignment.
AN EVALUATION OF THE USE OF PEER REVIEW AS A FORMATIVE FEEDBACK PROCESS
IN REFLECTIVE WRITING WITHIN PHYSIOTHERAPY EDUCATION
Rushton (2005) and Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick (2006) both
emphasise that feedback is only effective if it helps students close
the gap between actual and desired performance. Whilst the use
of exemplars is one strategy, this is likely to be insufficient without
students understanding what further actions are required on enhance
the quality and relevance of their work. One way to facilitate this gap
closure is to encourage students to identify actions and strategies to
improve their work (Hounsell 2004, cited in Nicol and Macfarlane-
Dick 2006). The addition in Phase 2 of developing explicit action
points in the session meant that students had specific actions to
address which were the end result of a logical process of review
and critique and so would hopefully be more meaningful for each
individual.
However, despite peer review having a high efficiency and learning
payoff (Race 2005b) the ongoing desire by some students for tutor
feedback for ‘reassurance’ was interesting. Race (2005a) expanding
on work by Miller and Parlett (1974), suggest that some students
may be cue-seekers who work hard to determine exactly what is
required for assessments; that others may be cue-conscious and
pay attention to ‘tips’ about assessments; and others cue-deaf
and taking no notice of any ‘cues’ given. Whilst Phase 2 would
still not benefit cue-deaf students, it may be that it satisfied the
needs of cue-conscious students, whilst some cue-seekers still felt
they needed tutor input to align their work most effectively to the
assignment remit. Cue-seekers are likely to be the most demanding
of highly critical constructive feedback (Race 2005a), and it may
be that the emphasis on peer or ‘non-expert’ feedback will never
provide enough assurance for some.
Finally, the process of peer review formative assessment for
reflective writing has to be evaluated when the literature largely
supports the process in fact based assignments (Willey and Gardner
2010, Eldridge et al, 2013). In the ‘soft’ skills of reflection where there
are no right and wrong answers the evidence is less supportive.
Although peer assessment has been demonstrated in this article to
promote ownership of the learning process, Patton (2012) found that
students were less convinced of its pedagogical worth perceiving it
to be a way of reducing tutors workload. However, for year one work
we argue that tutor support is integral to prevent misconceptions
being promoted by peers and carried forward to the summative
assessment (Rourke, 2012)
Conclusions
This paper has described and explored the use and ongoing
development of peer review as a formative feedback process for