While remote study offers increased flexibility and accessibility, it also presents challenges. The most significant of these is maintaining student engagement in the absence of face-to-face interaction. We believe encouraging peer feedback is a solution to this problem, and outline practical strategies for doing so in this resource.
Educators must cultivate a supportive and trusting environment where students feel safe exchanging critiques online. This begins with establishing clear guidelines that emphasise constructive criticism – feedback should be specific, actionable and respectful.
One way to ensure this is to adopt a three-stage framework, beginning with a “forethought phase” where students receive training on how to give and receive feedback effectively. This is followed by the “performance phase”, where students engage in the feedback exchange using appropriate digital tools. The third phase is that of “reflection”, where students review their received feedback and formulate improvement plans.
A transparent rubric is essential to guide the process. Instructors should provide students with one that outlines assessment criteria and expectations for feedback quality. For example, in a literature review assignment, the rubric might ask peers to evaluate the depth of analysis and citation of sources. Training students to use the rubric effectively – through workshops or interactive activities – ensures they understand how to apply it consistently. Sharing high-quality examples helps students grasp what actionable feedback looks like.
Students should be guided on how to provide both positive reinforcement and areas for improvement in their comments. The feedback needs to be helpful and actionable: for example, writing “the work is not good enough” is neither, because it doesn’t allow the recipient to identify what needs improving or how to improve it. Conversely, a comment such as: “the first citation on page three is missing in the reference list” is specific, useful and actionable. You could offer further support by providing sentence stems or question prompts to reviewers that identify areas for scrutiny.
Technology plays a key role in the performance phase: platforms such as Google Drive, Microsoft Teams or Canvas allow students to submit work and receive feedback in shared spaces. The “Workshop” activity on Moodle is particularly effective: it allows instructors to automate submission distribution, peer assessment, and grading workflows to reduce administrative burdens for instructors and enable anonymous evaluations to reduce bias.
Finally, peer review is most effective when paired with reflection and dialogue. Encourage students to analyse the feedback they receive and discuss it with each other. Structured activities, such as post-feedback discussion boards or virtual reflection sessions, create space for students to ask clarifying questions (eg, “Why did you suggest revising this section?”) and share insights. This dialogue not only deepens understanding but also builds accountability, as students refine their work in direct response to peer input.
- Collection: How to encourage student self-reflection
- Peer feedback: a burden for students or route to better academic writing?
- Recommendations for incorporating and guiding peer assessment in the classroom or online
Challenges and how to address them
Remote students face varying levels of access to technology, which can affect participation. Educators should therefore provide flexible alternatives for students with limited resources. This could include offering technical support sessions or collaborating with university IT departments to connect students with loaned devices, among others.
Scheduling synchronous feedback sessions across time zones can also be complex. Instructors can mitigate this by using asynchronous feedback tools that allow students to submit and review work at their convenience. For instance, students in different regions can access discussion boards to engage with peers’ work and provide input without real-time interaction.
While clear rubrics and guidelines are foundational to fair peer feedback, instructors should also actively monitor the process to address biases or inconsistencies. This includes reviewing a sample of feedback to ensure alignment with criteria and intervening if feedback is superficial or biased.
Finally, instructors must encourage students to take feedback seriously so that they can fully benefit from the process. We suggest that you incorporate peer feedback performance in course grading by assessing the quality of provided comments or by rewarding students who provide exceptionally helpful and constructive feedback to their peers.
Peer feedback has the potential to enhance engagement by transforming students from passive recipients to active participants in the learning process. By creating a supportive environment, using clear guidelines and rubrics and training students in assessment methods, educators can ensure that peer feedback is effective and beneficial for all learners in a remote learning environment.
This advice is based on two projects supported by the Teaching Development Fund at Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University.
Jie Zhang is an associate professor in accounting at the International Business School Suzhou (IBSS); Steven Bateman is a principal language lecturer at the School of Languages; Qing Ye is a senior associate professor at the IBSS, all from Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University.
If you’d like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.
comment