Learning with Peers in Higher Education: Exploring Strengths and Weaknesses of Formative Assessment
, Elisabetta Nicchia 1, Myrna Pario 1, Emiliana Murgia 1, Slaviša Radović 1 and Marcea Ingersoll 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral Review Comments:
Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. The study investigates how differences in formative assessment strategies and their focal points influence students’ perceptions of organizational quality, feedback quality, learning impacts, and satisfaction with the process. The manuscript is generally well written, and the topic is highly relevant and interesting. Moreover, the use of a mixed approach is a methodological strength, providing novel and insightful findings. I recommend that the manuscript be accepted for publication pending minor revisions. I wish the authors continued success in their research.
Specific Comments:
- At the end of the abstract, including a brief statement on the study’s contributions would be helpful. For example, a sentence emphasizing teacher feedback’s importance or discussing theoretical and practical implications would be appropriate.
- For better readability, the authors might consider clearly separating the data analysis section from the findings section to avoid conflating the analytical methods and the results.
- The findings section presents quantitative results in a way that might be difficult for readers to understand fully. A comma should be inserted between the MD and p-value (e.g., MD = .195, p < .000) to improve readability and conform to standard statistical reporting conventions. Including tables or graphs that summarize key results would enhance clarity.
Author Response
Our responses are attached
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWe find the study interesting and appreciate the multidimensional perspective of exploring the phenomenon of formative assessment
Perhaps it would be worth making a distinction between group assessment done by non-peers and group assessment that can also be done by peers. I would have made it clear that peer assessment can also be done in one-on-one pairs. I would make a much clearer distinction between peer evaluation and group assessment, pointing out the specific limitations and advantages of each. We suggest you reflect on these aspects and, if you consider them relevant, make small adjustments to the work.
We appreciate the coherence and design of the research, the good structuring of the conclusive elements and we believe that the work has good potential to inspire colleagues in universities to use these forms of evaluation more.
Author Response
Our responses are attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work is very well structured, methodologically, coherent,
justified with the sources, and presents a relevant contribution to the
scientific field and the novelty of the subject with respect to the evaluation
from the perspective presented.
Author Response
Our responses are attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Introduction
This section provides helpful context with a historical overview of how formative feedback practices entered HE. The main purposes of the study are set out in brief here for later elaboration.
Line 53-4: "allowed students to have several feedback" might be more clearly expressed as "allowed students to have several deliveries of feedback".
2. Literature review
This review is well informed, detailed and analytical. It progresses systematically and is effective in providing a rationale for the empirical component of the study.
3. Research design
This brief section declares discrete and appropriate RQs, but should also have explicated a rationale for the methodological orientation, design of data collection instruments and research procedure. As it is, the rationale and choices made must be inferred from the next two sections.
4. Participants, procedure, and instruments
The response rate has not been stated, nor how participants were contacted, or whether this was a voluntary or 'required' involvement.
5. Data analysis and findings
Appropriate methods of analysis appear have been performed. There is a detailed presentation of quantitative and qualitative findings. Some attempt has been made to explain Figure 1, but further clarification would be helpful.
6. Discussion
There is a fine-grained discussion of findings in relation to the two RQs and interesting comments on the different reactions of older and younger students. Outcomes have been satisfactorily related to studies in the literature. Suitable suggestions are made to address the perceived limitations of the research design.
Line 570: "Dut" should be "Due".
7. Conclusions
Sound reflections have been made on the outcomes of the RQs. Practical recommendations are articulated concerning the conduct of group assessment, the distancing of formative from summative assessment, the closer integration of formative assessment in professional programmes, and the employment of portfolios.
Overall comment
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Trends in Higher Education. It is an impressive study that should be of interest and practical utility for the readership of the journal.
Author Response
Our responses are attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
