Exploring the Impact of Peer Review on Student Engagement in Online Courses:A Future Learn Case Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65514/48308730Keywords:
student engagement, peer review, online course, case analysisAbstract
This study investigates how peer review can be designed and implemented to enhance specific dimensions of student engagement in online courses. To this end, it addresses three progressively connected research questions concerning students' perspectives on peer review, their engagement in peer review, and strategies for leveraging peer review to foster deeper engagement. Using a qualitative case-study approach and inductive thematic analysis, the study analyzes the secondary data collected from Future Learn. The findings reveal five positive attitudes, four major concerns, and four peer review suggestions. While students recognized the value of peer review for the benefits it brought, they were also concerned about some potential problems. They indicated efficient approaches to be integrated into peer review to motivate high quality, positive and deep student engagement. The study's main contribution lies in mapping specific types of student engagement to students' comments on peer review, thereby connecting a multi-dimensional student engagement framework with specific reflections. The results provide valuable indications for all online course stakeholders, including instructional designers, teachers, platforms, institutions, and policy-makers, to better design and implement peer review activities that more effectively support student engagement and enrich the online learning experience.
References
1.Appleton, J. J., Christenson, S. L., & Furlong, M. J. (2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369–386. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20303
2.Astin, A. W. (1984). A Developmental Theory for Higher Education.
3.Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
4.Brill, J. M. (2016). Investigating peer review as a systemic pedagogy for developing the design knowledge, skills, and dispositions of novice instructional design students. Educational Tech-nology Research and Development, 64(4), 681–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9421-6
5.Gibbs, G. (2006). How assessment frames student learning. In Innovative Assessment in Higher Education, 23–36. in Bryan, C., & Clegg, K. (Eds.). (2006a). Innovative assessment in higher education. Routledge.
6.Bryan, C., & Clegg, K. (Eds.). (2006b). Innovative assessment in higher education. Routledge.
7.Bryman, A. (2016). Social research methods (Fifth edition). Oxford University Press.
8.Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. AAHE Bulletin. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ed282491
9.Christenson, L., S., Reschly, L., A., WYLIE, CATHY, & Widiasani, A. (2012). Handbook of Student Engagement.
10.Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., & Wylie, C. (Eds.). (2012). Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7
11.Dawson, P. (2017). Assessment rubrics: Towards clearer and more replicable design, research and practice. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(3), 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015. 1111294
12.Deng, R., Benckendorff, P., & Gannaway, D. (2020). Learner engagement in MOOCs: Scale de-velopment and validation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 51(1), 245–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet. 12810
13.Dixson, M. D. (2010). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2).
14.Dumford, A. D., & Miller, A. L. (2018). Online learning in higher education: Exploring advantages and disadvantages for engagement. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 30(3), 452–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-9179-z
15.Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). http://www.jstor.org School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3516061
16.Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. ECTJ, 29(2), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766777
17.Huang, Y.-M., & Wu, T.-T. (2011). A Systematic Approach for Learner Group Composition Utilizing U-Learning Portfolio. Educational Technology & Society.
18.Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 212–218. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1477405
19.Krause, S. D. (2013). MOOC Response about “Listening to World Music.” College Composition and Communication, 64(4), 689–695. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43490786
20.Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foun-dations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(141), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/ir.283
21.Lambert, S. R. (2020). Do MOOCs contribute to student equity and social inclusion? A systematic review 2014–18. Computers & Education, 145, 103693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103693
22.Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: A conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2. ed). Routledge/Falmer.
23.Laurillard, D. (2013). Teaching As a Design Science: Building Pedagogical Patterns for Learning and Technology (3rd ed). Routledge.
24.Meek, S. E. M., Blakemore, L., & Marks, L. (2017). Is peer review an appropriate form of as-sessment in a MOOC? Student participation and performance in formative peer review. As-sessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(6), 1000–1013. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1221052
25.Mirmotahari, O., Fremstad, E., Berg, Y., & Damsa, C. (2019). Student Engagement by Employing Student Peer Reviews with Criteria-Based Assessment. 2019 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON). https://doi.org/10.1109/EDUCON.2019.8725174
26.Mulder, R., Baik, C., Naylor, R., & Pearce, J. (2014). How does student peer review influence perceptions, engagement and academic outcomes? A case study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(6), 657–677. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.860421
27.Nicol, D. (2010). From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602931 003786559
28.Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.795518
29.Rasooli, A., Turner, J., Varga-Atkins, T., Pitt, E., Asgari, S., & Moindrot, W. (2025). Students' perceptions of fairness in groupwork assessment: Validity evidence for peer assessment fairness instrument. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 50(1), 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2024.2354510
30.Redmond, P., Heffernan, A., Abawi, L., Brown, A., & Henderson, R. (2018). An Online En-gagement Framework for Higher Education. Online Learning, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v22i1.1175
31.Sharif, A., & Magrill, B. (2015). Discussion Forums in MOOCs.
32.Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the Classroom: Reciprocal Effects of Teacher Behavior and Student Engagement Across the School Year.
33.Soffer, T., Kahan, T., & Nachmias, R. (2019). Patterns of Students' Utilization of Flexibility in Online Academic Courses and Their Relation to Course Achievement. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i4.3949
34.Stepanyan, K., Mather, R., Jones, H., & Lusuardi, C. (2009). Student Engagement with Peer As-sessment: A Review of Pedagogical Design and Technologies.
35.Stonewall, J. H., Dorneich, M. C., & Rongerude, J. (2024). Evaluation of Bias in Peer Assessment in Higher Education. International Journal of Engineering Education.
36.Su, Y.-L., & Reeve, J. (2011). A Meta-analysis of the Effectiveness of Intervention Programs Designed to Support Autonomy. Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 159–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9142-7
37.Theising, K., Wu, K., & Heck Sheehan, A. (2014). Impact of peer assessment on student phar-macists' behaviors and self-confidence. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning, 6(1), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2013.09.020
38.Thelma, C. C., & Phiri, E. V. (2024). The Efficacy and Acceptance of Online Learning vs. Offline Learning in Higher Learning Institutions: A Systematic Review. https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.13299777
39.Trowler, V., & Trowler, P. (2010). Student Engagement Executive Summary.
40.Voelkl, K. E. (1997). Identification with School. American Journal of Education, 105(3), 294–318. https://doi.org/10.1086/444158
41.Wang, C. K. J., Liu, W. C., Kee, Y. H., & Chian, L. K. (2019). Competence, autonomy, and re-latedness in the classroom: Understanding students' motivational processes using the self-determination theory. Heliyon, 5(7), e01983. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01983
42.Young, M. R. (2009). THE ART AND SCIENCE OF FOSTERING ENGAGED LEARNING. Allied Academies International Conference, Proceedings of the Academy of Educational Leadership.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Educational Evaluation & Standards
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
