Learners improve their work by reviewing each other’s work using a rubric and constructive feedback modeled by the instructor. As an extension, students reflect on what they learned about their work while reviewing the work of their peers.
| Individual/Group Activity | Group |
| Class Size | Small (<25) & Medium (25-50) |
| Bloom’s Taxonomy Level | Understand |
| Development Initial | Transitional Knowing |
| Minimum Time to Facilitate | 16 – 30 Minutes |
| Minimum Time to Debrief | < 10 Minutes |
| PDFs | Here |
Additional Resources
Baker, K. M. (2016). Peer review as a strategy for improving students’ writing process. Active Learning in Higher Education, 17(3), 179-192: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1469787416654794?casa_token=ydQj30LrqsYAAAAA:fqBd14dlwe39qthrIJbd2Hvo10z8mFx5y-9tr_3_1AlQjr-nrjk2OCewlFhxhzpV18kfOYz3HSQ
Spry, C., & Mierzwinski‐Urban, M. (2018). The impact of the peer review of literature search strategies in support of rapid review reports. Research synthesis methods, 9(4), 521-526: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/jrsm.1330?casa_token=p49PaRcIAQsAAAAA%3AZd7afYVyzD0ffAlJK8s2K7Ici84C-hkJpGj2IRmBdl7A72mcVIUfI8HHYg9OQ3pqGDS2PTE2L3dU-g
Sampson, M., McGowan, J., Cogo, E., Grimshaw, J., Moher, D., & Lefebvre, C. (2009). An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 62(9), 944-952: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S089543560800320X?casa_token=i34pdbdFRaYAAAAA:0hPSoS–nyF3VEPjB__K-cUfr4Txx-yRVue-r2PyqkCTyV43FLiXZxut4fgOhK3vm-idAe5n