Peer Review

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.

Image by Tumisu from Pixabay
Individual/Group Activity Group
Class SizeSmall (<25) & Medium (25-50)
Bloom’s Taxonomy LevelUnderstand
Development InitialTransitional Knowing
Minimum Time to Facilitate16 – 30 Minutes
Minimum Time to Debrief< 10 Minutes
PDFsHere
Discipline-Specific Examples

STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics)
Please contact us at activelearning@uga.edu with an example to include!

Humanities
Please contact us at activelearning@uga.edu with an example to include!

Social Sciences
Please contact us at activelearning@uga.edu with an example to include!

Co-Curricular
(experiences outside of the formal classroom but contribute to student learning)
Please contact us at activelearning@uga.edu with an example to include!

Universal Design of Active Learning

Universal Design for Active Learning
UDL and active learning share a common goal: centering all students in the learning experience. When designing an activity, UDL‑informed instructors consider how the activity could be open to all students while preserving the core learning goal.

Physical Considerations
If handwriting is not required, allow digital submission of peer feedback.

Timing & Pacing
Allow generous time — reading, evaluating, and articulating feedback requires significant processing.

Social Interaction
Allow written rather than face-to-face verbal feedback to reduce social pressure. Consider anonymous review where appropriate. Provide clear rubrics and examples of constructive feedback.

Information Accessibility
Provide rubric and examples of strong feedback in writing for reference throughout the review.

Ways to Participate/Express
Allow feedback in writing, typed, digitally, or through a structured feedback form.

Online Adaptations

Coming Soon!

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