Writing professors routinely utilize a variety of methods to engage students, facilitate skills development, and create opportunities for achievement. Peer review has a long history in college writing courses, where evaluating one another’s work is often treated as a core competency or an explicit learning outcome. Yet, what students actually do during peer review, and how that activity contributes to their development as writers, varies widely.

Students’ learning depends on factors such as their understanding of the purpose of peer review, whether they have been taught how to conduct one, and their attitudes toward participating in the process. Peer review instruction in my writing classes includes a range of practices, such as asking students to provide general feedback; respond to specific questions; or complete reviews assessed for thoroughness, accuracy, or effort. The design of these tasks has continued to evolve in response to lessons learned, but in the past year, a significant finding has emerged: Although students often prefer giving and receiving written feedback, the quality of their feedback tends to be stronger when they engage in oral feedback.

Peer Review

With its roots in collaborative learning, a peer review, or peer assessment, is when students evaluate the work of their classmates, offering feedback and/or grades on a designated assignment according to class-established standards (Falchikov, 2007). These reviews may function in a summative capacity, emphasizing evaluative judgments that contribute to grading, or in a formative capacity, prioritizing detailed feedback intended to enhance students’ learning. As such, this process can take multiple forms. Students in a college writing class, for example, may be asked to focus on higher‑order concerns such as argument, organization, and analysis, or on lower‑order concerns such as grammar and sentence‑level clarity. Instructors may structure peer review through rubrics, open‑ended comments, directed questions, content‑based grading, or checklists.

Research consistently demonstrates that peer review benefits students in two distinct, but complementary, ways: as recipients of feedback and as reviewers of others’ work. When students receive feedback, their revision efforts are supported and enhanced via concrete suggestions and multiple perspectives. This feedback assists students in understanding the assignment; clarifying expectations; and strengthening their own evaluative judgment as they learn to recognize, articulate, and apply criteria for quality writing to improve the quality of their revisions (see meta-analysis by Stančić, 2021). Peer review functions as a learning-centered practice that positions students as active participants in one another’s learning, fostering critical judgment, confidence, and a sense of ownership over academic work (Black et al., 2004; Shen et al., 2020). Peer review also benefits students in their role as reviewers. By engaging in the analysis and evaluation of peers’ texts, students develop self-assessment skills, internalize assessment criteria, and refine their own writing through reflective application of those criteria (Dochy et al., 1999; Nielsen, 2021). Evaluating the work of others has been shown to cultivate transferable evaluative skills and noncognitive capacities, such as time management and self-discipline (Chaktsiris & Southworth, 2019). Moreover, Cho and MacArthur (2011) demonstrate that the act of composing feedback itself contributes to learning by deepening students’ reflection on writing quality and disciplinary expectations.

Peer Review as a Learned Practice

Despite considerable evidence that students learn from the peer review process (e.g., Huisman et al., 2019), many find engaging in it challenging. Students often report feeling unsure or uncomfortable when providing feedback, expressing concerns that their peers might react negatively or that their advice will be unhelpful (e.g., Kaufman & Schunn, 2011; Zhou et al., 2020). These challenges are especially pronounced in first-year writing courses, where students must navigate the demands of academic discourse while managing unfamiliar rhetorical expectations; increased independence; and the need to develop more sophisticated reading, writing, and critical thinking skills. In order for the process to work, professors also need to devote considerable class time to teaching students about peer review by introducing principles of effective feedback; modeling how to apply evaluative criteria in thoughtful, constructive ways; and providing examples of expectations of the assignment, including guided prompts, rubrics, or low‑stakes practice activities (e.g., Zong et al., 2021).

Written and Oral Feedback

Research on student peer feedback suggests that the mode of feedback influences its focus and depth. Van den Berg et al. (2006) found that written feedback tended to be product-oriented, with students evaluating the final product rather than asking analytical questions, explaining their comments, or proposing revisions, and generally focusing on content and style rather than structure. Reynolds and Russell (2008) reached similar conclusions when comparing written and audio feedback, observing that written comments were often general and less helpful, whereas oral feedback—although less frequent—typically included deeper analysis, explanation, and revision-oriented suggestions. Across courses, written feedback emphasized evaluative judgments and structural issues, while oral feedback was more process-oriented, addressing the writing process and providing guidance for revision.

My Students’ Experiences and My Observations

As a long-time proponent of peer reviews in writing and literature classes, I often struggled with the quality of the reviews that students produced. Regardless of the amount of class time devoted to this exercise; the number of examples analyzed together; or the use of open-ended questions, checklists, or rubrics, the quality of students’ peer reviews remained uneven, with some producing thorough, insightful feedback and others struggling to provide meaningful guidance. At the same time, I was considering how to integrate multiple short oral assignments alongside existing coursework in a way that would allow students to meet all learning outcomes. To address this, I designed a combined approach that aligned the assignment goals while streamlining the workload.

Students completed two separate peer review assignments, which provided them with opportunities to develop feedback literacy through both written and oral modalities. The first required students to produce a traditional written peer review, supported by explicit instructions; instructor modeling; exemplars; and guided questions addressing assignment expectations, areas for improvement, and strengths. The second assignment asked students to respond to the same evaluative prompts, but to deliver their feedback orally through a narrated PowerPoint. The goal was simple: Ensure that students developed peer review skills and practiced oral communication skills.

The results were surprising. The first peer review yielded a common result: Students answered the questions, provided some general feedback, and offered generic ideas for improvement, even when explaining their written feedback orally. For example, one student wrote, “Your thesis seems too much like a statement rather than an argument,” but didn’t offer a suggestion to improve it. Another student said, “One of the things I really enjoyed . . . [was] your topic sentences. I really think they sounded very sophisticated and set up what you were going to talk about in the upcoming paragraph.” Since this is exactly what topic sentences are supposed to do, the feedback was polite and provided confirmation to the writer, but did not offer any further ideas or instructions. Overall, students’ feedback was product-oriented, focusing mostly on content.

On the other hand, the oral feedback was significantly stronger. Students offered feedback on the content of the writing, but provided explanations and analyses often absent in their written assessments. For example, students said things like, “Your thesis’s main point is clear, but it seems broader than it should be. Which aspects of student motivation will you talk about? That would make it easier to understand the direction of your paper.” This feedback goes beyond simple valuation, offering concrete analysis, clarification, and an actionable suggestion for improving the work. Another student said,

Your topic sentences are clear and make an argument as they are supposed to. What you could work on, though, is making them more specific. The second one sounds a little…um…boring? I’m sorry. It’s just that I have no real idea how it fits with the rest of the paper. Maybe you could add a detail that shows why it matters. That would help the topic sentence feel like it is doing something.

This feedback also moves beyond praise or general comments, identifying a specific aspect of the writing that could be improved, and provides a concrete suggestion for revision. By highlighting both what works and what could be strengthened, the reviewer helps the writer understand the purpose of the sentence within the larger argument and offers guidance that can directly inform improvements.

The best part of this experience was when students indicated that they were going to change something in their own paper when they saw what another student did, as in this example:

I liked how you worked your quotes into your sentences. It made the argument easier to follow and helped explain why the quote mattered. I realized that I just sort of stuck mine in there using the same words and just left them there. Seeing the way you did them helped me realize what I need to be doing.

This feedback is particularly effective because it demonstrates the reviewer reflecting on their own writing in response to a peer’s example. By articulating what worked well in the peer’s paper and comparing it to their own approach, the student identifies a specific area for improvement and outlines a clear plan for revision. This reflective engagement encourages metacognition and supports the transfer of strategies from one text to another, making the feedback both practical and instructional. The oral feedback also made feedback more natural and conversational, freeing students from worrying about formal language in their discussions with peers. In this setting, students proposed new ideas, elaborated on their reasoning, made connections to their own writing, and offered actionable suggestions. They demonstrated deeper engagement with the assignment, stronger understanding of both their own work and the peer review process, and increased self-reflection, making the feedback especially meaningful and instructional.

Student Outcomes

Students reported that they preferred giving written feedback because it allowed them greater control over their responses and more time to organize their ideas. This aligns with the findings of Reynolds and Russell (2008), who observed that 72 percent of students favored providing written feedback for similar reasons, and 73 percent preferred receiving written feedback because it was easier to process. My own students’ experiences reflect a similar pattern: Although they recognized the oral feedback as higher in quality and more detailed, engaging with it required more time to listen, reflect, and apply the suggestions to their own work. At the same time, the oral format appeared to reduce anxiety about language accuracy, allowing students to focus more on ideas and analysis. Taken together, these results suggest that written and oral peer feedback each offer distinct advantages: Written feedback supports careful planning and clarity, while oral feedback fosters deeper engagement, reflective thinking, and attention to process—highlighting the value of incorporating multiple modalities into peer review practice.

Future Directions

More research needs to be conducted, particularly regarding oral versus written feedback, and especially with first-year and community college students. In this experience, students benefited in distinct ways from both modalities: Written feedback supported careful planning and clarity, giving students time to organize their ideas, while oral feedback encouraged deeper engagement, reflective thinking, and attention to process. These observations highlight the importance of helping students understand the purpose of peer review and develop the skills necessary to participate meaningfully. As the quote from writer and artist Ann Marie Houghtailing (2020) reminds us, “Feedback is a free education to excellence. Seek it with sincerity and receive it with grace.” When students approach peer review with intention and openness, they not only improve their own work but also contribute to the learning of their peers, demonstrating that the value of feedback extends far beyond the immediate assignment. Overall, these experiences reinforce the benefit of integrating multiple feedback modalities and providing structured support to help students engage productively in the peer review process.

References

Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 8-21.

Chaktsiris, M. G., & Southworth, J. (2019). Thinking beyond writing development in peer review. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.1.8005

Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer, and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 33l-350.

Falchikov, N. (2007). The place of peers in learning and assessment. In D. Boud & N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term (pp. 128-143). Routledge.

Houghtailing, A. M. (2020, May 18). Feedback is a free education to excellence [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7mHEqE8TMM

Huisman, B., Saab, N., van den Broek, P., & van Driel, J. (2019). The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students’ academic writing: A meta‑analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(6), 863-880. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896

Kaufman, J. H., & Schunn, C. D. (2011). Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: Their origin and impact on revision work. Instructional Science, 39(3), 387-406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251‑010‑9133‑6

Nielsen, K. (2021). Peer and self-assessment practices for writing across the curriculum: Learner-differentiated effects on writing achievement. Educational Review, 73(6), 753-774.

Reynolds, J. A., & Russell, V. (2008). Can you hear us now?: A comparison of peer review quality when students give audio versus written feedback. The WAC Journal, 19(1), 29-44. https://wacclearinghouse.org/docs/journal/vol19/reynolds_russell.pdf

Shen, B., Bai, B., & Xue, W. (2020). The effects of peer assessment on learner autonomy: An empirical study in a Chinese college English writing class. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 64, Article 100821.

Stančić, M. (2021). Peer assessment as a learning and self-assessment tool: A look inside the black box. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(6), 852-864.

van den Berg, I., Admiraal, W., & Pilot, A. (2006). Designing student peer assessment in higher education: Analysis of written and oral peer feedback. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(2), 135-147.

Zhou, J., Zheng, Y., & Tai, J. H.‑M. (2020). Grudges and gratitude: the social‑affective impacts of peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(3), 345-358.

Zong, Z., Schunn, C. D., & Wang, Y. (2021). Learning to improve the quality peer feedback through experience with peer feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(6), 973-992.

Holly Wheeler is Professor, English and Philosophy, at Monroe Community College in Rochester, New York.

Opinions expressed in Learning Abstracts are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the League for Innovation in the Community College.