This post provides some guidance on the Peer Review Tools available at Durham University, and provides comparison tables for their functionality. Please note that the licensing of some of these tools is under review this academic year (2024/25) and so please contact the Science Digital Education team for advice if you are thinking of making use of one of them.
- What is Peer Review?
- Why Should I Use It?
- peerScholar Similarity Checking Notice
- Tool Comparison Tables
- Next Steps
- References
What Is Peer Review?
Peer review is a collaborative learning process in which students evaluate and provide constructive feedback on each other’s work. Peer review may be structured in different ways. For example, individuals may review their peers’ assignments, or groups of students may review the work of other groups. Peer review for groupwork can also include options for students to rate or feed back on the contributions of their team-mates. Students may then reflect on and assimilate the feedback into future revisions of their work or future assignments.
Why Should I Use It?
Peer review encourages critical thinking and allows students to develop transferable skills such as communication and teamwork. Research highlights the benefits of peer review in promoting active learning, improving academic performance, and fostering student engagement (K. Cho & MacArthur, 2010; Nicol et al., 2014). Peer assessment also supports students’ understanding of assessment criteria, and the process of having students give feedback engages their higher level skills, such as analysis, synthesis and judgement (Carless & Boud 2018). Grouped together, this larger volume of feedback from multiple perspectives encourages students into more responsive reflection.
peerScholar Similarity Checking Notice
Durham University provides access to several different peer review tools: Blackboard Peer Review assignments, peerScholar, Feedback Fruits and Turnitin PeerMark. Please note, however, that similarity checking for potential plagiarism is NOT available in the peerScholar tool, so if this is critically important to you when setting up a peer review exercise then this tool should be discounted.
Tool Comparison Tables
Which of the available tools you may best use to create your peer review assignment will depend on the exact type of peer review scenario you wish to create. The tables below act as a comparison of our four peer review tools, with the rows in each table outlining different questions staff may have about the functionalities needed when setting up a peer review assignment. The tables display alongside each question whether each of the four tools currently in use at Durham University (each shown in its own column) supports this functionality or not. Use these tables to help guide you towards a recommended tool.
- What is being reviewed?
- Who is reviewing who?
- What sort of feedback is being given?
- How much guidance will there be for reviewers?
- Handling non- and late-submissions
What is being reviewed?
Does the tool support specialist content? (such as programming code/maths equations/video content)
| Blackboard | peerScholar | Turnitin PeerMark | FeedbackFruits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes, some maths and coding is supported, via the in-built text editor or through file upload, as with standard Blackboard assignments. Video submissions are supported by the Panopto (Encore) integration, and can also be added as a link. | Yes, some maths and coding is supported, via the in-built text editor or through file upload. The ‘Classic Individual’ activity type allows for a specific submission type of ‘Computer Code’ (under ‘Advanced Settings’). Supported codes include: json, javascript, html, xml, typescript, python, php, java, go, markdown and r. Video submissions can be added as a link. | Yes and no. Turnitin PeerMark can accept documents that include code and equations, but the similarity report feature does not reliably detect matches. There have been some reports of problems submitting PDF files created by LaTeX into Turnitin PeerMark assignments. Video submissions can be added as a link. | Yes, some maths and coding is supported. Math notation can be entered between dollar signs ($$) and is rendered using KaTeX. FeedbackFruits supports the upload of video content from streaming services, including Panopto, as long as the video is set to be public. |
Who is reviewing who?
Can students submit individually and review individually?
| Blackboard | peerScholar | Turnitin PeerMark | FeedbackFruits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes. | Yes, via ‘Classic Individual’ activity type. | Yes, via PeerMark | Yes. |
Can students submit individually and review within a group?
| Blackboard | peerScholar | Turnitin PeerMark | FeedbackFruits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes, but you would need to create multiple assignments and use conditional availability to restrict the links to each group (the peer review option does not work with group assignments). | Yes. The ‘Case Study’ activity type allows you to allocate students to ‘cases’, so that a subset of students all work on the same topic. You can then choose to only allow peer review within that group or ‘case’. | No. | Yes, you can set an activity where students submit individually, and then review within groups (students get individually assigned to someone in their group). |
Can students submit individually and review submissions from other groups?
| Blackboard | peerScholar | Turnitin PeerMark | FeedbackFruits |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. | Yes. If set up as a ‘Case Study’ activity type, you can choose to allow peer review between groups or ‘cases’, but there’s no control over which other cases they get to review. | No. | Yes, you can set an activity where students submit individually, and then review outside their group (students get individually assigned to someone not in their group). |
Can students submit as a group but review as individuals?
| Blackboard | peerScholar | Turnitin PeerMark | FeedbackFruits |
|---|---|---|---|
| No, does not support group submissions. | Yes, via ‘Teamwork and Group Work’ assessment, then the subset ‘Individual Assess’. | No. | Yes. |
Can students submit as a group and review as a group?
| Blackboard | peerScholar | Turnitin PeerMark | FeedbackFruits |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. | Yes. This is done using the ‘Teamwork and Group Work’ assessment type and then selecting the subset ‘Groups Assess’ as its sub-type. | No. | Yes. |
Can students review peers’ contributions to the group (in addition to, or instead of, reviewing submitted work)?
| Blackboard | peerScholar | Turnitin PeerMark | FeedbackFruits |
|---|---|---|---|
| No, this tool is for reviewing work only. | Yes, via ‘Teamwork and Group Work’ assessment, then ‘Groups Member Evaluation’ as its sub-type. Note this is a separate activity to peer reviewing work; it does not include or link to a submission. | No, this tool is for reviewing work only. | Yes, through the ‘Group Member Evaluation’ activity. Note this is a separate activity to peer reviewing work; it does not include or link to a submission. |
Does the tool allow you to specify which students review other students?
| Blackboard | peerScholar | Turnitin PeerMark | FeedbackFruits |
|---|---|---|---|
| No, random allocation only. | No, random allocation only. | Yes. | Yes. |
What sort of feedback is being given?
Can students provide feedback only and no grade?
| Blackboard | peerScholar | Turnitin PeerMark | FeedbackFruits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes. | Yes. In ‘Classic Individual’ activity type, Peer Rating grades can be set to zero, so students contribute feedback but effectively don’t assign a grade to others. | Yes. | Yes. |
Can students provide feedback and a mark that contributes to the overall grade?
| Blackboard | peerScholar | Turnitin PeerMark | FeedbackFruits |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. | Yes. In ‘Classic Individual’ activity type, Peer Rating grades can be included. Same as above, only this time adding in a score. | Yes. | Yes. |
Can students be given a grade for completing reviews?
| Blackboard | peerScholar | Turnitin PeerMark | FeedbackFruits |
|---|---|---|---|
| This isn’t supported as a separate step in the grading process, but could be manually included in the grade by the tutor. | ‘Student Participation’ in the Grading component can award marks for students completing the ‘Assess’ phase, but it’s ‘all or nothing’ so there’s no granularity. | No. | Yes. It is part of the grading weighting. |
How much guidance will there be for reviewers?
Can students complete a pre-defined rubric (without grades) set up by the tutor?
| Blackboard | peerScholar | Turnitin PeerMark | FeedbackFruits |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. Students can view the rubric when viewing the assignment instructions, but they can’t complete it themselves – in fact they can’t even see it while writing their reviews. | Yes, via ‘Classic Individual’ activity. ‘Comments’ or MCQ-style check boxes, dropdown menus, matrices, star ratings and scale systems can be set up to pre-define the nature of the review rubric. | No. | Yes. |
Can students complete a pre-defined rubric (with grades) set up by tutor?
| Blackboard | peerScholar | Turnitin PeerMark | FeedbackFruits |
|---|---|---|---|
| No. | No. The Matrix review option is not tagged with numerical grades that peerScholar will add up to provide an overall grade. | Yes. | Grading is a separate option. |
Can students be given suggested criteria for feedback?
| Blackboard | peerScholar | Turnitin PeerMark | FeedbackFruits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Possibly, if included in the assignment instructions, but there isn’t an option to provide a proforma for reviewers to complete. | Yes, via ‘Classic Individual’ activity. ‘Comments’ can be set up to pre-define the nature of the review rubric. | No. | Yes, if set up. |
Can students write free text reviews?
| Blackboard | peerScholar | Turnitin PeerMark | FeedbackFruits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes. | Yes. The peer assessment ‘Comment’ tool is used for this. | Yes. | Yes. |
Handling non- and late-submissions
How does each tool handle late submissions?
| Blackboard | peerScholar | Turnitin PeerMark | FeedbackFruits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Late submitters can still participate, if the review deadline is still open (and peers are still reviewing when they submit). | Will allow late submissions. Tutors can also submit on behalf of a student, or reset the phase so the student can go back in and submit themselves. | PeerMark does not support late submissions. | Can set a flag to allow late submissions. These will be identified to the teacher. In the unlikely case that all students have finished reviewing already and one student hands in late, this late student will be able to review others’ work, but will not receive a review. This is seen as the penalty of being late. Teachers are able to manually allocate these students to still receive a review if this happens. |
How does each tool handle non-submissions?
| Blackboard | peerScholar | Turnitin PeerMark | FeedbackFruits |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reviewers are allocated randomly, so those who have submitted should always have something to review. Students who don’t submit can’t review other submissions. | Automatic redistribution. | Students can participate in peer reviews even if they haven’t submitted their own work. This is an option that teachers can choose to switch on or off when setting up the activity. | Students can participate in peer reviews even if they haven’t submitted their own work. This is an option that teachers can choose to switch on or off when setting up the activity. |
Next Steps
If you would like to explore Peer Review using any of the applications listed above, you can find more information on the following websites.
Alternatively, if you would like to speak to us for advice on implementing Peer Review you can use the contact us form available on this site. Please note that this service is obviously only available to Durham University staff.
Blackboard
- Preview, Evaluate, and Manage Self and Peer Assessments
- Peer Review for Qualitative Peer Assessments
PeerScholar
Turnitin PeerMark
Feedback Fruits
References
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: enabling uptake of feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
Cho, K. & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 328-338.
Liu, N. F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290.
Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2013). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102-122.