Skip to main content

Table 1 Student Peer Feedback and Outcomes in the Context of Collaborative Learning Environment

From: The utilization of peer feedback during collaborative learning in undergraduate medical education: a systematic review

Author (Year) Country Type of Course Participants Sample Size Type of Collaborative Learning Impact/Outcome of Peer Feedback Evaluated Colthart et al. Kirkpatrick (from Steinert et al.)
Ambercrombie (2015) [18] USA Not well described Third-year medical students 137 Not described Significant relationship between medical students’ performance-approach goals and perceptions of grading fairness in Calibrated Peer Review Grade 2 Level 2
Bryan (2005) [19] USA Basic sciences First-year medical students 213 Dissection groups Mixed outcomes for student learning and positive outcomes for assessment of and development of professionalism Grade 2 Levels 1 and 2
Chen (2009) [1] USA Basic sciences First-year medical students 49 Learning teams for course blocks Inconclusive outcomes for the assessment of professionalism Grade 3 Level 1
Cottrell (2006) [20] USA Basic sciences First-year medical students 111 PBL Positive outcomes for the assessment of professionalism Grade 4 Level 1
Cushing (2011) [21] UK Not well described First-year medical students and nursing students 93 OSCE groups Positive outcomes for the development of professionalism Grade 1 Levels 1 and 2
Dannefer (2005) [22] USA Not well described Second-year medical students 97 PBL; small group learning Positive outcomes for the assessment and development of professionalism Grade 1 Level 2b
Dannefer (2013) [23] USA Not well described First-year medical students 32 PBL Positive outcomes for the assessment of professionalism Grade 2 Level 3
Emke (2015) [24] USA Not well described Second-year medical students Not described TBL Positive outcomes for the assessment of professionalism Grade 2 Levels 1 and 2a
Emke (2017) [25] USA Not well described Second-year medical students 246 TBL Positive outcomes for the assessment of professionalism Grade 2 Level 2
Garner (2010) [26] UK Not well described First-year medical students 30 PBL Positive outcomes for the assessment of professionalism Grade 1 Level 2a
Kamp (2013) [27] Netherlands Not well described Second-year medical students 87 PBL Mixed outcomes for student learning and positive outcomes for team dynamics; impact of the feedback could be increased with individual reflection, goal setting, and face-to-face clarification Grade 2 Levels 2 and 3
Kamp (2014) [28] Netherlands Basic sciences First-year medical students 242 PBL Mixed outcomes for student learning Grade 3 Levels 1 and 2b
Machado (2008) [29] Brazil Not well described First-year medical students 349 PBL Negative outcomes in student learning (no improvement) Grade 2 Level 1
Nieder [2005) [30] USA Basic sciences First-year medical students 97 TBL Inconclusive outcomes for student learning Grade 2 Level 2b
Nofziger (2010) [31] USA Not well described Second and fourth-year medical students 138 PBL; interviewing groups; lab groups; clinical teams Positive outcomes for the development of professionalism Grade 2 Levels 1 and 2a
Parikh (2001) [4] Canada Not well described Fourth-year medical students 103 PBL Students find peer feedback as a helpful feedback modality; schools would like increase their use of peer feedback Grade 3 Levels 2a and 3
Parmelee (2009) [32] USA Not well described First-year medical students (also surveyed in their second-year) 180 TBL Student satisfaction with peer evaluation declined from the first year to the second year Grade 3 Level 2a
Papinczak (2007a) [6] Australia Basic sciences First-year medical students 165 PBL Positive outcomes for student learning and development of professionalism Grade 2 Level 1
Papinczak (2007b) [33] Australia Not well described First-year medical students 125 PBL Peer assessment is more accurate than self-assessment; Correlation between peer and tutor feedback scores improved with iterations Grade 1 Level 2a
Pocock (2010) [34] UK Not well described Second-year medical students 180 (groups) PBL Positive outcomes for team dynamics Grade 1 Level 2a
Reiter (2002) [35] Canada Not well described First-year medical students 36 PBL Poor correlations between peer assessment compared to assessments from self and tutors Grade 2 Level 1
Renko (2002) [36] Finland Not well described Fifth-year medical students 49 PBL Peer observers provided feedback based on analysis of skills used to solve a problem; learned value of careful listening as an outside analyzer Grade 1 Level 1
Roberts (2017) [37] Australia Not well described First and second-year medical students 633 PBL Mixed outcomes for the assessment of professionalism; First year students’ ratings provided more reliable than second year students’ ratings Grade 3 Level 1
Rudy (2001) [38] USA Not well described First-year medical students 97 Interview course groups Inconclusive outcomes for student learning and positive outcomes for assessment of professionalism Grade 1 Level 2b
Schönrock-Adema (2007) [39] Netherlands Not well described First-year medical students 278 (1st semester); 272 (2nd semester) Tutorial groups Mixed outcomes for the assessment and development of professionalism Grade 2 Level 3
Sullivan (1999) [5] USA Clerkships Third-year medical students 154 PBL Compared associations between self, peer, and faculty evaluations and found a moderate correlation between peer and tutor ratings Grade 1 Level 1
Tayem (2015) [40] Bahrain Not well described Fourth-year medical students 55 PBL Positive outcomes for student learning, development of professionalism, and team dynamics Grade 1 Level 1
van Mook (2012) [41] Netherlands Not well described Second-year medical students 307 PBL Negative outcomes for team dynamics and the assessment of professionalism Grade 2 Level 3
Vasan (2009) [42] USA Basic sciences First-year medical students 355 TBL Positive outcomes for student learning and negative outcomes for team dynamics Grade 1 Level 1
White (2012) [43] Canada Clerkships Third-year medical students 116 Clinical teams Peers provided more feedback on the “team member” (i.e. work ethic, communication, leadership) and “person” (i.e. compassion, respect, humor) domains of clinical performance compared to other assessors Grade 1 Level 2a
Zgheib (2016) [44] Lebanon Not well described First and second-year medical students 102 TBL Positive outcomes for student learning, team dynamics and development of professionalism Grade 2 Levels 2 and 3
  1. Out of 31 studies, 11 provided students with instruction on peer feedback. None of the included studies provided any information regarding if faculty evaluated the quality of peer feedback. Eight studies used peer feedback as formative (ungraded) assessment, 4 studies for summative (graded) assessment, 2 for both formative and summative assessments, and the rest of included failed to describe how peer feedback was used for outcome assessment