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