Discover how Peer Review was scaled to facilitate draft essay reviews in a 1,000-student class.
Faced with the daunting task of grading 1,000 essays, the ENGGEN 140 teaching team turned to FeedbackFruits’ Peer Review tool for a creative solution. Curious to see how peer review transformed the writing skills of first-year engineering students? Read on to uncover the full story.
Course: ENGGEN 140: Fundamentals of Engineering in Society
Class size: ~1,000 students
Tool used: Peer Review
Insights shared by: Michael Hoffman (course coordinator and lecturer)
Course overview
ENGGEN 140 is a foundational course, designed to introduce first-year engineering students to the intersection of engineering with chemistry, biology, and societal issues. The course emphasises the importance of integrating scientific principles with social considerations, including the environment, Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi), and the role of professional engineering skills in society.
The writing challenge
While many engineering students might think they’ve dodged a lot of writing by choosing this field, showing critical thinking through written communication is still crucial, which is why the course features a writing assignment worth 12% of the total grade. With around 1,000 students, managing and grading individual written assignments is a big task. Each student must submit a 700-word essay, which adds up to a huge amount of text to be marked. The teaching team figured out that marking these essays would take about 120 hours of TA time. This workload called for a creative solution to ensure timely and effective feedback.
Instructions by teacher. Submit your draft essay, then review three of your peers’ submissions. Use the rubric to guide your review comments. Guidance regarding assignment details can be found at the Writing Assignment page. You are not permitted to use tools or software which can be used to synthesise and analyse information when completing this assessment. This is because we need to assess your ability to synthesise and ana- lyse information, and we are unable to do so if you use a tool which does this on your behalf. Examples of such tools/software include (but are not limited to) Copilot, ChatGPT, or Gemini. In submitting your work, you agree to the following academic integrity statement: As a member of the University’s student body, I will complete this assessment in a fair, honest, responsible and trustworthy manner. This means that: I will not seek out any unauthorised help in completing this assessment. Please note: unauthorised help includes seeking assistance or advice from anyone, using a tutorial or answer service whether in person or online, asking fellow students, friends or family, etc. I will not discuss or share the content of the assessment with anyone else in any form, including but not limited to, Canvas, Piazza, Chegg, Facebook, Twitter, Discord, Messenger or any other social media plat- form or messaging service within the assessment window. I will not reproduce and/or share the content of this assessment in any domain or in any form where it may be accessed by a third party. I am aware the University of Auckland may use Turnitin or any other plagiarism detecting methods to check my content. I declare that this assessment is my own work, except where acknowledged appropriately (e.g., use of referencing). Please note: It is not appropriate (and will be considered plagiarism) to reproduce or copy material provided by your teachers, including lecture slides, lecture notes and/or course readings in your exam. All content must be written in your own words and referenced appropriately. If quoting a source, quotations must be used and referenced appropriately. I declare that this work has not been submitted for academic credit in this course or another University of Auckland course, or elsewhere. I declare that I generated the calculations and data in this assessment independently, using only the tools and resources defined for use in this assessment. I declare that I composed the writing and/or translations in this assessment independently, using on the tools and resources defined for use in this assessment. I understand the University expects all students to complete coursework with integrity and honesty. I promise to complete all online assessment with the same academic integrity standards and values. Any breach of this statement or identified academic misconduct will be followed up and may result in disciplinary action.
Figure 1: Instructions for peer review submissions
Technology for efficiency
Since 2023, the team has been piloting the use of FeedbackFruits’ Peer Review tool to facilitate a draft essay peer review process. This approach not only helped manage the workload but also enhanced student learning by engaging them in the assessment process and enabling them to learn from one another.
Using Peer Review has allowed the team to:
- Encourage early engagement
Students were required to submit a draft essay, motivating them to start their assignments early.
- Foster reflective learning
By reviewing three peers’ submissions using a provided rubric, students internalised the assessment criteria and reflected on their own writing.
- Improve writing skills
The feedback received from peers provided valuable insights, helping students improve their final submissions.
“I think FeedbackFruits was very good in encouraging students to put more effort in earlier on and ultimately is bringing about better results in the end.” – Michael Hoffman
What it looked like in practice
- Draft submission and peer review
Students submitted a draft version of their essay and reviewed three peers’ drafts using a rubric provided by the teaching team.
- Anonymised reviews
Reviews were anonymised to ensure unbiased feedback.
- Interim feedback
The peer review process provided interim feedback, which was crucial for students to refine their work before final submission.
“Part of the feedback that we ask the students to give each other was to try mark the three other students against that same rubric that their own work is going to be marked on against. The idea there was that, you know, that would help students to think in terms of the rubric to reflect on their own writing as well.” – Michael Hoffman
screenshot of student progress analytics showing completed/completed late, and students with deadline extensions along with number of files handed in
Figure 2: Student submission progress analytics
Student analytics for reviews, including information on what students have extensions, percent weighting of the task, most commonly seen words such as essay, good, source, conclusion. Progress bar showing student progress by percent and a list of blacked out student names showing the status of their completion ranging from not started: 23 students to completed 944 students
Figure 3: Student analytics for peer reviews
Key takeaways
- Enhanced student effort
Michael noted that either the knowledge that their work would be read by others or the actual feedback from peers encouraged students to put more effort into their writing, resulting in better final submissions.
- Setting realistic expectations
The team learned that communicating the average grades from previous years is essential to set realistic expectations for students regarding the difference between peer and final (awarded by teachers) marks, as students often tend to be more generous in their evaluation of the peer’s work. This will be implemented in future iterations of the course.
- Skill development
Despite some students initially choosing engineering to avoid writing, the course highlighted the importance of writing skills in the field. Scaffolding this skill development through peer review helped students practice and improve.
Technical insights
Setting up the FeedbackFruits tool this year was straightforward, especially with the ability to import settings from the previous year. Minor technical issues, such as submission discrepancies, were manageable and did not significantly impact the overall process.
Future improvements
The team plans to refine the peer review process further, possibly by providing more detailed guidance on giving constructive feedback and ensuring that peer reviews do not include numerical grades to avoid setting false expectations.
To conclude
Using FeedbackFruits’ Peer Review tool in ENGGEN 140 has proven to be a valuable addition, enhancing student learning and easing the marking load for teaching staff. By fostering early engagement and reflective learning, the tool has helped students produce better quality work. This case demonstrates the potential of leveraging peer review tools to manage large classes effectively while enhancing student learning outcomes.
We welcome hearing about your experiences or questions regarding team assessment in large classes. How might you adapt this approach in your teaching context? Drop us a line! Email: teachwell@auckland.ac.nz
See also
FeedbackFruits
Find out more about the Peer Review Assignment and Group Member Evaluation tools.