Peer assessment in high enrollment courses

In a recent blog post by Dr. Mary Ellen Weimer, “Peer Assessment is Not an Elixir for All Group Work Challenges,” the strategy of using peer assessment in group work was questioned.  Dr. Weimer points out a startling hypothesis from an article that resulted from a meta-analysis of group learning activities in 32 studies published between 1974 and 2011 in Teaching of Psychology.  The authors Tomcho and Foeis (see citation below) posited that the results from the studies across all these decades of empirical research out of higher ed psychology classrooms suggest that peer assessment may have actually hindered the faculty’s desired learning outcomes for their students.  Instead, from the data they examined, it seemed that group members are more concerned about how their peers will evaluate them rather than learning the material. 

Weimer expands on this by reminding us in the higher ed teaching profession that “our primary motivation for using peer assessment shouldn’t be as a mechanism for dealing with students who aren’t contributing as they should.” She encourages her readers to use peer review as a modeling process for teaching the principles of constructive feedback – and that this is a lifelong skill we should all work to maintain as professionals in any career, but especially in academe. Weimer challenges us to explore the use of peer assessment and find out if the way we use it in our classrooms contributes positively to overall group functioning and encourages individuals to accept their responsibilities… [To use] approaches to peer assessment that do promote, not compromise, the learning experiences of group members.”

As a professor in the Statistics Department here at UK, I just try to approach all of these things with the same academic spirit I approached my research for 25 years: with detachment.  I am motivated by much passion and a strong rational understanding of “need” but I am not, as my young kids like to say “so in love with this that I want to marry it” followed by giggles.  Fact is, with almost all universities faced with a butts-in-seats accounting system and even reward system, we are not going to be able to always do what’s best in the abstract sense, but may have to do what is best in a practical sense. 

In Statistics we can’t do staged review and resubmit for 72 sections of STA 210 for 3-5 mini projects per student per semester.   For us, the Calibrated Peer Review (“CPR,” a freely shared software product from the University of California System) is better than what we do now.  Currently, the grading of student work is more a Herculean approach by the instructor to get all the projects graded and returned with comments, comments that are rarely (never?) read.  Plus, I have to worry about keeping my personnel sane and in place.  They won’t stay if the job is equivalent to torture without reward.   Heck, if you are ok with torture you might as well work for a pharmaceutical (if you are a statistician) where the (monetary) rewards are great. 

So I have to be  ready to experiment and innovate, as well as be a manager of people, and a teacher and content expert all at once, and all those jobs influence my actions.   I’m not at all sure peer review is going to be what we really need.  I am sure it is better than what I’m currently doing, though I may end up convinced that my “by hand” peer reviewing that I did to transition students to CPR is just as effective and far less trouble for the students.   At some point I’ll have to make that call for STA but I don’t want to make it too soon, or only because the idea of it rankles some authors.  I’m a very empirical guy.  I want to experience it and then decide.

Besides, in the words of that renowned 21st Century philosopher Taylor Swift:  “People throw rocks at things that shine ….”    From the mouths of babes.    I just duck and go on.  Eventually I may throw a few rocks at peer review myself, but not this soon.

Dr. William S. Rayens, Professor
Statistics Department, College of Arts & Sciences


Tomcho, T.J. and Foeis, R. (2012). Meta-analysis of group learning activities: Empirically based teaching recommendations. Teaching of Psychology, 39(3), 159-169.

Weimer, M. (2012). Peer Assessment is Not an Elixir for All Group Work Challenges. Teaching Professor Blog. Accessed October 10, 2012.

Training Students for Critical Thinking

Dear Colleagues: Having worked backwards from my classroom experiences in Pharmacy Therapeutics (PY2), I have slowly resolved that our students are not very good critical thinkers. What I mean by that from class observation is that they are not able to make decisions and explain how they make the ones they do make. I have been consulting with my colleagues about this and also engaged our main campus academic administration and other senior faculty. Many of our COP faculty agree with the general notion.

I have been initially exploring the literature on critical thinking (and a website of Critical Thinking Institute) and then applied back to what I perceive are areas for improvement. We give students lots of content but not a structure for process. Our students, when presented with patient cases, are not able to process the information, determine what is relevant, and pose for themselves what question(s) are being asked of them and to then go through a problem resolution mechanism. As one website described, they are not able to ask themselves “What is the essential question?”.
The fundamental critical thinking process training we may have assumed from pre-pharmacy training. Then we expect them to take it up another notch by applying this critical thinking discipline to the pharmacy discipline with greater accountability during academic progression. We do problem-based learning and this is usually where we are asking them to model our (faculty) thinking processes. However the foundations are not present to give the students tools they need at the front end. So, many are not prepared this way. I think some of the liberal arts college students may have a better training here than UK students at baseline.

Although educational development is not a strength of mine, or in terms of background, I am quite intrigued by this critical thinking paradigm, and would like to engage in development of this in a new COP curriculum. I will be learning more about this and seek additional guidance from experts in the field. I would like to be able to, on the short term, present some of the principles about critical thinking so that I can work with other COP faculty to insert something for all students depending on year in program. I wish to use it in my own teaching. Then, as we evolve a new curriculum, I wish to work with our faculty to engage the basic training in critical thinking and then add to our problem-based learning techniques already in place. It is my sense that we need a front-end and back-end to what we are currently doing.

I would like to adopt these ideas and test-drive them in my next teaching cycles. I think there is a real opportunity here to further distinguish the UK COP instruction and training and scholarship. I look forward to feedback from those with similar interests, needs and desire to develop methods to enhance our students training.
Dan Wermeling, Pharm.D.
Associate Professor
UK College of Pharmacy


Welcome to the University of Kentucky Faculty Toolkit for the UK Core Research Group. We invite you to become a guest author and write about your teaching and learning ideas here.

If you’ve never contributed to a blog before, here are some suggestions for your first post.

  1. You can find new ideas for what to blog about by reading about the various projects and research progress reports your colleagues have created.
  2. Add PressThis to your browser. It creates a new blog post for you about any interesting  page you read on the web.
  3. Log in and contribute a status update today on your own research. You can always preview any post or edit you before you share it to the world.


Side note, should the Welcome page also include thoughts about what else is provided on this site?  Maybe a brief overview of the main headings listed across the top.