Peer Feedback Opportunities That Actually Help Students Learn

By: Shawn Quilter 

Designing meaningful peer feedback opportunities in online courses can be one effective method to deepen student learning. Many instructors have tried peer review at some point, sometimes with mixed results. You may have seen thoughtful responses that really help students improve their work—or you may have seen comments like “Looks good!” or “Nice job!” that don’t move learning forward. The difference usually isn’t whether peer feedback is used, but how it is designed.

When peer feedback is structured intentionally, it can become a powerful learning tool. Research on peer learning shows that students often learn just as much from reviewing peers’ work as they do from receiving feedback themselves. When students evaluate another student’s draft, they must apply the same criteria that instructors use for grading. That process requires them to analyze ideas, organization, and clarity in ways they may not do when working on their own assignments. A helpful overview of peer review as a teaching tool, which includes resources and references, can be found here. 

One of the most important design choices is giving students a clear lens for evaluating work. If students are simply asked to “give feedback,” many will default to surface-level comments. A rubric or structured guide changes that dynamic immediately. Instead of vague reactions, students respond to specific criteria such as clarity of an argument, alignment between evidence and claims, organization of ideas, or strength of examples. Rubrics move students from opinion-based responses to analytical thinking. If you use Canvas, you can attach a rubric directly to a peer-review assignment so that students see the criteria while reviewing their classmates’ work. Canvas provides step-by-step instructions for building and attaching rubrics here.

Another key factor is helping students understand what useful feedback actually looks like. Many students assume feedback means correcting grammar or pointing out mistakes. In reality, the most helpful feedback usually focuses on higher-level thinking. For example, instead of writing “Your argument is confusing,” a student might write, “Your argument about teacher retention is interesting, but I wasn’t sure how the evidence in paragraph three connects to your main claim.” The second response identifies the issue, explains the reader’s experience, and invites revision. One helpful way to introduce this idea is to discuss different types of feedback: affirming feedback that highlights what works well, clarifying feedback that identifies confusing points, and suggestive feedback that offers ideas for improvement. Providing a few sample comments or modeling feedback in class, such as is demonstrated here, can significantly improve the quality of peer responses.

Peer feedback also has a social dimension that instructors should not overlook. Students often worry about hurting someone’s feelings, sounding overly critical, or being judged themselves. These concerns can influence how honest or detailed their feedback becomes. One strategy that helps in some contexts is anonymous peer review. Anonymous feedback can reduce anxiety and make students more comfortable offering candid suggestions. Most learning management systems support anonymous peer review, including Canvas. Instructions for setting this up are available here. Another helpful approach is emphasizing a culture of revision. When students understand that drafts are meant to improve and that feedback is part of the normal academic process, they are more open to constructive critique.

Online courses actually provide several advantages for peer feedback. Students have time to read carefully and reflect before responding, rather than reacting quickly during class discussion. Many digital tools also allow comments directly on documents or structured feedback forms. One common approach is draft peer review, where students submit an early version of an assignment and then review two or three peers’ drafts using a rubric. This works well for research papers, project proposals, lesson plans, or presentations. Another approach is dialogic feedback through discussion boards, where students post work and then engage in conversation about it. Peers ask questions, offer suggestions, and the original author responds and reflects. This creates a feedback dialogue rather than a one-time critique. A third approach involves reflective self-assessment. After receiving peer feedback, students respond to prompts such as what feedback surprised them, what revisions they plan to make, and what they learned from reviewing others’ work.

Of course, peer feedback does come with challenges. Some students will naturally give stronger feedback than others, which can lead to uneven quality. Rubrics, examples, and brief instruction on how to give feedback can help reduce this problem. Students may also be skeptical of peer feedback at first, especially if they believe instructor feedback is more authoritative. One strategy is to evaluate the quality of feedback students provide, which signals that thoughtful peer review is an important part of the learning process. Time can also be a concern, but peer feedback often leads to stronger final submissions and can reduce the amount of corrective feedback instructors need to provide later.

The central idea is simple: peer feedback is not just a grading shortcut. When designed thoughtfully, it becomes a learning strategy that helps students think more critically about quality work. By analyzing peers’ drafts, applying rubrics, and reflecting on revisions, students begin to see academic work as a process rather than a one-time performance. Even a small step—such as adding a structured peer review before a final submission—can help students engage more deeply with course expectations and improve their work along the way.

Editor’s note: this work is based on Shawn’s presentation at the 2026 CONNECT: Michigan Teaching and Learning Conference, held on February 13, 2026 at Eastern Michigan University.