Online peer assessment (OPA) was designed by linking it with e-journal writing assignments using a free app, Peergrade (https://app.peergrade.io), as the platform. The three OPA design elements commonly suggested in the literature were considered.  First, OPA training included sharing the project objectives with the participants, teaching them how to use Peergrade, sharing the peer assessment rubric in question form (with an accompanying Q&A session) and giving them the opportunity to practise assessing a sample e-journal entry. The training materials (See Appendices 1& 2) were made into text and video clips which were uploaded on Moodle for reference. Second, guiding questions were provided for the participants to use in their OPA, which were in line with the original e-journal rubric but made more explicit references to rational thinking and argumentative writing. Third, the participants were required to enter their answers to each guiding question in no less than 20 words. Therefore, they needed to justify their judgement. At the end of the comment sheet, they were asked to summarise their suggestions on how to improve the quality of e-journal writing. Figure 1 presents the interface of the Peergrade results.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

                     Figure 1. Interface of Peergrade results in instructor management system

​

In addition to the general design of OPA, this intervention included three culturally embedded elements. First, to mitigate the negative influence of face, anonymity was obtained by randomly assigning peers to review e-journal drafts on Peergrade. The double-blind nature of the review process provided a safe environment for the students to feel comfortable critically commenting on the work of their peers and making honest and direct suggestions. Second, to encourage the participants to judge critically using peer pressure, the participants were required to evaluate the usefulness of their peers’ feedback at the end of OPA. Figure 2 shows the interface for student evaluation of the usefulness of peer feedback on Peergrade. Third, to motivate the participants to actively engage in OPA, their participation in OPA accounted for 4% of the final course mark.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Figure 2. Interface of students’ evaluation of the usefulness of peer feedback in instructor management system

​

Enlightened by Rubin’s (2006) framework of the academic journal review process, the instructors played the administrative role of ‘editor’, managing all online submissions and coordinating the peer assessment process, while the participants played the two roles of ‘writer’ and ‘reviewer’, submitting their e-journal entries for review and reviewing the work of their peers assigned to them. The participants completed two cycles of Peergrade activities. Figure 3 presents a single cycle, comprising four stages: submitting a draft, reviewing the work of two students, reacting to peer review comments and revising their draft.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

                                       Figure 3. A cycle of Peergrade activities

​