WebPA is a peer assessment tool that you can access from duo.
This video provides an overview of it:
Note that it is not a tool for creating submission points. Rather, it is a tool that students can use to assess the contribution of their peers (and optionally, themselves) in any group-based activity.
The first thing to get your head around is whether you want to perform peer feedback or peer assessment. David Nichols from Strathclyde University has written extensively on this. Peer feedback involves comments, but no grading. Peer assessment alters the final marks students receive, and is often used for group work. As the name suggests, WebPA only supports peer assessment. If you want to carry out peer feedback, contact a member of the LTT for more details.
Add a link to vendor help pages and level of support.
Assuming that you would like to carry out some form of peer assessment, you might find some of these resources useful:
Journal Articles which focus on WebPA
Loddington, S, Pond, K, Wilkinson, N and Willmot, P (2009) The development and evolution of an online peer-moderated-marking tool: WebPA. British Journal of Learning Technology, 40 (2), 329-341
Pond, K, Coates, DS and Palermo, O (2007) ‘Student experiences of peer review marking of team projects. International Journal of Management Education, 6 (2), 30-43.
Willmot P and Crawford AR (2007) Peer review of team marks using a web-based tool: an evaluation. Engineering Education: Journal of the Higher Education Academy Engineering Subject Centre, 2 (1), 59-66
Peer Assessment Journal Articles
De Grez, l, Valcke M & Roozen I (2012) How effective are self- and peer assessment of oral presentation skills compared with teachers’ assessments? Active Learning in Higher Education, 13 (2), 129-142
Fellenz MR (2006) Towards Fairness in Assessing Student Groupwork: A Protocol for Peer Evaluation of Individual Contributions. Journal of Management Education, 30 (4), 570-591.
Hall D and Buzwell S (2012) The problem of free-riding in group projects: Looking beyond social loafing as reason for non-contribution. Active Learning in Higher Education 14 (1), 37-49.
Mulder RA, Pearce JM and Baik C (2014) Peer review in higher education: Student perceptions before and after participation. Active Learning in Higher Education 15 (2), 157-171.
Further resources can be found at the Higher Education Academy