Content uploaded by Sarah Gielen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sarah Gielen
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Peer assessment as a tool for learning
Abstract
Het proefschrift omvat drie theoretische bijdragen en drie empirische studies over peer assessment, een algemene introductie en afsluitende reflecties met een discussie van de resultaten, een discussie van de onderwijskundige implicaties en een discussie van enkele methodologische kwesties.
De eerste bijdrage beschrijft de rol die peer assessment kan vervullen in het versterken van de consequentiële validiteit van een assessment systeem. Ten eerste worden de verschillende soorten effecten op leren verhelderd die assessment in het algemeen kan hebben, en worden de ontwerpprincipes geformuleerd om de consequentiële validiteit van een assessment systeem te verhogen. Vervolgens wordt aangetoond dat peer assessment helpt om tegemoet te komen aan de geïdentificeerde ontwerpprincipes die de consequentiële validiteit van een assessment systeem doen stijgen. Meer specifiek toont dit proefschrift dat peer assessment het beter doenbaar kan maken om uitdagende en authentieke taken op te nemen in een assessment syteem; dat het kan helpen om de assessment eisen duidelijker te maken naar studenten toe; dat het kan zorgen voor een supplement voor of een vervanging van formatief assessment door de docent of leraar; en ten slotte, dat het de respons op de feedback van de docent of leraar kan ondersteunen.
De tweede bijdrage gaat verder dan de impact van peer assessment op de consequentiële validiteit, en behandelt het probleem dat de output van peer assessment tegen een verscheidenheid aan kwaliteitscriteria beoordeeld wordt in de literatuur, waardoor er een verwarrend beeld ontstaat. De verschillende conceptualisaties van kwaliteit die in de literatuur voorkomen worden geanalyseerd. Er wordt aangetoond dat de discussies over de meest geschikte kwaliteitscriteria voor de output van peer assessment teruggebracht kunnen worden naar de onderliggende verschillen in doelen. Het meest voor de hand liggende doel van peer assessment is het gebruik als assessment middel. Het leerdoel van peer assessment is ook breed gekend. Nader onderzoek van de literatuur levert drie bijkomende doelen op: vestigen van sociale controle in de leeromgeving; voorbereiden van studenten op zelfcontrole en zelfregulatie bij levenslang leren; en actieve participatie van studenten of leerlingen in de klas. Elk van deze doelen resulteert in andere kwaliteitscriteria. Er wordt beargumenteerd dat enkel de criteria die congruent zijn met het doel dat men nastreeft overwogen moeten worden wanneer men de kwaliteit van peer assessment evalueert.
De derde bijdrage start van de vaststelling dat, samen met de expansie van het peer assessment onderzoek in het laatste decennium, ook de diversiteit van de peer assessment toepassingen exponentieel gestegen is. Deze diversiteit stelt problemen voor zowel gebruikers als onderzoekers van peer assessment. Er wordt een inventaris voor peer assessment diversiteit ontwikkeld die interessant kan zijn voor gebruikers, als checklist voor belangrijke beslissingen die genomen moeten worden of als overzicht van mogelijke alternatieven voor een specifieke toepassing, en voor onderzoekers, als een leidraad voor welke informatie te verschaffen over de details van hun peer assessment ontwerp.
De vierde bijdrage vergelijkt de impact van peer feedback en leerkrachtfeedback op het leren en behandelt de vraag of peer feedback kan fungeren als een vervanging van expertenfeedback. Een pretest posttest controlegroep design onderzoekt de langetermijneffectenvan individuele peer feedback en collectieve leerkrachtfeedback op schrijfopdrachten in het secundair onderwijs (N=85). Bovendien onderzoekt het de meerwaarde van twee maatregelen om de repons van de feedbackontvanger op peer feedback te ondersteunen: een a priori twijfelformulier en een a posteriori repliekformulier. De studie toont aan dat er geen significant verschil is tussen de leerlingen in de conditie met enkel vervangende peer feedback en de controleconditie met leerkrachtfeedback wat betreft vooruitgang in punten op de opstellen. Beide groepen (enkel peer feedback én leerkrachtfeedback) blijken echter significant minder vooruitgang te maken dan de groepen in de ‘uitgebreide’ feedbackcondities met het twijfel- of repliekformulier.
De vijfde bijdrage onderzoekt een groep van 68 eerstejaars leerlingen in het secundair onderwijs die een formatieve peer assessment hebben meegemaakt voor drie opeenvolgende schrijftaken. Ze zijn opgedeeld in twee experimentele condities (dezelfde als de ‘uitgebreide’ feedbackcondities in de vorige bijdrage) en een controlegroep met enkel peer feedback. De vooruitgang van leerlingen in schrijfprestaties wordt onderzocht ten opzichte van de mate van constructief zijn van de peer feedback die ze gaven en ontvingen, en ten opzichte van de conditie waartoe ze behoorden. Het effect van het constructief zijn van feedback wordt bestudeerd vanuit twee richtingen: vanuit het standpunt van de ontvanger van peer feedback (‘assessment for learning’) en vanuit het standpunt van de feedbackgever (‘assessing for learning’). De resultaten van de analyse van herhaalde metingen tonen een significant positief effect van de samenstelling van de ontvangen peer feedback op leerlingprestaties. Het constructief zijn van de feedback die leerlingen zelf verschaften blijkt daarentegen geen positief effect te hebben op hun leren. Globaal genomen is de feedback echter weinig constructief. Mogelijke barrières die leerlingen hebben weerhouden om goede feedback te geven, en oplossingen ervoor, worden besproken in de paper. Tot slot kan de studie het effect van conditie dat gevonden werd in de vierde bijdrage van dit proefschrift niet repliceren.
De zesde bijdrage vergelijkt de sterktes en zwaktes van peer feedback en docentfeedback vanuit het perspectief van de student. De studie is gesitueerd in een universiteitsvak met 192 eerstejaarssstudenten in de pedagogische wetenschappen. Algemene, collectieve docentfeedback op de kladversies van een reeks cumulatieve opdrachten wordt gecomplementeerd met een formatief peer assessment systeem. Startend van een hypothetisch opgelegde keuze worden de gepercipieerde kenmerken van beide bronnen van feedback in de diepte onderzocht, evenals hun gepercipieerde bijdrage aan een leeromgeving die tegemoet komt aan de behoeften van de lerende. Deze perspectieven worden aangevuld met de redenen die studenten rapporteren om één van beide bronnen van feedback te prefereren. Gesloten vragenlijst-items worden getrianguleerd met kwalitatieve data van open vragen. De resultaten tonen dat bij benadering de helft van de studenten bereid is om de geloofwaardigheid van docentfeedback in te ruilen voor de specificiteit van peer feedback als ze moeten kiezen. Beide bronnen van feedback blijken echter hun eigen sterktes en zwaktes te hebben vanuit het perspectief van de student. Ze zijn complementair en ze creëren zelfs de voorwaarden waaronder de complementaire bron sterker wordt. The dissertation includes three theoretical contributions and three empirical studies on peer assessment, a general introduction and final reflections including a discussion of the results, a discussion of the educational implications and a discussion of some methodological issues.
The first contribution delineates the role that peer assessment can play in raising the consequential validity of an assessment system. First, it clarifies the type of effects that assessment in general can have on learning, and formulates the design principles for increasing the consequential validity of an assessment system. Then, it is shown that peer assessment helps to meet the identified design principles that enhance consequential validity of an ‘assessment system’. More specifically, this dissertation shows that peer assessment can make it more feasible to include challenging and authentic tasks in one’s assessment system; it can help making the assessment demands more clear to the students; it can provide a supplement or a substitute for formative staff assessment; and finally, it can support the response to teacher feedback.
The second contribution goes beyond the impact of peer assessment on the consequential validity, and addresses the problem that the output of peer assessment is evaluated against a variety of quality criteria in the literature, resulting in a cluttered picture. The different conceptualisations of quality that appear in the literature are analysed. It is shown that discussions about the most appropriate quality criteria for the output of peer assessment should be brought back to the underlying differences in goals. The most obvious goal is its use as an assessment tool. The learning goal of peer assessment has also been well-established. Investigating the literature more closely yields three additional goals: installation of social control in the learning environment; preparation of students for self-monitoring and self-regulation in lifelong learning; and active participation of students in the classroom. Each of these goals results in different quality criteria. It is argued that only the criteria that are congruent with the goal that one is trying to achieve should be considered when evaluating the quality of peer assessment.
The third contribution starts from the observation that, together with the expansion of peer assessment research in the last decade also the diversity of peer assessment practices has increased exponentially. This diversity poses difficulties for practitioners as well as researchers. An inventory of peer assessment diversity is developed that may be of interest to practitioners, as a checklist of important decisions to take or an overview of possible alternatives to a specific practice, and to researchers, as a guideline of which information to provide on the particularities of their peer assessment design.
The fourth contribution compares the impact of peer feedback and teacher feedback on student learning, addressing the question whether peer feedback can serve as a substitute for expert feedback. A pretest posttest control group design examines the long term learning effects of individual peer feedback and collective teacher feedback on writing assignments in secondary education ( N =85). Moreover, it examines the added-value of two measures to support the response of the assessee to peer feedback: an a priori question form and an a posteriori reply form. The study shows no significant difference in students’ progress on essay marks between the condition with plain substitutional peer feedback and the control condition with teacher feedback. However, both groups (plain peer feedback ànd teacher feedback) appear to make significantly less progress then the groups in the ‘extended’ feedback conditions with the question or the reply form.
The fifth contribution examines a group of 68 first year students in secondary education who experienced formative peer assessment for three successive writing assignments. They are divided in two experimental conditions (similar to the ‘extended’ feedback conditions in the previous contribution) and a control condition with plain peer feedback. Students’ progress in writing performance is examined against the constructiveness of the peer feedback they gave and received, and against the condition in which they participated. The effect of the constructiveness of feedback is studied from two directions: from the point of view of the receiver of the peer feedback (‘assessment for learning’) and from the point of view of the assessor who gave peer feedback (‘assessing for learning’). The results of a repeated measures analysis show a significant positive effect of the composition of the received peer feedback on student performance. The constructiveness of feedback that students provided themselves is not found to improve their learning. However, the overall level of constructiveness of the feedback is low. Possible barriers preventing students from providing good feedback, and solutions to these, are discussed in the paper. Finally, the study cannot replicate the effect of condition that was found in the fourth contribution.
The sixth contribution compares strengths and weaknesses of peer feedback and staff feedback, from the student’s perspective. The study is situated in a university course with 192 first year students in educational sciences. Generic, collective staff feedback on the draft versions of a series of cumulative assignments is complemented with a formative peer assessment system. Starting from a hypothetical forced choice, a further in-depth study addresses the perceived characteristics of both sources of feedback and their perceived contribution to a learning environment that attends the learner’s needs. These perspectives are complemented with reasons reported by students to prefer one of both sources of feedback. Closed-ended questionnaire items are triangulated with qualitative data from open-ended questions. Results show that approximately half of the students were willing to trade in the credibility of staff feedback for the specificity of peer feedback if they have to choose. However, both sources of feedback show to have their own strengths and weaknesses from the student’s perspective. They are complementary and they even provide the conditions under which the complementary source becomes better. Doctor in de Pedagogische Wetenschappen Centrum voor Opleidingsdidactiek Onderzoekseenheid Pedagogische Wet. Faculteit Psychologie en pedagogische wetenschappen Doctoral thesis Doctoraatsthesis
... Ayalon and Wilkie define peer assessment "as an educational arrangement where learners consider and specify the level, value, or quality of a product or performance of other equal-status learners" ( [17, p. 7]). Depending on the underlying perspective and on its use, peer assessment can have a summative or formative function ( [18], [19]). Students assess their peers by grading their work, assigning them tasks, offering face-toface comments, giving written feedback to one another ( [19]). ...
... Peer feedback is more timely than teacher feedback, as well as more immediate and even more individualized. Peer feedback makes a significant contribution towards students' better understanding of the assessment criteria and greater awareness of the quality of their own work ( [18]). In addition, peer feedback can be associated with collaborative learning, adding to its effectiveness, and it is also more likely to be easily understood by the students than teacher-generated feedback, as the language they use to communicate with each other is more familiar to all involved. ...
... When solving problems, students have to describe their reasoning and explain their options in ways that are understandable to others, thus exercising their written mathematical communication skills. Peer assessment activities, like peer (written) feedback, based on problem solving tasks contribute to promote such skills ( [17], [18], [21]). ...
... On average, most work was marked by learners across Grades 4-6 (Cowie, Moreland, & Otrel-Cass, 2013;Gielen 2007;Heritage, 2007;Panadero & Alonso-Tapia, 2013;Panadero, Brown, & Strijbos, 2015). Research has identified peer and selfassessment as instrumental and paramount in assessment because they build a community of learners who are involved in evaluating and monitoring their learning. ...
... Research has identified peer and selfassessment as instrumental and paramount in assessment because they build a community of learners who are involved in evaluating and monitoring their learning. Gielen (2007) says 'peer assessment allows them to participate in a collaborative appraisal using multiple perspectives when incorporating viewpoints from different learners' (pp. 102-103). ...
Ticks and crosses (TCs) are a common aspect of teachers’ classroom practice in relation to assessment in many learning areas including mathematics. Putting TCs in learners’ written work is a strategy of feedback. Even though these TCs are frequently used in different types of mathematics assessments, there is limited research in relation to what they actually stand for and what functions they are designed for and especially what purpose they eventually serve in practice. This article emerged from a broader study that aimed at exploring classroom formative assessment practices of Grades 4–6 mathematics teachers, a learning goals and documentary analysis. Since this study was qualitative in nature, we used qualitative, non-probability sampling to recruit respondents according to pre-selected criteria relevant to our research questions. The study participants were 43 qualified and experienced Intermediate Phase mathematics teachers and 95 Grades 4–6 learners from the Tshwane South district, where a phenomenon of low achievement was of great concern. We engaged in document analysis of all the 95 learners’ mathematics workbooks. Questionnaires were administered to the 43 teachers. We report on an analysis of teachers’ assessment practices of Grades 4–6 learners’ mathematics work. We narrate the extent of the use of TCs among teachers from selected schools in Tshwane South district in Gauteng, South Africa. Our analysis shows that while there is prevalent use of TCs among teachers, there are critical gaps in relation to knowledge of TCs in assessing mathematics. We present a qualitative and quantitative data analysis to illustrate how these were used in connection with assessment of learners’ mathematics work linked to the concepts of numerical, geometric, and graphical relationships. We use our analysis of the vignettes to explore and argue that teachers use TCs without adequate understanding of what these actually mean in relation to assessment broadly and assessment intended at collecting and clarifying goals for mathematical learning specifically. Despite teachers having mathematical qualifications and a repertoire of experience for teaching, the majority of teachers grappled with understanding mathematical concepts as evidence in how they marked learners’ mathematics work. The study also found that teachers’ understandings of assessment of mathematics were diverse and largely inconsistent with the formal definitions of mathematics.Contribution: This study indicated that there are critical gaps in relation to knowledge of TCs in assessing mathematics. A clear-cut marking policy will guide teachers to provide effective marking using TCs.
... Moreover, in dealing with the lack of qualified teachers and clinical preceptors, student peer evaluation has been used as a form of formative assessment to reduce the considerable gap in knowledge between a student and his teacher in favor of a relatively smaller gap between students who help each other to learn [6,7]. According to Gielen (2007), peer evaluation has five main goals: the use of peer assessment as an assessment tool and learning tool, the installation of social control in the learning environment, the preparation of students for self-monitoring and self-regulation in lifelong learning, and the active participation of students in the classroom [8]. Thus, peer evaluation can be a valuable source of information to assist in the professional and personal growth of both the evaluator and the evaluatee. ...
... Moreover, in dealing with the lack of qualified teachers and clinical preceptors, student peer evaluation has been used as a form of formative assessment to reduce the considerable gap in knowledge between a student and his teacher in favor of a relatively smaller gap between students who help each other to learn [6,7]. According to Gielen (2007), peer evaluation has five main goals: the use of peer assessment as an assessment tool and learning tool, the installation of social control in the learning environment, the preparation of students for self-monitoring and self-regulation in lifelong learning, and the active participation of students in the classroom [8]. Thus, peer evaluation can be a valuable source of information to assist in the professional and personal growth of both the evaluator and the evaluatee. ...
Background: Blended learning offers opportunities for the complexity of learning in clinical education. Student peer assessment is widely used as a form of formative assessment in early clinical exposure programs, especially clinical communication skills training. This study aimed to describe clinical communication skills competencies of second-year students and to identify the relationships between peer and faculty assessment of communication skills in a blended learning program format. Methods: A total of 474 second-year general medical students and dental students participated in the study. Peer and lecturer assessment forms with a 5-point Likert scale according to the Calgary-Cambridge guide format were used to evaluate students’ performance of basic communication skills, relationship building, and history taking. Pearson’s correlation coefficients and paired t-test were applied. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Most of students were rated at distinction level (score at 7-8.4) in communication skills. Mean of the overall score by peer and faculty assessment were 7.46 ± 1.03 and 7.17 ± 0.68, respectively. Peers rarely provided negative ratings on subcategories of communication skills. Skills of understanding the patient’s perspectives and gathering information were the most reported skills needed to improve among students. Significant positive correlations were found between peer and faculty evaluations for building relationship, establishing initial rapport, and gathering information domains (p < 0.01). Students tended to grade their colleagues higher for building relationship (3.88 ± 0.62) and establishing initial rapport domains (3.72 ± 0.61) than other domains, meanwhile, teachers tended to grade building relationship (3.80 ± 0.55) and gathering information domains (3.64 ± 0.38) higher than other domains. Conclusion: The findings suggest that student peer evaluation can be valuable for clinical education. As part of a formative assessment, it can be also used for faculty to evaluate students’ clinical communication skills performance in innovative medical education programs. Key words: peer assessment, clinical communication skills, practice of medicine, early clinical practice, blended learning.
... On average, most work was marked by learners across Grades 4-6 (Cowie, Moreland, & Otrel-Cass, 2013;Gielen 2007;Heritage, 2007;Panadero & Alonso-Tapia, 2013;Panadero, Brown, & Strijbos, 2015). Research has identified peer and selfassessment as instrumental and paramount in assessment because they build a community of learners who are involved in evaluating and monitoring their learning. ...
... Research has identified peer and selfassessment as instrumental and paramount in assessment because they build a community of learners who are involved in evaluating and monitoring their learning. Gielen (2007) says 'peer assessment allows them to participate in a collaborative appraisal using multiple perspectives when incorporating viewpoints from different learners' (pp. 102-103). ...
Ticks and crosses (TCs) are a common aspect of teachers’ classroom practice in relation to assessment in many learning areas including mathematics. Putting TCs in learners’ written work is a strategy of feedback. Even though these TCs are frequently used in different types of mathematics assessments, there is limited research in relation to what they actually stand for and what functions they are designed for and especially what purpose they eventually serve in practice. This article emerged from a broader study that aimed at exploring classroom formative assessment practices of Grades 4–6 mathematics teachers, a learning goals and documentary analysis. Since this study was qualitative in nature, we used qualitative, non-probability sampling to recruit respondents according to pre-selected criteria relevant to our research questions. The study participants were 43 qualified and experienced Intermediate Phase mathematics teachers and 95 Grades 4–6 learners from the Tshwane South district, where a phenomenon of low achievement was of great concern. We engaged in document analysis of all the 95 learners’ mathematics workbooks. Questionnaires were administered to the 43 teachers. We report on an analysis of teachers’ assessment practices of Grades 4–6 learners’ mathematics work. We narrate the extent of the use of TCs among teachers from selected schools in Tshwane South district in Gauteng, South Africa. Our analysis shows that while there is prevalent use of TCs among teachers, there are critical gaps in relation to knowledge of TCs in assessing mathematics. We present a qualitative and quantitative data analysis to illustrate how these were used in connection with assessment of learners’ mathematics work linked to the concepts of numerical, geometric, and graphical relationships. We use our analysis of the vignettes to explore and argue that teachers use TCs without adequate understanding of what these actually mean in relation to assessment broadly and assessment intended at collecting and clarifying goals for mathematical learning specifically. Despite teachers having mathematical qualifications and a repertoire of experience for teaching, the majority of teachers grappled with understanding mathematical concepts as evidence in how they marked learners’ mathematics work. The study also found that teachers’ understandings of assessment of mathematics were diverse and largely inconsistent with the formal definitions of mathematics. Contribution: This study indicated that there are critical gaps in relation to knowledge of TCs in assessing mathematics. A clear-cut marking policy will guide teachers to provide effective marking using TCs.
... Thus, as reported by Yang & Tsui (2010) trainee teachers had opportunity for self-reflection and self-correction stimulated by the uncertainty on the accuracy of the peer feedback. Argument and discussion inherent led to better understanding (Gielen, 2007;Adediwaru, 2015). ...
The study was an exploration of trainee teachers’ understanding, perceptions of, and confidence in the use of peers in assessment for learning (AfL) at Bindura University of Science Education, Zimbabwe. Trainee teachers were enrolled in a programme that used a blended model of teaching and learning between February and June 2021. Trainees participated in online seminars and peer assessment in a course on curriculum development and completed questionnaire eliciting their attitudes toward peer assessment. A mixed-methods approach using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies was adopted. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, mean item scores and the summated scores for the three constructs of confidence, benefits of and threats to peer assessment. Open-ended items were analysed qualitatively and emerging themes were reported. Summated scores of 4, meant trainees had positive attitudes toward peer assessment and believed in numerous benefits of using peer assessment. A summated mean score of 3 for threats to peer assessment meant trainee teachers had neutral views to the construct. Conflicting messages were evident. The same trainees who believed that peer assessment was useful still doubted sincerity of peers and preferred teacher assessment. Further research, using a larger population and sample and interviews to probe doubts in peer assessment, is recommended.
... Peer evaluation has been reported to have five purposes: assessment and learning tool, installation of social control in the learning environment, preparation of students for self-monitoring and self-regulation in lifelong learning, and active participation. 22 If there is a relationship between peer evaluation and interprofessional selfevaluation, we believe that using related factors could provide suggestions for effective professional education. ...
Objective:
This study aimed to clarify the relationship between interprofessional self-evaluation and peer evaluation during interprofessional education (IPE) using team-based learning (TBL). We also aimed to clarify differences in interprofessional cooperation between students with high and low peer evaluation scores.
Methods:
In total, 483 students (grades 3-5) from nine faculties at three universities participated in a TBL-based IPE program. The students completed five interprofessional self-evaluation domains (the modified Tsukuba IPE model) before and after IPE. Students also completed peer evaluation after IPE. Students were divided into three groups by peer evaluation scores (low, middle, high), and the post-class self-evaluation scores of these groups were compared using a Kruskal-Wallis test. Multiple regression analysis was also performed. Peer evaluation comments were analyzed using a qualitative inductive method.
Results:
Students in the low peer evaluation group had significantly lower scores in the "Regarding participation in group work" domain than students in the high group (P<0.05). Students in the high group received positive comments, such as [good communication] and [working cooperatively], whereas students in the low group were required to improve in two areas: [speaking up more] and [need more communication].
Conclusions:
There was a significant relationship between peer evaluation by team members and self-evaluation for "Regarding participation in group work." Students with high peer evaluation scores participated with active attitudes, whereas students with low scores were considered passive. This study suggested that using peer evaluation may enhance students' professional cooperation by improving their communication and attitudes toward active participation.
... In addition, peer assessment is an active learning model, which helps students to develop collaborative and reflective skills through the result of metacognitive processes (Husamah, 2015). Hence, peer assessment encourages students to be accountable of their learning (Langan & Wheater, 2003;Vickerman, 2010) and leads to development of selfregulation, self-regulation and reflection (Egodawatte, 2010;Gielen, 2007;Langan & Wheater, 2003). Moreover, this could potentially improve learning as it involves a task requiring students to engage and encouraging them to reflect on the quality of work for improvisation (Chukwuyenum & Adeleye, 2013). ...
The study of academic engagement has gained international visibility due to various factors operating in the social environment, such as fragmentation, 'liquidity' in interpersonal relations, etc., which end up affecting the persistence rates in studies, or its manifestation in an increasing rate of desertion in higher studies on the part of Argentine students. This research has been carried out within this framework, where 350 students of University and College education, who are enrolled in technical, humanistic-pedagogical and economic studies, completed the Academic Engagement Scale (Daura & Durand, 2018) with the purpose of analyzing, on the one hand, their level of involvement with their studies; and on the other hand, inquiring on the existing connection with demographic variables.
... Peer assessment is an alternative assessment method that benefits the students by engaging them in reflective practice through a process of provision of prompt feedback. It is commonly quoted that peer assessment helps learners in increasing the awareness of the quality of their work, self reflection and on their performance as peer evaluators and in development of lifelong learning skills (Egodawatte, 2010;Falchikov, 1996;Gielen, 2007;Langan & Wheater, 2003). Literature also reports the benefits experienced by students participating in a formative feedback approach, including making criteria explicit to students, providing them with the opportunity to participate in a non evaluative feedback session, reviewing the work of their peers and reflecting on their approach to assignment (Cartney, 2010;Cho & McArthur, 2010). ...
Peer assessment is a collaborative learning method that assists students to have a control of their learning and involve them in reflective process. This study focuses on exploring the perceptions of prospective teachers about use of peer assessment as a reflective tool in classrooms of teacher education programs. This study was quantitative in nature and used descriptive research design. All prospective teachers enrolled in the bachelor programs of teacher education programs (i.e., BS and B.Ed. Hon. Elementary) of public sector universities of Pakistan served as population of the study. Using multistage purposive sampling technique, a sample of 1374 prospective teachers was selected. For seeking prospective teachers’ opinion, a questionnaire comprising 17 items on a five-point Likert scale, was developed. Questionnaire was validated by experts. Reliability of questionnaire was ensured with Cronbach alpha value of 0.79. For data analysis, both descriptive and inferential statistics were used. From analysis of data, it was found that prospective teachers perceive that they are sometimes equipped with necessary skills for involving in peer assessment and occasionally their teachers provide them necessary tools to carry out peer assessment for the reflective learning. It was also found that majority of students agree that peer assessment helps them in identifying their weaknesses and strengths more effectively. While prospective teachers reported that peer assessment is an activity that takes a lot of time and it carries biasness with its procedure. It is, however, recommended that peer assessment might be an important component of classroom teaching and learning practices. It is further recommended that promotion of peer assessment in classrooms may be used as a tool for creation of reflective teaching and learning environment.
... In addition, peer assessment is an active learning model, which helps students to develop collaborative and reflective skills through the result of metacognitive processes (Husamah, 2015). Hence, peer assessment encourages students to be accountable of their learning (Langan & Wheater, 2003;Vickerman, 2010) and leads to development of selfregulation, self-regulation and reflection (Egodawatte, 2010;Gielen, 2007;Langan & Wheater, 2003). Moreover, this could potentially improve learning as it involves a task requiring students to engage and encouraging them to reflect on the quality of work for improvisation (Chukwuyenum & Adeleye, 2013). ...
This mixed-method action research study aimed to examine the effect of the use peer of assessment in a Brunei Mathematics classroom in the learning of Geometry. This study offered insights into the use of a student-centred learning approach, which the participants held the role as an assessor of peer’s work, and the use of peer feedback as a potential learning source in changing students’ conception and understanding in the topic of Angle properties. The study revealed that the use of peer assessment had significance in improving students’ performance in the learning of Geometry and there was evidence of knowledge retention as a result from the intervention as seen in the improved post-test performance on similar mathematical problem. In addition, the mathematical works in the post-test still showed evidence of misunderstandings and misconception in the concept of Angle. Despite the unsatisfactory quality of peer feedback given by the participants, the assessing activity and the student’ role as the assessor had increased cognitive, metacognitive awareness and self-regulation in their learning. Overall, the participants showed positive perception and attitude towards the use of peer assessment as a learning tool in Mathematics and considered it as a means for knowledge sharing. There was still concern of emotional sensitivity and anonymity despite the effort to maintain the anonymity of the students’ work and identity as an assessor.
This article reports on the implementation of a programme of individualised, peer-graded homework assignments in a large-scale engineering course, with minimal resources. Participation in the programme allows students to receive grades for problem-solving work in a setting more conducive to learning than the traditional final examination. The homework programme was designed to support the ordinary course work and examination preparation of students along the semester, rather than an expansion of the curriculum. The implementation is carried out using a series of scripts on a local computer, for speed of deployment, portability and privacy protection. Data relevant to instructors are provided, showing that the programme integrates well within an existing grading system, at a relatively low time cost for the instructor, resulting in a relatively large enhancement in the students’ learning experience.
Assessment in higher education is commonly held to contribute to feedback to students on their learning and the certification of their achievement. This paper argues that this short‐term focus must be balanced against a longer‐term emphasis for learning‐oriented assessment to foster future learning after graduation. The paper proposes that students need to become assessors within the context of participation in practice, that is, the kinds of highly contextualised learning faced in life and work. It discusses the kinds of practices that are needed to refocus assessment within higher education courses to this end.
Instructors use peer feedback to afford students multiple assessments of their work and to help them acquire important lifelong skills. However, research finds that this type of feedback has questionable validity, reliability, and accuracy, and instructors consider much of it too uncritical, superficial, vague, and content-focused, among other things. This article posits that the typical judgment-based feedback questions give students emotionally charged tasks that they are cognitively ill equipped to perform well and that permit laxness. It then introduces an alternative that encourages neutral, informative, and thorough responses that add genuine value to the peer feedback process.
Web-based peer assessment is an innovative method that can be used to assess students' learning portfolios in order to improve their learning. However, students cannot easily compare their own evaluation schemes or think reflectively to improve their learning through web-based peer assessment if they do not understand how others perceive the assessment criteria. This study attempts to utilize knowledge acquisition techniques in order to elicit personal understanding of assessment criteria. Using repertory grid analysis, web-based peer assessment systems can elucidate personal conceptual frameworks and evaluation schemes when students use their own criteria to assess learning portfolios. The analysis provides an instrument for monitoring the students' conceptual frame-works—which may lead to different peer–teacher correlations regarding assessment. This instrument allows teachers and students to understand fully each other's conceptual frameworks and evaluation schemes—thereby allowing them to think reflectively and improve their learning.
Feedback is one of the most powerful influences on learning and achievement, but this impact can be either positive or negative. Its power is frequently mentioned in articles about learning and teaching, but surprisingly few recent studies have systematically investigated its meaning. This article provides a conceptual analysis of feedback and reviews the evidence related to its impact on learning and achievement. This evidence shows that although feedback is among the major influences, the type of feedback and the way it is given can be differentially effective. A model of feedback is then proposed that identifies the particular properties and circumstances that make it effective, and some typically thorny issues are discussed, including the timing of feedback and the effects of positive and negative feedback. Finally, this analysis is used to suggest ways in which feedback can be used to enhance its effectiveness in classrooms.
The title Assessment 2000 would have sounded like science fiction a few decades ago, an opportunity to use my imagination in making creative and wild speculations about assessment in a distant future. However, less than half a decade before the due date, this chapter entails more modest and careful speculations, based on contemporary theories and on lessons gained from current practice. Indeed, it starts by introducing the most generic term currently used in educational literature with respect to assessment, i.e., alternative assessment. It briefly explains to what and why an alternative is sought and describes the main features of this type of assessment, as it is currently viewed. Of the various devices subsumed under the alternative assessment umbrella a focus is put on the portfolio describing its various types, uses and criteria for judgment. Next, criteria for evaluating alternative assessment and lessons to be learnt from current practice are discussed, and finally, a rationale for a pluralistic approach to assessment is presented.
Developments in forms of peer learning 1981–2006 are reviewed, focusing mainly on peer tutoring, cooperative learning, and peer assessment. Types and definitions of peer learning are explored, together with questions of implementation integrity and consequent effectiveness and cost‐effectiveness. Benefits to helpers are now emphasised at least as much as benefits to those helped. In this previously under‐theorised area, an integrated theoretical model of peer learning is now available. Peer learning has been extended in types and forms, in curriculum areas and in contexts of application beyond school. Engagement in helping now often encompasses all community members, including those with special needs. Social and emotional gains now attract as much interest as cognitive gains. Information technology is now often a major component in peer learning, operating in a variety of ways. Embedding and sustainability has improved, but further improvement is needed.
This article reflects upon the introduction of two empowering styles of teaching in a newly developed interdisciplinary module for students of geography and environmental sciences. Student reactions and evaluations are presented and contextualised. Attitudes to group work changed over the period of the module indicating some resolution of initial concerns and problems within the group; however, resistances were in part retained. Peer assessment, on the other hand, after detailed discussion of criteria and a justification for the method, was embraced more readily by students. The nature of student empowerment associated with the use of these methods is difficult to monitor and, indeed, the benefits may be delayed.