The challenge of peer assessment

The use of peer assessment as an alternative to lecture assessment is an option which is being considered more frequently as we seek ways to relieve demands on lecturers' time. The decision to adopt peer assessment is not one which should be made lightly and there are many issues to consider.

In this workshop we will get the group to:

• investigate reasons for adopting peer assessment techniques
• identify pitfalls and potential weaknesses of peer assessment
• identify the contributions that peer assessment can make to the learning process, and generate discussion of ways of implementing peer assessment effectively

We will provide a bibliography of relevant literature.

We intend this workshop to be exploratory so that participants can share their own experiences and questions about peer assessment and work towards identifying ways of making peer assessment a workable alternative assessment technique.

Introduction

• assessment by other students
• self assessment
  • of oral presentations/viva
  • of written work
  • assignments, tests
  • for marks
  • for formative/feedback purposes
  • for participation in group work/derive individual marks on group projects
  • mark one-on-one, whole class or group marks an individual's performance
• peer group assessment
• collaborative assessment

Why use it?

Issues relating to the use of peer assessment

• reliability
• training students to recognise and apply criteria
• encouraging students to take it seriously
• avoid collusion between students
• requires a shift from norm referenced assessment to criterion referenced
• student willingness to engage in peer or self assessment - conflict with their view of the role of the teacher

Possible solutions to major issues

• Training students to mark effectively
  • Modelling
  • Provide detailed criteria or seek consensus
  • Statistical manipulation of marks
  • Discussion
  • Trials/pilots
  • More than one piece of work to mark. Increased range and practice
  • Provide feedback to students on their marking
  • Provide opportunity for self marking and chance to resubmit work

• Changing students' attitudes and encouraging them to participate positively
  • Establish existing attitudes
  • Work through issues relating to learning and the real world
  • Identify current self and peer evaluation practices
  • Identify those with prior experience

• Dealing with the affective side of peer assessment (staff and students)
  • Reduce weight of assessment (at least at first)
  • Use information and statistics to show it is at least as reliable as other forms of assessment
  • Provide positive information about the benefits
  • Provide forum for emotional response
  • Provide opportunity for conflict resolution
  • Be proactive, explain, negotiate resolve
    
  • Use of class time for marking?
  • Students mark more than one paper
  • Share responsibility for marking

Possible strategies for incorporating student self marking

1. Self assessment schedules with marks justified and moderated by staff. Students prepare a statement of what they have achieved in the form of a self assessment schedule (original goals, criteria they believe should be applied, evidence to justify extent of achievement, judgment of success).

2. Self marks moderated by peers -
   One or more peers mark the individual. Self and peer score discrepancies are resolved by staff. Use model answers prepared by staff.

3. Criteria generated by peers -
   Involve students in a group exercise to generate common criteria for the performance of the assignment. Criteria then provide a checklist which students complete and submit with the assignment.

4. Weighting for the quality of self assessment -
   Students receive marks for the quality of their self assessment, how critical/insightful.
   Problem that this turns self assessment into another assignment and colludes with the student attitude that you only do something if you get marks for it. However it encourages critical self assessment.

5. Marks count after student has demonstrated competence in self assessment.

6. Use of learning contracts -
   Learning contracts can include criteria for specific grades.

7. Grade contracting -
   Students set own goals and specify which goal they want to aim for and describe the criteria that will indicate success. If they satisfy contracted requirements they are awarded the chosen grade.

Necessary conditions

High trust, high integrity learning environment
Students are rewarded for high integrity marking
Marks are moderated by staff so that deviations from staff marks need to be justified
Blind peer marking is used as check
The achievement of effective self assessment is a major goal
Students are provided with opportunity to practise and develop their skills
Criteria against which achievement is to be judged is clear and unambiguous
Effort is explicitly excluded as a criterion
Ensure that the purpose of assessment is clear

Bibliography

Boud, D. & Falchikov, N. (1989). Quantitative studies of student self-assessment in higher education: A critical analysis of findings. Higher Education, 18, 529-549.

Conway, R., Kember, D., Sivan, A. & Wu, M. (1993). Peer assessment of an individual's contribution to a group project. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 18, 45-56.

Falchikov, N. & Boud, D. (1989). Student self assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 59, 395-430.

Falchikov, N. (1986). Product comparisons and process benefits of collaborative peer group and self assessments. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 11, 146-166.

Fry, S. (1990). Implementation and evaluation of peer marking in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 15, 177-189.

Goldfinch, J. & Raeside, R. (1990). Development of a peer assessment technique for obtaining individual marks on a group project. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 15, 210-231.

Hughes, I. & Large, B. (1993). Staff and peer-group assessment of oral communication skills. Studies in Higher Education, 18, 379-385.

Keaten, J. & Richardson, M. (1993). A field investigation of peer assessment as part of the student group grading process. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western States Communication Association (Albuquerque, NM, February 12-16).

Marcoulides, G. & Simkin, M. (1991). Evaluating student papers: The case for peer review. Journal of Education for Business, 67, 80-83.

Orpen, C. (1992). Student versus lecturer assessment of learning: A research note. Higher Education, 11, 567-572.

Somervell, H. (1993). Issues in assessment, enterprise and higher education: The case for self, peer and collaborative assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 18, 221-233.

Williams, E. (1992). Student attitudes towards approaches to learning and assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 17, 45-58.