AN EXAMINATION OF THE USE OF
PEER RATING FOR FORMATIVE ASSESSMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF INTERACTIVE EDUCATION
Nigel
Pope, Ed Forrest, Terry Gatfield*
Alternative
approaches to the more traditional, summative forms of assessment have been
noted as becoming prevalent in both primary and secondary education (Williams,
1992). Alternative approaches include such methods as self-, peer and
collaborative assessment (Falchikov, 1986).
This paper presents an examination of one form of one
of these alternative assessment methods, peer rating, within the tertiary
application of post-graduate business education using interactive technology.
Self-assessment is a student-centred approach,
allowing the learner to take the initiative and the teacher to become
collaborator and guide (Hammond and Collins, 1991). This method can take several
forms:
1)
peer nomination - identification of best and worst members of the group
by group members,
2)
peer rating - assessment of each member, by the rest of the group, on a
set of performance characteristics and,
3)
peer ranking - ranking all individual group members from best to worst
against a given set of characteristics (Kane and Lawler, 1978).
Of these, peer rating has been found to be the most
useful for provision of feedback. This
is confirmed by evidence that in a managerial setting the technique has been
found non-threatening and constructive (Roadman, 1964
Reported benefits include:
1)
improvement in final papers (Boud, 1989),
2)
reinforcement of learning and exchange of ideas (Fry, 1990; Williams,
1992),
3)
understanding of marking schemes and standards (Fox, 1989; Fry, 1990;
Williams, 1992),
4)
understanding of presentation skills (Fox, 1989; Fry, 1990), and
5)
change of the teacher’s role to facilitator from assessor (Boud, 1986;
Fry, 1990).
Disadvantages found relate to sociometric factors
(Fox, 1989; Williams, 1992).
The sample
used in the work reported here used a sample frame of forty post graduate
students from two subjects in a course-work masters program offered using
flexible delivery. All students were required to participate in formative, peer
evaluation of submitted work distributed by e-mail.
*All authors are with the School of Marketing at
Griffith University.
Students were
asked to participate in chat-line focus groups at the end of the course-work for
the semester and one week after submission of the assessment item on which they
had conducted peer evaluation. Group members were asked to provide comment
regarding their subject experiences in an unstructured discussion. At the end of
that discussion, they were asked by the moderator to comment specifically on
their experience of peer evaluation of their written work. The moderator used
prompts to obtain responses relating to: functionality, curiosity and conditions
for use of this form of assessment.
In each subject, participants reported an improvement
in writing and report skills. When prompted to identify those skills they
selected spelling and grammar, referencing and logic as the major areas affected
by peer rating. This was attributed to both reading the work of peers and to
having their own work read. In one subject, participants reported writing to a
higher standard due to the knowledge that peers would be rating the work.
Students suggested that the summative assessment for
their subjects should be based on their written assessment items submitted for
peer rating, rather than on both that and a final examination. When this was
explored reasons provided related to 1) a belief that the amount of work
involved in peer rating items was greater than in other parts of the subject
and, 2) the feeling that this had been the major source of learning in the
subjects.
Some emotional content emerged with regard to
epistemic (curiosity) values. While participants expressed curiosity and
interest in the concept of peer rating, all agreed that the concept had caused
some anxiety in its application. The source of this anxiety lay in fear of how
peers would view the individual after the work was rated, not in the quality of
the work itself. This anxiety seemed to be allayed after the conclusion of the
process.
The groups were unanimous and quite forceful in their
view of when and how peer rating should be employed. The overwhelming view was
that the method was suitable for post-graduate students with work experience.
Not one participant agreed with the moderator’s contention that such a tool
could be employed with under-graduate students. Reasons given related to
maturity, work experience and group size.
Several
benefits have been reported in the use of peer rating as a formative assessment
tool. These include improvements in writing skills (Boud, 1989), learning
reinforcement (Fry, 1990; Williams, 1992), greater understanding of marking
standards (Fox, 1989; Fry, 1990; Williams, 1992), improved presentation skills
(Fox, 1989; Fry, 1990), and a change of the teacher’s role (Boud, 1986; Fry,
1990). The research reported here did not examine the last two of these
benefits: only the first three were addressed. Each of these relate to the
functional value of the peer rating method.
The results
of the focus group analysis support the contention that writing skills are
improved by peer rating. At least, that is the perception of the students. This
appears to result from both the act of writing and the act of reading the work
of others. It seems plausible to suggest, as some participants did, that the
knowledge that the work will be rated by peers will induce students to write to
a higher standard.
Areas where
students claimed an improvement in writing skills related to spelling, grammar,
referencing and logic. In many ways these are editorial skills, not necessarily
part of the subject matter. However, it is interesting to note that participants
also argued that the item of assessment that related to the peer rating was the
item for which they had done the most work and from which they had learnt the
most. This would support the contention that this process encourages deep
learning (Fry, 1990; Williams,
1992).
The method of peer rating has been found to be
non-threatening (Roadman, 1964). These data do not support that contention. In
fact, participants expressed initial anxiety in entering the process. This may
also account for the enhanced work effort described by participants. As such,
this particular aspect might not be as disadvantageous as it initially appears.
Boud, D.J. (1986) Implementing Student Self Assessment, Sydney: Higher Education
Research and Development Society of Australia.
Boud, D.J. (1989) The Role of Self Assessment in Student Grading Assessment and Evaluation
in Higher Education, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 20-30.
Falchikov, N. (1986) “Product Comparison and
Process Benefits of Collaborative Peer Group Assessment” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp.
146-166.
Fox, D. (1989) “Peer Assessment of an Essay
Assignment” HERDSA News, Vol. 11,
No. 2, pp. 6-7.
Fry, S.A. (1990) “Implementation and Evaluation of
Peer Marking in Higher Education” Assessment
and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp. 177-189.
Hammond, M. and Collins, R. (1991) Self-Directed
Learning: Critical Practice, London: Kogan Page.
Kane, J.S. and Lawler, E.E. (1978) “Methods of Peer
Assessment” Psychological Bulletin,
Vol. 85, No. 3, pp. 555-586.
Roadman, H.E. (1964) “An Industrial Use of Peer
Ratings” Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 48, pp. 211-214.
Williams, E. (1992) “Student Attitudes Towards
Approaches to Learning and Assessment” Assessment
and Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 45-58.