Let’s get started!
Always start with formative testing as a trial run in a course
When starting to use peer assessment for the first time, both the student and the teacher must become accustomed to it. For this reason, it is recommended to start using peer assessment for formative purposes. In other words, the peer assessment is first tried out, and it is not immediately associated with points. The system can subsequently be refined further (and possibly implemented for summative purposes as well).
Introduce peer assessment gradually throughout a programme
Peer assessment should thus not immediately be associated with points in an initial Bachelor programme. Start by teaching students to assess themselves and each other for substantive tasks, as well as with regard to cooperation in a group. Only in a later stage should peer assessment possibly be included in the final outcome. Even in that case, however, the structure within a module should ideally be to start with formative use, to be followed by summative use. This structure also ensures less resistance on the part of students.
Assigning points based on the peer-assessment points and/or the quality of the feedback?
Finally, we offer one more possible consideration. If peer assessment is ultimately included in the final outcomes of students (following a formative round), one option is to include the actual points that the students have given each other (through averaging or weighting). Another possibility, however, is to assess the quality of the feedback that students have given to each other. Students who have given high-quality feedback to their peers (after having been trained in this regard) will receive higher scores than will those who have given only basic feedback or poorly nuanced feedback to their fellow students. This allows students to demonstrate the extent to which they have mastered the content, as well as their feedback skills.
Want to know more?
Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). . Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331-350.
Gielen, S. (2007). . Doctoral thesis. Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences.
Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 304-315.
Hayes, J.R., Flower, L.S., Schriver, K.A., Stratman, J., & Carey, L. (1987). . In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in psycholinguistics: Reading, writing, and language processing (Vol. 2, pp. 176-240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sluijsmans, D. (2002). . Proefschrift Open Universiteit Heerlen.
Topping, K. J. (2009). . Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 20-27.
van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & van Merriënboer, J. (2010). . Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 270-279.