Are students actually capable of assessing each other’s work? Although the use of peer assessment has increased steadily in recent years, considerable criticism has been expressed as well. In this tip, we discuss how the most prominent problems of peer assessment can be addressed.
Peer assessment involves students assessing each other’s work. Assessment can mean that the students’ assessments are considered in the final score (summative), in addition to having the main objective of stimulating the students’ learning processes (formative). For example, students may assess the collaborative skills of the members of their group, and these assessments will be included in the final score (summative). Alternatively, students will provide an interim assessment of each other’s papers (not for points), so that they can use these assessments to improve their papers (formative).
Peer assessment can be used in several different ways. The best form of peer assessment to use depends on a variety of elements: the level of the students (e.g. first-year students versus Master students), the objective of the peer assessment and the extent to which students are accustomed to working with peer assessment). Peer assessment can also involve students assessing each other one-to-one, although other combinations are possible as well. For example, groups of students could assess each other’s presentations, or advanced students could assess the papers of less experienced students. In addition, students could assess a product (e.g. paper, practical report, program or design) and/or behaviour (e.g. during a presentation or simulation).
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.