Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Assessing personal attributes in the group rehearsal

By Mark Pulman

Abstract

This is a study of the marks that were awarded for students’ personal attributes, used as peer assessment criteria, in their band rehearsals. Successive cohorts of first-year undergraduate students, from 2001 to 2009, were involved in the research comprising of 191 students and 84 bands. Data analysis focused on the strength of marking agreement and the variances between self- and peer-assessments. Personal attribute assessments that exhibited the greatest strength of marking agreement arose from when criteria were formulated together by bands, especially those attributes to which the group,as a whole, aspired; to a lesser extent, personal weakness criteria formulated by bands for each member. High flyers and female students underestimated themselves in their self-assessments,compared with those awarded by the band, especially when using criteria arising from their personal weaknesses; weaker students over-estimated themselves. In considering such misjudgements, this study raises questions about band members’ self-efficacy belief.\ud \ud Keywords: popular music rehearsals; peer assessment; personal attributes; selfefficacy;\ud group wor

Topics: H1, LB2300, MT
Publisher: Routledge
Year: 2010
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.hud.ac.uk:9216

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. doi
  2. (2004). Assessing contributions to group assignments. doi
  3. (2001). Assessing Self and Peer-assessment: the Students Views. doi
  4. (2000). Assessing students in seminars: evaluation of current practice.
  5. (2008). Assessing the reliability of self- and peer rating in student group work. doi
  6. (2002). Developing procedures for implementing peer assessment in large classes using an action research process. doi
  7. (1990). Development of a Peer Assessment Technique for Obtaining Individual Marks on a Group Project. Assessment doi
  8. (2005). Formative peer assessment in a CSCL environment: A case study. doi
  9. (1997). Graduates’ Work: Organisational Change and Students Attributes.
  10. (2005). Improving assessment through student involvement: practical solutions for aiding learning in higher and further education.
  11. (2003). Improving students' learning by developing their understanding of assessment criteria and processes. doi
  12. (2002). Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Peer Assessment: A Case for Student and Staff Development. doi
  13. (1993). Interesting Ways to Assess Your Students.
  14. (2008). Knowing Yourself Through Others: Peer Assessment in Popular Music. Unpublished PhD Thesis.
  15. (1998). Learning to access students using peer review. doi
  16. (1996). Peer assessing composition in higher education. doi
  17. (2004). Peer assessment in musical performance: the development, trial and evaluation of a methodology for the Australian tertiary environment. doi
  18. (1996). Peer assessment in performance studies. doi
  19. (2004). Peer Assessment in Popular Music. doi
  20. (2004). Peer assessment of tertiary music performance: opportunities for understanding performance assessment and performing through experience and self-reflection. doi
  21. (1998). Peer assessment: Report of a project involving group presentations and assessment by peers.
  22. (2008). Popular music pedagogy: peer-learning in practice. doi
  23. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs,
  24. (1977). Social Learning Theory. doi
  25. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: a meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational doi
  26. (2005). The impact of stress in self- and peer-assessment. doi
  27. (2002). The use of exemplars and formative feedback when using student derived marking criteria in peer and self-assessment. doi
  28. (2000). The use of student derived marking criteria in peer and self-assessment. doi
  29. (2004). Using assessment criteria as learning criteria. doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.