Formative peer assessment in a CSCL environment

In this case study our aim was to gain more insight in the possibilities of qualitative formative peer assessment in a computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment. An approach was chosen in which peer assessment was operationalised in assessment assignments and assessment tools that were embedded in the course material. The course concerned a higher education case-based virtual seminar, in which students were asked to conduct research and write a report in small multidisciplinary teams. The assessment assignments contained the discussion of assessment criteria, the assessment of a group report of a fellow group, and writing an assessment report. A list of feedback rules was one of the assessment tools. A qualitative oriented study was conducted, focussing on the attitude of students towards peer assessment and practical use of peer assessment assignments and tools. Results showed that students’ attitude towards peer assessment was positive and that assessment assignments had added value. However, not all students fulfilled all assessment assignments. Recommendations for implementation of peer assessment in CSCL environments as well as suggestions for future research are discussed

Evaluation of marking of peer marking in oral presentation.

BACKGROUND: Peer marking is an important skill for students, helping them to understand the process of learning and assessment. This method is increasingly used in medical education, particularly in formative assessment. However, the use of peer marking in summative assessment is not widely adopted because many teachers are concerned about biased marking by students of their peers. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate whether marking of summative peer assessment can improve the reliability of peer marking. METHODS: In a retrospective analysis, the peer-marking results of a summative assessment of oral presentations of two cohorts of students were compared. One group of students was told that their peer marks would be assessed against a benchmark consisting of the average of examiner marks and that these scores together with the peer and examiner marks would form their final exam results. The other group of students were just informed that their final exam results would be determined based on the examiner and peer marks. RESULTS: Based on examiner marks, both groups of students performed similarly in their summative assessment, agreement between student markers was less consistent and more polar than the examiners. When compared with the examiners, students who were told that their peer marking would be scored were more generous markers (their average peer mark was 2.4 % points higher than the average examiner mark) while students who were not being scored on their marking were rather harsh markers (their average peer mark was 4.2 % points lower than the average examiner mark), with scoring of the top-performing students most affected. CONCLUSIONS: Marking of peer marking had a small effect on the marking conduct of students in summative assessment of oral presentation but possibly indicated a more balanced marking performance

How to improve the peer review method: Free-selection vs assigned-pair protocol evaluated in a computer networking course

This study provides field research evidence on the efficiency of a “free-selection” peer review assignment protocol as compared to the typically implemented “assigned-pair” protocol. The study employed 54 sophomore students who were randomly assigned into three groups: Assigned-Pair (AP) (the teacher assigns student works for review to student pairs), Free-Selection (FS) (students are allowed to freely explore and select peer work for review), and No Review (NR) (control group). AP and FS student groups studied and reviewed peer work in the domain of Computer Networking, supported by a web-based environment designed to facilitate the two peer review protocols. Our results indicate that students following the Free Selection protocol demonstrate (a) better domain learning outcomes, and (b) better reviewer skills, compared to the AP condition. Overall, the study analyzes the benefits and shortcomings of the FS vs AP review assignment protocol, providing evidence that the FS condition can be multiply beneficial to students who engage in peer review activities

Using formative assessment to influence self- and co-regulated learning: the role of evaluative judgement

Recently, the concept of evaluative judgement has gained attention as a pedagogical approach to classroom formative assessment practices. Evaluative judgement is the capacity to be able to judge the work of oneself and that of others, which implies developing knowledge about one’s own assessment capability. A focus on evaluative judgement helps us to better understand what is the influence of assessment practices in the regulation of learning. In this paper, we link evaluative judgement to two self-regulated learning models (Zimmerman and Winne) and present a model on the effects on co-regulation of learning. The models help us to understand how students can be self-regulated through developing their evaluative judgement. The co-regulation model visualises how the learner can become more strategic in this process through teacher and peer assessment in which assessment knowledge and regulation strategies are shared with the learner. The connections we make here are crucial to strengthening our understanding of the influence of assessment practices on students’ learnin