Assessment of Group Work within the ICS Disciplines The role of peer and self assessment in the assessment of groupwork Mark Lejk School of Computing &

Assessment of Group Work within the ICS Disciplines

The role of peer and self assessment in the

assessment of groupwork

Mark LejkSchool of Computing &

TechnologyUniversity of Sunderland


Types of peer assessmentadapted from Topping (1998)

• Type 1 peer assessment of work produced by an individual by another individual

• Type 2 peer assessment of work produced by an individual by a collection of other

individuals

• Type 3 peer assessment of work produced by a group by a collection of other individuals

• Type 4 peer assessment of the contribution of an individual to a group activity by

other members of the same group


Peer assessment within groups

• Formative (qualitative)

• Summative: category-basedholistic


Differences between Type 4 and Types 1 to 3

• Product or process• “Zero-sum” games• Category-based peer assessment• Length of time• Size of group


Quantitative Studies (1)

When peer assessment takes place within a group assignment, what differences occur in the final distribution of marks when the peer assessment is performed holistically and when it is broken down into categories? Lejk & Wyvill (2001a)• Both methods increase correlation with individual grades

• Holistic assessment gives high proportion of equal distribution

• Holistic assessment gives higher proportion at the extremes

• Tendency to do the category-based method holistically!



When self-assessment is included with peer assessment in a group assignment, how does the self-assessment of an individual compare with the peer assessment of that same individual? Lejk & Wyvill (2001b)

• Better students tend to under-assess themselves

• Weaker students tend to over-assess themselves

• Removal of self-assessment increases the spread of marks



When peer assessment is used within a group assignment, what differences occur when the peer assessment is performed secretly and when it is agreed as a group? Lejk & Wyvill (2001b)

• Agreement between peers is less when done secretly

• Spread of marks higher when done secretly


Qualitative Studies

• Students prefer holistic assessment

• Students find peer assessment difficult and open to abuse

• Students prefer to peer assess in secret

• Students find self-assessment even harder

• Students find quantitative assessment unhelpful


Observations

• More use should be made of qualitative peer assessment• Qualitative peer assessment benefits assessor and assessee• Same applies to self-assessment• Fits in with “modern” assessment ideas e.g. progress files• Holistic summative assessment “better” than category-based• Do not include self-assessment in summative assessment• “Fairer” quantitative assessment done in secret• Qualitative assessment done in the open


References

LEJK M. & WYVILL M. (2001a) Peer Assessment of Contributions to a Group Project: a comparison of holistic and category-based approaches. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(1), 61-72.

LEJK M. & WYVILL M. (2001b) The Effect of the Inclusion of Self-assessment with Peer Assessment of Contributions to a Group Project: a Quantitative Study of Secret and Agreed Assessments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(6), 551-561.

LEJK M. & WYVILL M. (2002) Peer Assessment of Contributions to a Group project: student attitudes to holistics and category-based approaches. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(6), 569-577.

TOPPING, K. (1998) Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities, Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276.

Documents

Assessment of Group Work within the ICS Disciplines The role of peer and self assessment in the assessment of groupwork Mark Lejk School of Computing &