Peer Self and Tutor Assessment Relative Reliabilities

8/17/2019 Peer Self and Tutor Assessment Relative Reliabilities

1/8

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cshe20

Download by: [Ondokuz Mayis Universitesine] Date: 02 May 2016, At: 08:35

Studies in Higher Education

ISSN: 0307-5079 (Print) 1470-174X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cshe20

Peer, self and tutor assessment: Relativereliabilities

Lorraine A.J. Stefani

To cite this article: Lorraine A.J. Stefani (1994) Peer, self and tutor assessment: Relative

reliabilities, Studies in Higher Education, 19:1, 69-75, DOI: 10.1080/03075079412331382153

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079412331382153

Published online: 05 Aug 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1446

View related articles

Citing articles: 109 View citing articles

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/03075079412331382153#tabModulehttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/03075079412331382153#tabModulehttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/03075079412331382153http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/03075079412331382153http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=cshe20&page=instructionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=cshe20&page=instructionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079412331382153http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/03075079412331382153http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cshe20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cshe20


2/8

Studies in Higher Education Volume 19 , No . t , 1994 69

RESEARCH NOTE

P e e r S e l f a n d T u t o r A s se s sm e n t :

re la t ive re l iab i l i t i es

L O R R A I N E A J S T E F A N I

The Queen s University of Belfa st

ABSTRACT A collaborative peer, self an d tutor assessment scheme in w hich the students themselves

defined the m ark ing schedule for a scientific report of a laboratory experiment wi thin the biological

sciences, is evalute d in terms o f correlations between sets of marks. The issues addressed in this report

include: (t ) the reliability of student-derived ma rks, wi th particular emphasis o n perceived tendencies

of high achieving students to underestimate their performance an d low achieving students to

overestimate their performance; (2) the use of student-derived ma rks in for m al grading procedures;

an d (3) the learning benefits which accrue for students participating in peer an d self-assessment

procedures. Th e results of this stud y undertaken with in the context o f a clearly defined, carefully

monitored assignment indicate tha t students h ave a realistic perception of their ow n abilities an d can

m ake rational judgements on the achievements of their peers. T he positive implications o f introducing

peer an d self-assessment schemes into undergraduate courses are discussed.

n t r o d u c t i o n

Over the past few years the United Kingdom Enterprise Higher Education (EHE) initiative

has provided an impetus for change in the way lecturers and tutors interact with and

communi cate knowledge to large groups of students. There is a growing awareness amongs t

university lecturers of the pressure to increase student participation in the learning process

and to provide a skills-based education as well as one based on academic achievement.

Many of the new teaching and learning strategies developed within EHE institutions

have been designed to ensure that students become more aware of the demands of future

employers for graduates who are able to display a range of personal transferable skills.

Communication and presentation skills, problem-solving and organisational skills, team-work

and leadership skills have all been incorporated into degree courses. In addition, in many

fields o f professional training there has been a conce rn for developing students ' ability to

assess and evaluate their own work in ways which are applicable to their future profession

(Magin & Churches, 1989). According to Boud & Lublin (1983), one of the most important

processes that can occur in undergraduate education is the growth in students of the ability

to be realistic judges of their own performance and the ability to moni tor their own learning .

The prevalent model for assessment throughout the education system has been one in

which students have little o r no input, are often unaware of the assessment criteria and have

little recourse regarding the judgements made o f them (Falchikov, 1986). Within the

context of the changing climate of higher education, development of the skill of self-assess-

ment is becoming an increasingly important issue in many EHE institutions, and many

self-assessment devices are being introduced as aids to learning. However, an issue which is

still an obstacle to wider introduction of self-assessment over a range of courses and learning

formats, is the summative use of self-assessment for grading purposes.

As discussed by Boud (1989), many people believe that s tudent-derived marks could not


3/8

70 L A 7 S t e f a n i

be used in formal grading procedures because they would not be accurate enough. In a

comprehensive review of the available literature on self-assessment procedures, Boud

Fatchikov (1989) reported the general trend in the studies was that high achieving students

underestimate their performance and low achieving students overestimate their performance.

However, a close examination of many of the studies which were included in Boud

Falchikov's review highlights the fact that much of the work which has been carried out on

peer and self-assessment is reported in an inconsistent manner and it can be difficult to define

the parameters of many of the studies. More extensive analyses of the reliability of student-

derived marks across a range of subject areas is required to determine the extent to which

peer and self-assessments could be used in formal grading procedures.

This paper reports the results of a study undertaken with a large class of students

self-assessing a biochemistry laboratory practical report and a second class peer-assessing the

same laboratory report using a student-derived marking schedule. The questions addressed

are: (1) Do students of lower ability overmark themselves and student s o f higher ability

undermark themselves? (2) Could self- and peer-assessments be used summatively in formal

grading procedures as well as formatively in contributing to the learning process by assisting

learners to direct their energies to areas o f improvement? (3) Is there any correlation between

self, peer and tutor assessment of an assigned piece of work and the end of term ranking of

students after traditionally assessed examinations? (4) Is self- and peer-assessment beneficial

as a learning experience for students?

ethodology

A peer and self-assessment procedure was presented to two first-year undergraduate classes

within the context o f writing a report o f a laboratory practical project which constitutes part

of the student training in biochemical techniques. The students themselves drew up the

marking schedules which they felt were appropriate for the task. This was done by a class

representative negotia ting with the rest of the s tudents until the class was satisfied with the

scheme. No modification of the schemes was made by the tuto r on the basis that engendering

high levels of communicati on and negotiation within large classes of students was considered

to be an important contribution to the success of this innovation. Student ownership of the

work was also considered to be a high priority. As it can be extremely difficult to obtain

agreement between lecturers and tutors on appropriate marking criteria, it seemed unfair to

thwart the student efforts by introducing modifications.

One class of 87 students agreed to self-assessment of the laboratory reports and another

class of 67 students agreed to peer assessment of the reports using the student generated

marking schedules. An ideal situation would be self, peer and tutor assessment occurring

within the same class, but timetable constraints did not allow for this. The student marking

schedules are shown in Table I.

When the laboratory work was completed, the students were given 7 days to hand in

their reports. All the reports were assessed by the tutor, but these marks were not initially

released to the students. The reports to be self-assessed were handed back to the students

who were then given 7 days to assess their own work before handing in the report to receive

the tuto r assessment. T he reports to be peer-assessed were handed back to the class randomly

and this class was also given 7 days to complete the assessment. This project was carried out

with first year undergraduate students and with such a large class (67), the students did not

know many o f their peers. Although the projects were not coded in any way, it turned out that

no student peer-assessed a friend's laboratory report.

It had been agreed with the class that the reports would be marked out of 100 and that


4/8

P e e r , S e l f a n d T u t o r A s s e s s m e n t 7 1

TABLE I . S tuden t -der ived mark ing

schedules

a) Self-assessment Schedule

Aim s and hypothes i s 15

M ethods and appara tus 20

Results (calculations etc.) 25

In terp re ta t ion o f resu l ts 25

Discussion 15

Tota l 100

b) PeerAssessment Schedule

In t roduct ion 15

Aims 15

Met h o d 1 0

Results 10

Discuss ion o f resu l ts 25

Conclus ions 25

Tota l 100

w e w o u l d h a ve a - 1 0 m a r k ' a c c e p t a n c e r a n g e ' . T h e a g r e e d m a r k w o u l d b e th e a v er a g e o f

t h e t u t o r a n d t h e s t u d e n t m a r k w i t h in t h i s c o n st r a in t . F o r m a r k s w h i c h f e ll o u t s i d e o f t h e

' a c c e p t a n c e r a n g e ' a d i s c u s s io n m e e t i n g w o u l d b e s e t u p b e t w e e n s t u d e n t s a n d t u t o r t o

d e c i d e u p o n a n a p p r o p r i a t e f i na l m a r k . I t w a s a ls o a g r e e d w i t h in t h e S c h o o l o f B i o lo g y a n d

B i o c h e m i s t r y t h a t t h e m a r k s f r o m t h is p r o j e c t w o u l d b e u s e d s u m m a t i v e l y a s p a r t o f t h e

o v e r a ll c o n t i n u o u s a s s e s s m e n t c o m p o n e n t o f t h e e n d o f y e a r m a r k s . T h e c o n t r i b u t i o n o f t h is

p r o j e c t w as 2 o f t h e f in a l m a r k . F u l l d e ta i ls o f t h e a b o v e p r o c e d u r e h a v e p r e v io u s l y b e e n

p u b l i s h e d ( S t e f a n i , 1 9 9 2 ) .

I n t h e f i rs t i n s t a n c e , t h e d a t a f r o m t h i s e x p e r i m e n t i n c o l l a b o r a t i v e s e lf , p e e r a n d t u t o r

a s s e s s m e n t w e r e a n a l y s e d to d e t e r m i n e : t h e l e ve ls o f s t u d e n t u n d e r m a r k i n g o r o v e r m a r k i n g

i n c o m p a r i s o n w i t h tu t o r m a r k i n g , u n d e r m a r k i n g o r o v e r m a r k i n g b a s e d o n g e n d e r c o m p a r i -

s o n s a n d t h e a c c u r a c y o f t h e m a r k i n g r e l a t iv e t o s t u d e n t a g e ( S t e fa n i , 1 9 9 2 ). T h e d a t a

o b t a i n e d f r o m t h is e x p e r i m e n t c a n f u r t h e r b e u s e d t o e x a m i n e t w o c r u c ia l q u e s t io n s r e l a t in g

t o t h e u s e o f p e e r a n d s e l f- a s s e s sm e n t p r o c e d u r e s i n a s u m m a t i v e a s w e l l a s f o r m a t i v e

m a n n e r : ( 1 ) D o s t u d e n t s o f lo w e r a b i l it y o v e r m a r k t h e m s e l v e s a n d s t u d e n t s o f h i g h e r a b i l i t y

u n d e r m a r k t h e m s e l v es ? ( 2 ) W h a t i s t h e c o r r e l a t io n b e t w e e n t u t o r , s e l f a n d p e e r a s s e s s m e n t

o f a c o u rs e a s s i g n m e n t a n d e n d o f t e r m s t u d e n t m a r k i n g ? I n t h e c u r r e n t p a p e r , t h e s e

q u e s t i o n s a r e n o w a d d r e s s e d a n d s t a ti s ti c a l a n a ly s is o f t h e d a t a d e r i v e d f r o m t h e e x p e r i m e n t

a r e p r e s e n t e d a n d d i s c u s s e d w i th s u c h i s su e s i n m i n d .

e s u l t s

M a r k A n a l y s i s

O u t o f a c l a ss o f 8 7 s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g in t h e s e l f - a s s e s s m e n t e x er c i se , 8 0 s t u d e n t s

p r e s e n t e d t h e i r r e p o r t s f o r t u t o r a s s e s s m e n t . T a b l e I I p r o v id e s i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e a v e ra g e s

o b t a i n e d f r o m t u t o r a s s e s s m e n t a n d s e l f- a s se s s m e n t . T h e s e l f- a s s e ss m e n t m a r k s a p p e a r m o r e

s t r i n g e n t th a n t h e t u t o r m a r k s a n d t h e r e i s s l ig h t i n d i c a t i o n th a t s t u d e n t s m a r k w i t h in a m o r e

r e s t r ic t e d r a n g e a s i n d i c a t e d b y t h e l o w e r s t a n d a r d d e v i a ti o n .

T h e s e r e s u k s i n t h e m s e l v e s g i v e n o i n d i c a t i o n a s t o w h e t h e r s t u d e n t s w i t h h i g h m a r k s

f r o m t h e t u t o r t e n d e d t o a w a r d t h e m s e l v e s a l o w e r m a r k a n d s t u d e n t s w i t h l ow m a r k s f r o m


5/8

7 2 L A f t S t e f a n i

T A B L E I I . Tu tor versus se l f as sessment : comp ar i son o f means a nd

s tandard dev ia t ions

N Me an S t an d a r d d ev ia t io n

Tu tor ma rk 80 75 .3 10.1

Studen t se l f m ark 80 72 .7 9 .3

N.B. Fo r var ious reasons seven s tuden t s d id n o t pa r t i c ipa te in the

self-assessment exercise.

t h e t u t o r a w a r d a h i g h e r s e lf m a r k . T h i s c a n b e e x a m i n e d b y c a t e g o r i s i n g t h e s t u d e n t m a r k s

i n to q u a r t i le s b a s e d o n t h e s c o r e s o b t a i n e d f r o m l e c t u re r m a r k s . T a b l e I I I s h o w s t he o u t c o m e

o f t h i s a n a l y s i s .

TABLE II I Tutor versus self-assessment : di fferences in means based on performance quart i les

Quar t i l e g roup Tu tor ma rk Sel f ma rk Di fference o f mean s

t u t o r mar k s ) N u m b er i n q u a r ti le mean ) mean ) T - S )

45 -62 T uto r 12 56.2 54.9 + 1.3

Studen t 20

63-74 Tu tor 42 70 .9 67 .9 + 3

Studen t 41

75- 87 Tu tor 21 81.5 78.2 + 3.3

Studen t 16

88-100 Tu tor 5 92 .4 89 .7 + 2 .7

S t u d en t 3

T h e g r o u p i n th e l o w e s t q u a r t i le r e c e iv i n g t u t o r m a r k s b e t w e e n 4 5 a n d 6 2 ) p r o v i d e d s e l f

m a r k s w h i c h w e r e o n a v e r a g e 1 .3 m a r k s l o w e r th a n t h e m a r k s a w a r d e d b y th e t u to r . S t u d e n t s

i n t h e h ig h e s t q u a r t il e r e c e iv i n g t u t o r m a r k s b e t w e e n 8 8 a n d 1 0 0) p r o v i d e d s e l f m a r k s w h i c h

w e r e o n a v e r a g e 2 .7 m a r k s b e l o w t h e t u t o r m a r k . T h e h i g h e s t d i s c r e p a n c i e s o c c u r w h e r e

t h e r e is g r e a t e st c l u st e r in g o f t h e m a r k s - - b e t w e e n 6 3 a n d 8 7 . T h e i m p o r t a n t p o i n t s t o n o t e

a r e th a t t h e s e f i g u re s r u n c o u n t e r t o t h e n o t i o n t h a t s t u d e n t s r e c e i v in g l o w e r m a r k s f r o m t h e

t u t o rs a w a r d t h e m s e l v e s h i g h e r m a r k s , a n d c o u l d b e i n t e r p r e t e d t o c o n f i r m t o s o m e e x t e n t th e

b e l i e f t h a t h i g h e r a c h i e v er s m a y m a r k t h e m s e l v e s d o w n . H o w e v e r , o n t h i s l as t p o i n t i t is j u s t

a s f e a s i b le t o a r g u e t h a t t h e d i s c r e p a n c i e s a r e n o g r e a t e r t h a n m i g h t b e f o u n d a s a re s u l t o f

i n t e r - e x a m i n e r v a r ia b i l it y i n d o u b l e m a r k i n g p r o c e d u r e s .

A n a l y s is o f t h e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e s e l f- a s se s s m e n t s a n d t h e t u t o r a s s e s s m e n t s g i v es

a n r v a l u e o f 0 .9 3 . F r o m t h e s e r e su l ts i t c a n b e i n f e rr e d t h a t u s e o f t h e s t u d e n t m a r k s i n p l a c e

o f tu t o r m a r k s w o u l d r e s u l t i n a s i m i la r o r d e r i n g o f i n d i v i d u a l p e r f o r m a n c e w i t h o n l y th e

s l ig h t e st t e n d e n c y t o w a r d s u n d e r m a r k i n g , p a r t i c u la r l y w i t h h i g h a c h i e v e rs , b u t n o c o r r e -

s p o n d i n g o v e r m a r k i n g w i t h l o w a c h i e v e rs .

D u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f t h is e x p e r i m e n t , a n d w h e t h e r t h e s t u d e n t s w e r e e n g a g e d i n

s e l f- a s s e ss m e n t a s r e p o r t e d a b o v e ) o r p e e r a s s e s s m e n t y e t t o b e r e p o r t e d ) , i t w a s n o t e d t h a t

t h e s t u d e n t s w e r e h i g h l y m o t i v a t e d a n d m o r e i n t e r e s te d i n t h e t a s k th a n i s g e n e r a l ly o b s e r v e d

d u r i n g l a r g e p r a c t i c a l cl a ss e s . T h i s m a y h a v e b e e n d u e t o a g r e a t e r s e n s e o f i n v o l v e m e n t i n

a ll a s p e c t s o f th e p r o j e c t t h a n i s u s u a l l y t h e c a s e . O n e c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h i s w a s a v e r y h i g h

s t a n d a r d o f w o r k p r o d u c e d a n d o v e ra l l h i g h e r a c h i e v e m e n t i n in t e r p r e t i n g e x p e r i m e n t a l d a t a

a n d p r e s e n t i n g a s c i e n ti f ic r e p o r t .

T h e r o l e o f se l f - a ss e s s m e n t i n th e d e v e l o p m e n t o f p r o f e s s io n a l c o m p e t e n c e h a s b e e n

r e c o g n i s e d , a n d B o u d 1 9 8 9 ) a r g u e s t h a t o n e o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f e f f e ct iv e l e a r n e r s is t h a t


6/8

Peer Se lf and Tutor Assessment 7 3

t h e y h a v e a r e a l i st i c s e n s e o f t h e i r o w n s t r e n g t h s a n d w e a k n e s s e s . T o e x a m i n e t h i s i s su e , th e

e x t e n t t o w h i c h a n e x e r c is e o f t h is n a t u r e c o u l d b e u s e d a s a s tu d e n t p e r f o r m a n c e i n d i c a t o r

w a s a d d r e s s e d . T h e s t u d e n t r a n k i n g d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e s e l f- a s s e ss m e n t m a r k s w a s c o r r e l a t e d

w i t h t h e e n d o f te r m s t u d e n t r a n k i n g a f t e r t r a d i t i o n a l l y a s s e s se d e x a m i n a t i o n s . T h i s w a s t h e n

c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n r a n k i n g o f t h e s t u d e n t s a c c o r d i n g to t u t o r d e r i v e d

m a r k s f o r th i s e x e rc i se a n d t h e e n d o f t e r m r a n k in g . T h e c o r r e l a t io n b e t w e e n s e l f -a s s e s sm e n t

o f a sc i e n ti f i c r e p o r t a n d t h e o u t c o m e o f e x a m i n a t i o n s g iv e s a n r v a l u e o f 0 .7 1 , a n d t h e

c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t u t o r a s s e s s m e n t o f th e s c ie n t i f i c r e p o r t a n d t h e o u t c o m e o f e n d o f t e r m

e x a m i n a t i o n s g i v e s a n r v a l u e o f 0 . 5 8 .

T h i s i s a n i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t b e c a u s e i t s u g g e s t s th a t i f s e l f - a s s e s s m e n t m a r k s a l o n e w e r e

t o b e u s e d a s t h e d e t e r m i n a n t o f e x a m i n a t i o n r e s u l ts , th e r e s u l t w o u l d b e a m o d e r a t e l y s i m i l a r

o r d e r i n g o f i n d i v i d u a l p e r f o r m a n c e t o t h a t o b t a i n e d f r o m t r a d i t i o n a l l y a s s e ss e d e x a m i n a t i o n s .

S u c h a s w e e p i n g g e n e r a l i s a t i o n b a s e d o n o n e e x e r c i s e i n s e l f - a s s e s s m e n t w i t h o n e c l a ss i s o f

c o u r s e q u i te u n a c c e p t a b l e , b u t t h e s e r e su l ts d o p r o v i d e e n c o u r a g e m e n t f o r c o n t i n u e d

i n t r o d u c t i o n o f s e l f - a s s e s s m e n t e x e r c i se s in d i f f e r e n t c o u r s e s a t d i f f e r e n t s ta g e s o f u n d e r -

g r a d u a t e t r a in i n g . S i m i l a r a n a l y s es w e r e p e r f o r m e d w i t h th e d a t a o b t a i n e d f r o m t h e p e e r

a s s e s s m e n t c l a s s . O u t o f a t o t a l o f 6 7 , f o u r s t u d e n t s f a i l e d to p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e e x e r c i s e d u e

t o a b s e n c e .

T a b l e I V s h o w s t h e a v e r a g e s a n d s t a n d a r d d e v i a t io n s o f t h e p e e r a n d t u t o r a s s e s s m e n t s

o f t h e l a b o r a t o r y r e p o r t a n d T a b l e V s h o w s t h e a s s e s s m e n t s c a t e g o r i s e d i nt o q u a r t i le s t o

d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e p e e r m a r k i n g o f t h e h i g h e r a n d l o w e r a c h ie v e r s is m o r e o r le s s

s t r i n g e n t t h a n t h e t u t o r m a r k i n g . A s w i t h t h e s e l f - a ss e s s m e n t s , t h e p e e r a s s e s s m e n t f ig u r e s

s u g g e s t t h a t t h e s t u d e n t s m a r k w i t h in a m o r e r e s t r i c t e d ra n g e t h a n t u to r s .

TABLE IV. Tu tor versus pe er assessment : com parison of

means and s t andard dev ia t ions

N M ean S t an d a r d d ev i at io n

Tu tor m ark 63 74 12 .01

Pee r m ark 57 74.4 10.7

T h i s s e t o f r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e s t h a t p e e r a s s e s s m e n t is m o r e s t r i n g e n t t h a n t u t o r a s s e s s m e n t

w i t h i n t h e l o w e r m a r k r a n g e a n d s l ig h t ly l e ss s t r i n g e n t t h r o u g h o u t t h e r e s t o f t h e r a n g e .

H o w e v e r , t h e s m a l l d if f e re n c e s i n t h e m e a n s a n d t h e r e a s o n a b l e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e

n u m b e r s o f s tu d e n t s w i t h i n e a c h q u a r t i le i n d i c a t e a s w i t h th e s e l f - a s s e s s e d s c r i p t s t h a t t h e

g e n e r a l r a n k i n g w i t h i n t h e c la s s s h o w s g o o d a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e p e e r a n d t u t o r a s s e s s-

m e n t s . T h i s i s f u r t h e r h i g h l i g h t e d w i t h a c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c ie n t b e t w e e n p e e r a s s e s s m e n t a n d

t u t o r a s s e s s m e n t o f r = 0 . 8 9 .

A s w i t h t h e s e l f - a s se s s m e n t s , t h e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e p e e r a n d t u t o r a s s e s s m e n t s i n

t h i s e x e r c is e a n d t h e s t u d e n t r a n k i n g a f t e r t r a d i t i o n a l l y a s s e s s e d e x a m i n a t i o n s w a s c a l c u l a t e d .

T h e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n p e e r a s s e s s m e n t o f a s c ie n t if ic r e p o r t a n d t h e o u t c o m e o f t r a d i t i o n -

a l ly a s s e s s e d e x a m i n a t i o n s g i v e s a n r v a l u e o f 0 . 4 7 a n d t h e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e t u t o r

a s s e s s m e n t s o f t h is e x e r c i se a n d t h e o u t c o m e o f t h e e x a m i n a t i o n s g iv e s a n r v a l u e o f 0 . 5 8 .

T h e d i s c r e p a n c i e s b e t w e e n t h e a s s e s s m e n t s o f t h is e x e rc i se a n d t h e o u t c o m e o f e x a m i n a -

t i o n s a r e n o t p a r t i c u l a r ly su r p r is i ng . A q u e s t i o n n a i r e w h i c h w a s d e s i g n e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e

p e r c e i v e d b e n e f i t s o f p e e r a n d s e l f - a s s e s s m e n t p r o c e d u r e s w a s g i v e n t o a11 t h e s t u d e n t s .

A l m o s t 1 0 0 o f t h e s t u d e n t s s a id t h a t p e e r a n d se l f -a s s e s sm e n t p r o c e d u r e s m a d e t h e m t h i n k

m o r e a n d 8 5 s a i d t h a t i t m a d e t h e m l e a r n m o r e t h a n t r a d i t io n a l l y a s s e s se d w o r k . T h e r e f o r e ,

i t m u s t b e a c c e p t e d t h a t t h e r e s u l t s o b s e r v e d h e r e r e l a t e t o a h i g h l y m o t i v a t e d a c t i v i ty


7/8

74 L A J S te fan i

TABLE V. T uto r versus pe er assessment : di fferences in m eans based on p erform ance quarti les

Quar t i l e g roup Tu tor ma rk Peer ma rk Di fference o f means

( tu to r marks ) Nu m ber in quar t i le (mean) (mean) (T - P)

4 5 - 6 2 T u t o r 8

Stu den t 7 56.8 53.5 + 3.3

6 3 - 7 4 T u t o r 2 5

Stu den t 20 67.8 70.15 - 2 .4

7 5 - 8 7 T u t o r 1 9

Stud ent 26 79.6 81.0 - 1 .4

8 8 - 1 0 0 T u t o r 5

Stu den t 4 91.6 93.0 - 1 .4

c o m p a r e d t o e n d o f t e r m e x a m i n a t i o n s , a n d n o f i rm c o n c l u s i o n s c a n b e m a d e o n t h e b a s is

o f t h i s o n e e x e r c i s e . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s m a d e d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f t h is e x e r c i s e

a r e h i g h l y e n c o u r a g i n g w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e r e l i a b i li t y o f l e a r n e r s ' p e e r a n d s e l f- a s s e ss m e n t s .

i s c u s s i o n

T h i s s t u d y h a s s h o w n t h a t s t u d e n t a s s e s s m e n t c a n b e a s r e l ia b l e a s t h a t o f l e c t u re r s a n d g o e s

s o m e w a y t o d i s p e l l in g f e ar s t h a t l o w e r a c h ie v e r s a w a r d t h e m s e l v e s h i g h e r m a r k s a n d h i g h e r

a c h i e ve r s m a r k t h e m s e l v e s d o w n r e la t iv e t o t u t o r m a r k i n g . A l t h o u g h t h is p a p e r r e p o r t s t h e

r e s u l t s o f o n e e x e r c i s e i n p e e r a n d s e l f - a s s e s s m e n t , th e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f si m i l a r p r o c e d u r e s t o

o t h e r g r o u p s o f s t u d e n t s i n d i f f e re n t c o n te x t s a n d s u b j e c t a re a s h a s s h o w n r e m a r k a b l y s i m i l a r

r e s u l t s ( F i t z g e r a l d & S t e f a n i , i n p r e p a r a t i o n ) .

W i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e v a l i d i t y o f s tu d e n t m a r k s , t h e d i f f e r en c e s i n c o r r e la t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e

a s s e s s m e n t s o f a s c ie n t if ic r e p o r t a n d e n d o f t e r m r a n k i n g o f s tu d e n t s r a is e i n te r e s t in g p o i n ts .

S t u d e n t m o t i v a t i o n i n t h i s e x e r c i s e w a s p e r c e i v e d t o b e v e r y h i g h a n d i t i s l i ke l y t h a t t h e

s t u d e n t s w o r k e d h a r d e r t o r e a c h h i g h e r l e v el s o f a c h i e v e m e n t t h a n m i g h t n o r m a l l y b e t h e c a s e

w i t h r e s p e c t t o e n d o f t e r m e x a m i n a t i o n s . G i v e n t h e t a c k o f t r a i n in g i n p e e r a n d s e lf - as s e ss -

m e n t e x p e r i e n c e d b y t h e t w o c l as s es o f s t u d e n t s i n th i s s tu d y , n o f i rm c o n c l u s i o n s s h o u l d b e

d r a w n r e g a r d i n g t h e se r e s u lt s . H o w e v e r , l o n g - t e r m m o n i t o r i n g o f t h e s e g r o u p s o f s t u d e n t s i s

u n d e r w a y r e g a r d i n g t h e i r a bi l i t i e s a n d a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d s a l t e r n a t iv e a s s e s s m e n t m e t h o d s .

P r o c e d u r e s h a v e b e e n i n t r o d u c e d t o g iv e s t u d e n t s f o r m a t i v e a n d c o n s t r u c t iv e f e e d b a c k o n

t h e i r a c h i e v e m e n t s i n t h i s a r e a .

M a n y l ec turers / tu tors e x p r e s s g r e a t f e a r o f h a n d i n g a n y o f t h e p o w e r o f a s se s s m e n t o v e r

t o s t u d e n t s . T h i s f e a r g e n e r a l l y s t e m s f r o m t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e s t u d e n t m a r k s w i ll d i f fe r

s i g ni f ic a n t ly f r o m l e c t u r e r m a r k s . T o c o u n t e r a c t t h i s fe a r , i t c a n b e a r g u e d t h a t i n t r o d u c i n g

s t u d e n t s t o s e l f a n d p e e r a s s e s s m e n t e a r l y i n th e i r a c a d e m i c c a r e e r a n d u s i n g t h e m a r k

s u m m a t i v e l y a s w e l l a s fo r m a t i v e l y w i l l e n g e n d e r a s e n s e o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n s t u d e n t s s u c h

t h a t b y t h e t i m e t h a t t h e g r a d i n g a n d r a n k i n g o f s tu d e n t s b e c o m e s a c r u c i a l m a t t e r , f o r

e x a m p l e i n t h e f i na l y e a r o f u n d e r g r a d u a t e t r a in i n g , s t u d e n t s w i l l b e w e l l a c c u s t o m e d t o t h e

p r o c e d u r e s . G r a d u a l l y , w i th i n t h is u n i v e r s it y s t u d e n t d e r i v e d m a r k s a r e c o n t r i b u t i n g to e n d

o f t e r m s t u d e n t r a n k i n g .

C o w a n ( 1 9 8 8 ) h a s a r g u e d t h a t t h e b e n e f i t s o f s e l f - a s s e s s m e n t a r e so g r e a t t h a t w e s h o u l d

t r u s t s t u d e n t s t o a c t a p p r o p r i a t e l y e v e n w h e n t h e r e i s a r i s k t h a t t h e r e c o u l d b e d i f f e r e n c e s

b e t w e e n t h e s t u d e n t m a r k a n d t h e t u t o r m a r k . I n s u p p o r t o f t h is id e a , w h e n t h e s t u d e n t s

p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n th i s p e e r a n d s e l f - a s s e s s m e n t e x e r c i s e w e r e g i v e n a q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o e v a l u a t e

t h e l e a r n i n g b e n e f i t s , a l m o s t 1 0 0 o f t h e s t u d e n t s s a id t h a t t h e s c h e m e m a d e t h e m t h i n k


8/8

Peer Self and Tutor Assessment 7

m o r e , 8 5 s a id i t m a d e t h e m l e a r n m o r e a n d 9 7 s a id t h a t i t w a s c h a l le n g i n g . T h e s e

r e s p o n s e s w e r e g i v e n d e sp i t e t h e f a c t t h a t 1 0 0 o f t h e st u d e n t s s a id th a t i t w a s m o r e t im e

c o n s u m i n g a n d o v e r 7 5 s a id t h a t i t w a s h a r d ( S te f a n i, 1 9 9 2 ) . S i n c e i n t r o d u c i n g th i s

a s s e s s m e n t s t r a t eg y , m a n y s t u d e n t s h a v e a s k e d i f t h is p r o c e d u r e w i l l o p e r a te i n a n y s u b -

s e q u e n t c o u r s e s . P e r h a p s s t u d e n t d e m a n d w i l l t a k e o v e r a n d l e c t u r e r s w i l l b e f o r c e d t o

r e s p o n d t o s t u d e n t n e e d s a n d i n t r o d u c e p e e r a n d s e l f - a s s e s s m e n t p r o c e d u r e s m o r e w i d e l y . I n

t h e w r i t e r ' s o p i n i o n t h i s w o u l d b e n o b a d t h i n g .

Correspondence

L o r r a i n e A . J. S te f a n i, S c h o o l o f B i o l o g y a n d B i o c h e m i s t r y , T h e Q u e e n ' s

U n i v e r s i ty o f B e l fa s t, B e l f as t B T 9 7 B L , U n i t e d K i n g d o m .

REFF~.ENCES

BOUD, D. (1989) T he ro l e o f se l f - a sse ssmen t in s t uden t g rad ing , Assessment and Evaluation in Higher

Education 14 , pp . 20 -30 .

BOUD, D. FALCHIKOV, N. (1989) Q uan t i t a t i ve s t ud ie s o f s t uden t se l f - asse ssmen t i n h ighe r educa t i on : a

cr i t ica l analysis of f indings, Higher Education 18 , pp . 529-549 .

BOtrD, D . LUBLIN,J . ( I 983) Self-assessment in Professional Education. A Report to the Comm onwealth Research

and Development Committee ( T e r t ia r y E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h C e n t r e , U n i v e r s i t y o f N e w S o u t h W a l e s ) .

COW AN, J . (1988) S t rugg l ing wi th s t ud en t se l f -a sse ssmen t , i n : D. J . Bou D (Ed . ) Developing Student A utono my

in Learning 2 n d e d n , p p . 1 9 2 - 2 1 0 ( L o n d o n , K o g a n P a g e ).

FALCmKOV, N. (1986) Pro duc t com par i sons a nd p rocess bene f i t s o f co l l abora t ive pee r and se l f -a sse ssmen t ,

Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 11 (4 ) , pp . 146-16 6 .

MAGrN, D. J . CHURCHES, A.E . (1989) W ha t do Students Learn from Se lf and Peer Assessment in Designing

for Learning in Industry and Education p p . 2 2 4 - 2 3 3 ( C a n b e r r a , A u s t r a l ia n S o c i e t y f o r E d u c a t i o n a l

T e c h n o l o g y ) .

STEFA~I, L .A. J . (1992) Co mp ar i son o f co l l abora t ive se lf , pee r and t u to r a sse ssmen t i n a b iochemis t ry

prac t i c a l , Biochemical Education 2 0 , p p . 1 4 8 - 1 5 1 .

Documents

Peer Self and Tutor Assessment Relative Reliabilities