Www.bournemouth.ac.uk Peer and Self – Assessment using Computer Assisted Self & Peer Assessment Ratings (CASPAR) Dr Holly Henderson

www.bournemouth.ac.uk

Peer and Self – Assessment using Computer Assisted Self & Peer Assessment Ratings (CASPAR)

Dr Holly Henderson

www.bournemouth.ac.uk 2

Positives (1)

• Development of self-assessment and reflective learning (Somervell, 1993; Topping, 1998)

• Deepening of students’ understanding of the assessment process (Brown & Bull, 1997)

• Students have opportunities to compare and discuss about what constituted a good or bad piece of work, which help them to improve their programming style and think more deeply about the quality of work (Brindley, 1998)

• When marking, students realize mistakes that they had made in their own answers - the more marking students did, the better their own results became (Bhalearo & Ward, 2001)


Positives (2)

• Enhances the metacognition of learners and improved understanding of subject matter (Ballantyne et al, 2002)

• Encourages formative assessment – learning through feedback; has validity as it measures what it is supposed to measure; emphasis on the process not just the product; is expected in work situations; encourages intrinsic motivation; changes the role of the tutor as sole arbiter of assessment (Wilson, 2003)

• Increased sense of responsibility and autonomy towards their peers’ learning (Papinczak et al, 2007)


Negatives

• Auon (2007) highlights that the most significant disadvantage emphasised in the literature is potential bias

• Flachikov and Magin, (1997) found that this bias is often gender specific

• Suffers from a perceived lack of objectivity (Brindley & Scoffield, 1998)

• Swanson et al (1991), who listed issues surrounding the reliability, credibility and validity, including inaccuracy and low precision by naïve markers, and variability between groups of peer-assessors.


CASPAR

• Computer Assisted Self and Peer Assessment Ratings



Case Study - BAEM & BALM

Managing People & PPD

Events Management

4 Assessment Points - post task






Example - Assessment 1

• Mean assessment mark was 72.4%

• Range from 39% to 93%

• Mode of 77

• Marking criteria issues

• Software issues


Student to Student Comments

• "XXX has the potential to be an excellent member of the group. Unfortunately XXX conflict with other group members and drops in attendance has let them down. Thankfully, XXX has still made useful contributions to the group and I’m sure this will improve over time.”

• "XXX is quite punctual but could turn up a little bit earlier than maybe usual. And I feel XXX could have a little more enthusiasm towards the work."


Student Feedback

• “I was really worried, I entered the wrong information to the wrong student and when I realised and tried to go back and alter it the system would not allow me”

• “I wrote a comment about one of my peers in the heat of the moment, and then it was really obvious it was my comments though they were anonymous everyone knew it was me”

• We really enjoyed using CASPAR, it is a really easy way of getting 10% of the unit mark”

• “It is really useful to know what my group thinks of me and what I need to improve on”


Realities

• Potential• Means of motivation• Recognition of actions• Aspects to build on• Awareness of peers• A team tool

• Flexibility

• Reporting function


CASPAR

http://www.cemp.ac.uk/caspar/


References:

• Aoun, C., 2007 Peer Assessment and Learning Outcomes: Product Deficiency or Process Defectiveness? Sydney: Macquarie University

• Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K. & Mylonas, A. 2002, Developing Procedures for Implementing Peer Assessment in Large Classes Using an Action Research Process, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 5, 427-441

• Brown, G., Bull, J., and Pendlebury, M., 1997 Assessing Student Learning in Higher Education. London: Routledge.

• Bhalerao, A. and Ward, A., 2001 “Towards electronically assisted peer assessment: a case study”, Association for Learning Technology journal (ALT-J), 9(1), 26-37

• Falchikov, N. 2005 Improving Assessment Through Student Involvement: Practical Solutions For Aiding Learning in Higher and Further Education: Routledge: London

• Papinczak, T., Young, L., & Groves, M. 2007 Peer assessment in problem-based learning: A qualitative study. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 12(2), 169-186.

• Somervell, H., 1993 “Issues in assessment, enterprise and higher education: the case for self-, peer and collaborative assessment”, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 18, 221-233, 1993

• Swanson,D.,Case,S.& van der Vlueten,C.(1991) Strategies for student assessment. In: The Challenge of Problem Based Learning.Eds. D.Boud & G.Feletti. Pp 260-273. London: Kogan Page

• Topping, K. 1998, Peer Assessment Between Students in Colleges and Universities, Review of Educational Research, 68, 3, 249-276

• Wilson, S., 2003 Using peer and self-assessment to engage with assessment criteria and learning: a case study from a course for lecturers in Investigations in University teaching and learning vol. 1 (2) winter 2003

Documents

Www.bournemouth.ac.uk Peer and Self – Assessment using Computer Assisted Self & Peer Assessment Ratings (CASPAR) Dr Holly Henderson