“Now you know what you’re doing right and wrong!” Peer feedback quality in synchronous peer assessment in secondary education
- 573 Downloads
This study explores the effects of peer assessment (PA) practice on peer feedback (PF) quality of 11th grade secondary education students (N = 36). The PA setting was synchronous: anonymous assessors gave immediate PF using mobile response technology during 10 feedback occasions. The design was quasi-experimental (experimental vs. control condition) in which students in one condition received a scaffold to filter out relevant information they received. It was expected that this filter-out scaffold would influence PF quality in subsequent tasks in which they were assessors. PF content analysis showed that offering multiple PF occasions improved PF quality: messages contained more negative verifications and informative and suggestive elaborations after the intervention. However, no effects were found of filtering out relevant information on PF quality. Moreover, students’ perceived peer feedback skills improved which was in correspondence with their actual quality improvement over time. Additionally, the perceived usefulness of the received feedback was rated high by all participants.
KeywordsPeer feedback Peer assessment Assessment scaffolds Practice effect
The first author’s research was funded by Ghent University BOF fund number BOF13/24J/115. The second author’s research was funded by the Spanish Ramón y Cajal program number RYC-2013-134069.
- Boud, D., & Soler, R. (2015). Sustainable assessment revisited. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–14. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1018133.
- De Swert, K. (2012). Calculating inter-coder reliability in media content analysis using Krippendorff’s alpha. Retrieved from http://www.polcomm.org/wp-content/uploads/ICR01022012.pdf.
- Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: the risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. Heerlen: Open Universiteit Nederland. Retrieved from https://telearn.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00190230/.Google Scholar
- Harks, B., Rakoczy, K., Hattie, J., Besser, M., & Klieme, E. (2013). The effects of feedback on achievement, interest and self-evaluation: the role of feedback’s perceived usefulness. Educational Psychology, 1–22.Google Scholar
- Hattie, J., & Gan, M. (2011). Instruction based on feedback. In Handbook of research on learning and instruction (pp. 249–270). Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9780203839089.ch13.
- Magaña, S., & Marzano, R. J. (2014). Using polling technologies to close feedback gaps. Educational Leadership, 82–83.Google Scholar
- Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merril, J. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 124–143). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Panadero, E. (2016). Is it safe? Social, interpersonal, and human effects of peer assessment: a review and future directions. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Human factors and social conditions of assessment (pp. 1–39). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Panadero, E., Romero, M., & Strijbos, J. W. (2013). The impact of a rubric and friendship on peer assessment: effects on construct validity, performance, and perceptions of fairness and comfort. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(4), 195–203. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.10.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Strijbos, J. W. (2016). Scaffolding self-regulated learning through self-assessment and peer assessment: guidelines for classroom implementation. In D. Laveault & L. Allal (Eds.), Assessment for learning: meeting the challenge of implementation (pp. 311–326). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Prins, F. J., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Kirschner, P. A., & Strijbos, J. (2010). Formative peer assessment in a CSCL environment: a case study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 417–444. Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/ 10.1080/02602930500099219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Reinholz, D. (2015a). Peer conferences in calculus: the impact of systematic training. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–17. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1077197.
- Reinholz, D. L. (2015b). Peer-assisted reflection: a design-based intervention for improving success in calculus. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 1(2), 234–267. doi: 10.1007/s40753-015-0005-y.
- Reinholz, D. (2015c). The assessment cycle: a model for learning through peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–15. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1008982.
- Sluijsmans, D. M. A. (2002). Student involvement in assessment: the training of peer assessment skills. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Heerlen: Open University of the Netherlands.Google Scholar
- Topping, K. J. (2003). In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Self and peer assessment in school and university: reliability, validity and utility (pp. 55–87). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
- Yu, F.-Y., & Sung, S. (2015). A mixed methods approach to the assessor’s targeting behavior during online peer assessment: effects of anonymity and underlying reasons. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–18. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2015.1041405.