Instructional Science

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 387–406

Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: their origin and impact on revision work

Article

Abstract

We investigate students’ negative perceptions about an online peer assessment system for undergraduate writing across the disciplines. Specifically, we consider the nature of students’ resistance to peer assessment; what factors influence that resistance; and how students’ perceptions impact their revision work. We do this work by first examining findings from an end-of-course survey administered to 250 students in ten courses across six universities using an online peer assessment system called SWoRD for their writing assignments. Those findings indicate that students have the most positive perceptions of SWoRD in those courses where an instructor graded their work in addition to peers (as opposed to peer-only grading). We then move to an in-depth examination of perceptions and revision work among 84 students using SWoRD and no instructor grading for assessment of writing in one university class. Findings from that study indicate that students sometimes regard peer assessment as unfair and often believe that peers are unqualified to review and assess students’ work. Furthermore, students’ perceptions about the fairness of peer assessment drop significantly following students’ experience in doing peer assessment. Students’ fairness perceptions—and drops in those perceptions—are most significantly associated with their perceptions about the extent to which peers’ feedback is useful and positive. However, students’ perceptions appear to be unrelated to the extent of their revision work. This research fills a considerable gap in the literature regarding the origin of students’ negative perceptions about peer assessment, as well as how perceptions influence performance.

Keywords

Peer assessment Peer feedback Peer review Higher education Student perceptions Student attitudes Resistance Technology Writing Revision 

References

  1. Barak, M., & Rafaeli, S. (2004). On-line question-posing and peer-assessment as a means for web-based knowledge sharing in learning. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61(1), 84–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bean, J. P., & Bradley, R. K. (1986). Untangling the satisfaction-performance relationship for college students. Journal of Higher Education, 57(4), 393–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bures, E. M., Abrami, P. C., & Amundsen, C. (2000). Student motivation to learn via computer conferencing. Research in Higher Education, 41(5), 593–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (1997). Having second thoughts: Students perceptions before and after a peer assessment exercise. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 233–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the disciplines: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education, 48(3), 409–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Wilson, R. (2006). Validity and reliability of scaffolded peer assessment of writing from instructor and student perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 891–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, D. K. (1988). Educational technology and school organization. In R. S. Nickerson & P. P. Zodhiates (Eds.), Technology in education: Looking toward 2020 (pp. 231–264). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Crawford, K., Gordon, S., Nicholas, J., & Prosser, M. (1998). Qualitatively different experiences of learning mathematics at university. Learning and Instruction, 8(5), 455–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davies, P. (2000). Computerized peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 37(4), 346–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The logic of naturalistic inquiry. In N. K. Denzin (Ed.), Sociological methods: A sourcebook. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  11. Dorans, N. J. (1999). Correspondence between ACT and SAT scores. In College Board Research Report 99-1. New York, NY: The College Board.Google Scholar
  12. Falchikov, N. (1986). Product comparisons and process benefits of collaborative peer group and self assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 11(2), 146–166.Google Scholar
  13. Falchikov, N. (2001). Learning together: Peer tutoring in higher education. London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  14. Falchikov, N. (2005). Improving assessment through student involvement. New York: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  15. Falchikov, N. (2007). The place of peers in learning and assessment. In D. Boud & N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education (pp. 128–143). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Gatfield, T. (1999). Examining student satisfaction with group projects and peer assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 365–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high school—a report to the carnegie corporation of new york. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.Google Scholar
  18. Jacobsen, D. M. (1997). Instructional quality, student satisfaction, student success, and student evaluations of faculty: What are the issues in higher education? Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary (retrieved January 14, 2008, from ERIC Document Reproduction Service E*Subscribe, ERIC No. ED 423 786).Google Scholar
  19. Katstra, J., Tollefson, N., & Gilbert, E. (1987). The effects of peer evaluation on attitude toward writing and writing fluency of ninth grade students. Journal of Educational Research, 80(3), 168–172.Google Scholar
  20. Liu, N.-F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lizzio, A., Wilson, K., & Simons, R. (2002). University students’ perceptions of the learning environment and academic outcomes: Implications for theory and practice. Studies in Higher Education, 27(1), 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McNeil, L. M. (1988). Contradictions of control: School structure and school knowledge. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. National Commission on Writing in American Schools and Colleges. (2003). The neglected r: The need for a writing revolution. New York, NY: College Board. Available from http://www.writingcommission.org/report.html.
  24. Nelson, M. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37(4), 1573–1952.Google Scholar
  25. Patchan, M. M., Charney, D., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). A validation study of students’ end comments: Comparing comments by students, a writing instructor, and a content instructor. Journal of Writing Research, 1(2), 124–152.Google Scholar
  26. Persky, H. R., Daane, M. C., & Jin, Y. (2003). The nation’s report card: Writing 2002 (nces 2003-529). US Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  27. Ramsden, P. (1991). A performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: The course experience questionnaire. Studies in Higher Education, 16(2), 129–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Richer, D. L. (1992). The effects of two feedback systems on first year college students’ writing proficiency. College of Education University of Massachusetts-Lowell.Google Scholar
  29. Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2007). Tutor learning: The role of explaining and responding to questions. Instructional Science. Online First.Google Scholar
  30. Rushton, C., Ramsey, P., & Rada, R. (1993). Peer assessment in a collaborative hypermedia environment. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20, 75–80.Google Scholar
  31. Simkin, M. G., & Ramarapu, N. K. (1997). Student perceptions of the peer review process in student writing projects. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 27(3), 249–263.Google Scholar
  32. Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Moerkerke, G., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Dochy, F. J. R. C. (2001). Peer assessment in problem based learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 27(2), 153–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith, H., Cooper, A., & Lancaster, L. (2002). Improving the quality of undergraduate peer assessment: A case for student and staff development. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 39(1), 71–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. London: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  35. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  36. Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276.Google Scholar
  37. van den Berg, I., Admiraal, W., & Pilot, A. (2006). Peer assessment in university teaching: Evaluating seven course designs. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(1), 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Venables, A., & Summit, R. (2003). Enhancing scientific essay writing using peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 40(3), 281–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wen, M. L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2006). University students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward (online) peer assessment. Higher Education, 27(18), 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhao, Y. (1998). The effects of anonymity on computer-mediated peer review. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 4(4), 311–345.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Learning Research and Development CenterUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations