European Journal of Psychology of Education

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 133–156 | Cite as

Teachers’ reasons for using peer assessment: positive experience predicts use

Article

Abstract

Peer assessment (PA) is one of the central principles of formative assessment and assessment for learning (AfL) fields. There is ample empirical evidence as to the benefits for students’ learning when AfL principles are implemented. However, teachers play a critical role in mediating the implementation of intended policies. Hence, their experiences, beliefs, and attitudes towards PA are important factors in determining whether the policy is actually carried out. A survey of over 1500 primary, secondary, and higher education teachers in Spain elicited their beliefs and values around PA as well as other aspects of formative assessment; only 751 teachers provided complete responses to all PA items. Teachers reported occasional use of PA in their classrooms but with positive experience of it. The vast majority did not use anonymous forms of PA and half of the teachers considered the students were accurate when assessing peers. Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling were used to examine relationships of attitudes and beliefs to self-reported frequency of using of PA. The self-reported frequency of using PA was strongly predicted by teacher experience of PA which included positive reasons for using PA, rather than negative obstacles for avoiding, prior use, and beliefs that students should participate in assessment, and willingness to include PA in grading.

Keywords

Peer assessment Assessment for learning Formative assessment Teachers’ conceptions Assessment conceptions 

References

  1. Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barnes, N., Fives, H., & Dacey, C. M. (2015). Teachers’ beliefs about assessment. In H. Fives & M. Gregoire Gill (Eds.), International Handbook of Research on Teacher Beliefs (pp. 284–300). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borsboom, D. (2006). The attack of the psychometricians. Psychometrika, 71(3), 425–440. doi:10.1007/s11336-006-1447-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryant, D. A., & Carless, D. R. (2010). Peer assessment in a test-dominated setting: Empowering, boring or facilitating examination preparation? Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 9(1), 3–15. doi:10.1007/s10671-009-9077-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carvalho, A. (2012). Students’ perceptions of fairness in peer assessment: Evidence from a problem-based learning course. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(5), 491–505. doi:10.1080/13562517.2012.753051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen, F., Bollen, K. A., Paxton, P., Curran, P. J., & Kirby, J. B. (2001). Improper solutions in structural equation models: Causes, consequences, and strategies. Sociological Methods & Research, 29(4), 468–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer- and co-assessment in higher education. A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331–350. doi:10.1080/03075079912331379935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: Developing peer assessment. Innovations in Education & Training International, 32(2), 175–187. doi:10.1080/1355800950320212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fan, X., & Sivo, S. A. (2007). Sensitivity of fit indices to model misspecification and model types. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(3), 509–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2012). Spring cleaning for the “messy” construct of teachers' beliefs: What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us? In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA Educational Psychology Handbook: Individual Differences and Cultural and Contextual Factors (Vol. 2, pp. 471–499). Washington, DC: APAGoogle Scholar
  14. Gao, M. (2009). Students’ voices in school-based assessment of Hong Kong: A case study. In D. M. McInerney, G. T. L. Brown, & G. A. D. Liem (Eds.), Student perspectives on assessment: What students can tell us about assessment for learning (pp. 107–130). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Harris, L. R., & Brown, G. T. L. (2013). Opportunities and obstacles to consider when using peer- and self-assessment to improve student learning: Case studies into teachers' implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36(0)), 101–111. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hwang, G. J., Hung, C. M., & Chen, N. S. (2014). Improving learning achievements, motivations and problem-solving skills through a peer assessment-based game development approach. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(2), 129–145. doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9320-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. IBM. (2011). Amos [computer program] (version 20, Build 817). Meadville, PA: Amos Development CorporationGoogle Scholar
  19. Ion, G., & Cano, E. (2011). Assessment practices at Spanish universities: From a learning to a competencies approach. Evaluation & Research in Education, 24(3), 167–181. doi:10.1080/09500790.2011.610503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kim, M., & Ryu, J. (2013). The development and implementation of a Web-based formative peer assessment system for enhancing students’ metacognitive awareness and performance in ill-structured tasks. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 549–561. doi:10.1007/s11423-012-9266-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lingard, B., & Lewis, S. (2016). Globalization of the Anglo-American approach to top-down, test-based educational accountability. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.). Handbook of Social and Human Conditions in Assessment (pp. 1–30). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Lynch, D. H., & Golen, S. (1992). Peer evaluation of writing in business communication classes. Journal of Education for Business, 68(1), 44–48. doi:10.1080/08832323.1992.10117585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Noonan, B., & Duncan, C. R. (2005). Peer and self-assessment in high schools. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(17). http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=10&n=17.
  26. Panadero, E., Brown, G. T. L., & Courtney, M. G. R. (2014). Teachers’ reasons for using self-assessment: A survey self-report of Spanish teachers. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(3), 365–383. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2014.919247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Panadero, E., Romero, M., & Strijbos, J. W. (2013). The impact of a rubric and friendship on construct validity of peer assessment, perceived fairness and comfort, and performance. Studies In Educational Evaluation, 39(4), 195–203. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.10.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. 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. Springer, In press.Google Scholar
  30. Peterson, E. R., & Irving, S. E. (2008). Secondary school students’ conceptions of assessment and feedback. Learning and Instruction, 18(3), 238–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reinholz, D. L. (2015). The assessment cycle: A model for learning through peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–15. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1008982
  32. Remesal, A. (2007). Educational reform and primary and secondary teachers' conceptions of assessment: The Spanish instance, building upon Black and Wiliam (2005). Curriculum Journal, 18(1), 27–38. doi:10.1080/09585170701292133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Remesal, A. (2011). Primary and secondary teachers’ conceptions of assessment: A qualitative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 472–482. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schacter, D. L. (1999). The seven sins of memory: Insights from psychology and cognitive neuroscience. American Psychologist, 54(3), 182–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Spandorfer, J., Puklus, T., Rose, V., Vahedi, M., Collins, L., Giordano, C., & Braster, C. (2014). Peer assessment among first year medical students in anatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education, 7(2), 144–152. doi:10.1002/ase.1394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tan, K. H. K. (2012). Student self-assessment. Assessment, learning and empowerment. Singapore: Research Publishing.Google Scholar
  37. Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Topping, K. J. (2003). Self and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity and utility. In M. Segers, F. Dochy & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (Vol. 1, pp. 55–87): Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
  39. Topping, K. J. (2013). Peers as a source of formative and summative assessment. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of research on classroom assessment (Vol (pp. 395–412). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(4), 4–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vanderhoven, E., Raes, A., Montrieux, H., Rotsaert, T., & Schellens, T. (2015). What if pupils can assess their peers anonymously? A quasi-experimental study. Computers & Education, 81, 123–32. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Gennip, N. (2012). Assessing together. Peer assessment from an interpersonal perspective. (PhD), Universiteit Leiden.Google Scholar
  43. van Gennip, N., Gijbels, D., Segers, M., & Tillema, H. H. (2010). Reactions to 360° feedback: The role of trust and trust-related variables. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 10(4), 362–379. doi:10.1504/IJHRDM.2010.036088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van Gennip, N., Segers, M., & Tillema, H. H. (2009). Peer assessment for learning from a social perspective: The influence of interpersonal variables and structural features. Educational Research Review, 4(1), 41–54. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2008.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & van Merriënboer, J. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 270–279. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yu, F. Y., & Wu, C. P. (2011). Different identity revelation modes in an online peer-assessment learning environment: Effects on perceptions toward assessors, classroom climate and learning activities. Computers & Education, 57(3), 2167–2177. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisboa, Portugal and Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la EducaciónUniversidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpain
  2. 2.Faculty of Education and Social WorkThe University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations