Teachers’ reasons for using peer assessment: positive experience predicts use
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.
KeywordsPeer assessment Assessment for learning Formative assessment Teachers’ conceptions Assessment conceptions
Research funded by personal grant to Ernesto Panadero under Ramón y Cajal framewok (RYC-2013-13469).
- Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Open University Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- IBM. (2011). Amos [computer program] (version 20, Build 817). Meadville, PA: Amos Development CorporationGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Tan, K. H. K. (2012). Student self-assessment. Assessment, learning and empowerment. Singapore: Research Publishing.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Van Gennip, N. (2012). Assessing together. Peer assessment from an interpersonal perspective. (PhD), Universiteit Leiden.Google Scholar
- 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