Students’ Perspectives on Peer Assessment

  • Florence Le Hebel
  • Costas P. Constantinou
  • Alena Hospesova
  • Regula Grob
  • Monika Holmeier
  • Pascale Montpied
  • Marianne Moulin
  • Jan Petr
  • Lukáš Rokos
  • Iva Stuchlíková
  • Andrée Tiberghien
  • Olia Tsivitanidou
  • Iva Žlábková
Chapter
Part of the Contributions from Science Education Research book series (CFSE, volume 4)

Abstract

This chapter reports the results of three research studies on peer assessment carried out in different countries where it is an unusual practice (France, Switzerland, and the Czech Republic). The three research studies focus on different competences and different disciplines (sciences and mathematics), but they all involve inquiry-based approaches at primary and secondary school level. In the French study, the data reported in this chapter explore relationships between success in task processing and the ability to mark a peer’s written artefact on the same task. The Swiss research study examines the type of peer feedback students offer their peers while assessing their models, based on a fine-grained analysis of peer feedback comments. In the Czech Republic, the study focuses on students’ reflection on peer assessment in inquiry lessons. The three studies conclude the necessity of allowing the sharing of “knowledge authority” in the classroom to evolve and to be integrated into usual classroom practice. However, researchers have a divergent view on the sharing of responsibility for validation of knowledge between the student and the teacher. Moreover, we can conclude that peer assessment can be a way to trigger metacognitive work on knowledge and competences in science and on assessment criteria and teacher expectations, at a class level and individual student level.

References

  1. Allal, L. (1999). Impliquer l’apprenant dans le processus d’évaluation: promesses et pièges de l’autoévaluation. In Depover, C., & Noël, B. (1999). L’évaluation des compétences et des processus cognitifs. Modèles, pratiques et contextes (pp. 35–56).Google Scholar
  2. 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, 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett, R. E. (2011). Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 5, 7e74.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, G. T., Irving, S. E., Peterson, E. R., & Hirschfeld, G. H. (2009). Use of interactive–informal assessment practices: New Zealand secondary students’ conceptions of assessment. Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang, H. Y., & Chang, H. C. (2013). Scaffolding students’ online critiquing of expert-and peer-generated molecular models of chemical reactions. International Journal of Science Education, 35(12), 2028–2056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang, H. Y., Quintana, C., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). The impact of designing and evaluating molecular animations on how well middle school students understand the particulate nature of matter. Science Education, 94(1), 73–94.Google Scholar
  8. Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Charney, D. (2006). Commenting on writing: Typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. Written Communication, 23(3), 260–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (Eds.). (1999). Doing qualitative research (pp. 163–177). Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  10. Duschl, R., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  11. Education at a Glance. (2015). OECD Indicators Czech Republic. DOI: 10.1787/eag-2015-51
  12. Etkina, E., Karelina, A., Ruibal-Villasenor, M., Rosengrant, D., Jordan, R., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2010). Design and reflection help students develop scientific abilities: Learning in introductory physics laboratories. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 54–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Falchikov, N. (1996). Improving learning through critical peer feedback and reflection. In Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in Higher Education. Proceedings of HERDSA Conference.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 304–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanrahan, S. J., & Isaacs, G. (2001). Assessing self-and peer-assessment: The students’ views. Higher Education Research & Development, 20(1), 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harlen, W. (2013). Assessment & inquiry-based science education: Issues in policy and practice. Trieste: Global Network of Science Academies.Google Scholar
  18. Hovardas, T., Tsivitanidou, O. E., & Zacharias, C. Z. (2014). Peer versus Expert feedback: Investigating the quality of peer feedback among secondary school students assessing each other’s science web-portfolios. Computers & Education, 71, 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Husfeld, V. (2009). Aus der Praxis der Leistungsbeurteilung. In D. Fischer, A. Strittmatter, & U. Vögeli-Mantovani (Eds.), Noten, was denn sonst? Leistungsbeurteilung und -bewertung (pp. 33–40). Zürich: Verlag LCH.Google Scholar
  20. Kane, R. G., & Chimwayange, C. (2014). Teacher action research and student voice: Making sense of learning in secondary school. Action Research, 12(1), 52–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Košťálová, H., Miková, Š., & Stang, J. (2008). Školní hodnocení žáků a studentů se zaměřením na slovní hodnocení [School assessment of students]. Praha: Portál.Google Scholar
  22. Kratochvílová, J. (2011). Systém hodnocení a sebehodnocení žáků. [System of assessment and self-assessment of pupils]. Brno: MSD.Google Scholar
  23. Kronig, W. (2009). Schulnoten–Glasperlen des Bildungssystems. Noten, was denn sonst, 27–31.Google Scholar
  24. Laufková, V., & Novotná, K. (2014). Školní hodnocení z pohledu žáků [School assessment from the students’ perspective] Orbis scholae, (1), 111–127.Google Scholar
  25. Le Hebel, F., Montpied, P., & Moulin, M. (2016). Does peer assessment help students’ understanding? Paper presented at the International Conference of East-Asian Association for Science Education, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
  26. Lukášová, H. (2012). Proměny pojetí vzdělávání a školního hodnocení [Changes in conceptualisation of the education and school assessment]. Praha: Asociace waldorfských škol ČR.Google Scholar
  27. McDermott, L. C., Shaffer, P. S., & Rosenquist, M. L. The Physics Education Group.(1996). Physics by inquiry.Google Scholar
  28. Narciss, S. (2008). Feedback strategies for interactive learning tasks. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. Van Merrie¨nboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 125–143). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  29. Narciss, S., & Huth, K. (2006). Fostering achievement and motivation with bug–related tutoring feedback in a computer–based training for written subtraction. Learning and Instruction, 16, 310–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nicolaou, C. T., & Constantinou, C. P. (2014). Assessment of the modeling competence: A systematic review and synthesis of empirical research. Educational Research Review, 13, 52–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Novotná, K., & Krabsová, V. (2013). Formativní hodnocení: Případová studie [Formative assessment: case study]. Pedagogika, 63(3), 355–371.Google Scholar
  32. Organisation de coopération et de développement économique. (2005). L’évaluation formative: pour un meilleur apprentissage dans les classes secondaires. Paris: OCDE.Google Scholar
  33. Pluta, W. J., Chinn, C. A., & Duncan, R. G. (2011). Learners’ epistemic criteria for good scientific models. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(5), 486–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Prins, F. J., Sluijsmans, D. M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Feedback for general practitioners in training: Quality, styles, and preferences. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 11(3), 289–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Saari, H., & Viiri, J. (2003). A research-based teaching sequence for teaching the concept of modelling to seventh-grade students. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1333–1352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Santiago, P., Gilmore, A., Nusche, D., & Sammons, P. (2012). OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education: Czech Republic 2012. OECD.Google Scholar
  37. Schwarz, C. V., & White, B. Y. (2005). Metamodeling knowledge: Developing students’ understanding of scientific modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 23(2), 165–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Acher, A., Fortus, D., et al. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sedová, K., Svarícek, R., & Salamounová, Z. (2012). Komunikace ve skolní tríde [Communication in the classroom]. Praha: Portál.Google Scholar
  40. Slavík, J. (2003). Autonomní a heteronomní pojetí školního hodnocení – aktuální problem pedagogické teorie a praxe [Autonomous and heteronomous assessment – current issue of educational theory and practice]. Pedagogika, 53(1), 5–25.Google Scholar
  41. Sluijsmans, D. M. A. (2002). Student involvement in assessment, the training of peer-assessment skills. Interuniversity Centre for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  42. Sluijsmans, D. M., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2002). Peer assessment training in teacher education: Effects on performance and perceptions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 443–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Smit, R. (2009). Die formative Beurteilung und ihr Nutzen für die Entwicklung von Lernkompetenz. In Eine empirische Studie in der Sekundarstufe 1. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Verlag Hohengehren GmbH.Google Scholar
  44. Starý, K. (2006). Sumativní a formativní hodnocení [Summative and formative assessment]. Portál RVP, www.rvp.cz
  45. Stefani, L. A. (1994). Peer, self and tutor assessment: Relative reliabilities. Studies in Higher Education, 19(1), 69–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Strijbos, J. W., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback content and sender’s competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 291–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Strijbos, J. W., & Sluijsmans, D. (2010). Unravelling peer assessment: Methodological, functional, and conceptual developments. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 265–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tiberghien, A. (2011). Conception et analyse de ressources d’enseignement : le cas des démarches d’investigation. In M. Grangeat (Ed.), Les démarches d’investigation dans l’enseignement scientifique Pratiques de classe, travail collectif enseignant, acquisitions des élèves (pp. 185–212). Lyon: INRP.Google Scholar
  49. Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Topping, K. (2013). Peers as a source of formative and summative assessment. In J. H. Mac Millan (Ed.), SAGE handbook of research on classroom assessment (pp. 395–412). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  51. Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 149–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. van Gennip, N. A., Segers, M. S., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Van Steendam, E., Rijlaarsdam, G., Sercu, L., & Van den Berg, H. (2010). The effect of instruction type and dyadic or individual emulation on the quality of higher-order peer feedback in EFL. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 316–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vögeli-Mantovani, U. (1999). SKBF Trendbericht Nr. 3: Mehr fördern, weniger auslesen. Zur Entwicklung der schulischen Beurteilung in der Schweiz. Aarau: Schweizerische Koordinationsstelle für Bildungsforschung.Google Scholar
  55. Walker, A. (2001). British psychology students’ perceptions of group-work and peer assessment. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 1(1), 28–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yang, M., Badger, R., & Yu, Z. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Žlábkova, I., & Rokos, L. (2013). Pohledy na formativní a sumativní hodnocení žáka v českých publikacích [Formative and summative assessment in Czech publications]. Pedagogika, 58(3), 328–354.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Florence Le Hebel
    • 1
  • Costas P. Constantinou
    • 2
  • Alena Hospesova
    • 3
  • Regula Grob
    • 4
  • Monika Holmeier
    • 4
  • Pascale Montpied
    • 5
  • Marianne Moulin
    • 5
  • Jan Petr
    • 3
  • Lukáš Rokos
    • 3
  • Iva Stuchlíková
    • 3
  • Andrée Tiberghien
    • 5
  • Olia Tsivitanidou
    • 2
  • Iva Žlábková
    • 3
  1. 1.Université de Lyon. Laboratoire ICAR, UMR 5191, LLE UMS 3773Ecole Normale Supérieure de LyonLyonFrance
  2. 2.Department of EducationUniversity of CyprusNicosiaCyprus
  3. 3.Jihočeská univerzita, University of South BohemiaČeské BudějoviceCzech Republic
  4. 4.School of EducationUniversity of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern SwitzerlandBaselSwitzerland
  5. 5.CNRS, ICAR, UMR 5191Ecole Normale Supérieure de LyonLyonFrance

Personalised recommendations