Nancy Falchikov

Student Peer Assessment in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Peer and Teacher Marks

Forty-eight quantitative peer assessment studies comparing peer and teacher marks were subjected to meta-analysis. Peer assessments were found to resemble more closely teacher assessments when global judgements based on well understood criteria are used rather than when marking involves assessing several individual dimensions. Similarly, peer assessments better resemble faculty assessments when academic products and processes, rather than professional practice, are being rated. Studies with high design quality appear to be associated with more valid peer assessments than those which have poor experimental design. Hypotheses concerning the greater validity of peer assessments in advanced rather than beginner courses and in science and engineering rather than in other discipline areas were not supported. In addition, multiple ratings were not found to be better than ratings by singletons. The study pointed to differences between self and peer assessments, which are explored briefly. Results are discussed and fruitful areas for further research in peer assessment are suggested.

Aligning assessment with long-term learning

Assessment in higher education is commonly held to contribute to feedback to students on their learning and the certification of their achievement. This paper argues that this short‐term focus must be balanced against a longer‐term emphasis for learning‐oriented assessment to foster future learning after graduation. The paper proposes that students need to become assessors within the context of participation in practice, that is, the kinds of highly contextualised learning faced in life and work. It discusses the kinds of practices that are needed to refocus assessment within higher education courses to this end.

Student Self-Assessment in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis

Quantitative self-assessment studies that compared self- and teacher marks were subjected to a meta-analysis. Predictions stemming from the results of an earlier critical review of the literature (Boud & Falchikov, 1989) were tested, and salient variables were identified. Factors that seem to be important with regard to the closeness of correspondence between self- and teacher marks were found to include the following: the quality of design of the study (with better designed studies having closer correspondence between student and teacher than poorly designed ones); the level of the course of which the assessment was a part (with students in advanced courses appearing to be more accurate assessors than those in introductory courses); and the broad area of study (with studies within the area of science appearing to produce more accurate self-assessment generally than did those from other areas of study). Results of the analysis are discussed and differences signaled by the results of the three common metrics examined. The distinction between relative and absolute judgment of performance is drawn. It is recommended that researchers give attention to both good design and to adequate reporting of self-assessment studies.

Peer Feedback Marking: Developing Peer Assessment.

SUMMARY Some studies of peer assessment in higher education are reviewed, and found to focus on either assessment of a product such as an examination script, or of the performance of a particular skill, often in a medical or dental setting. Classroom performance studies focus mainly on interpersonal skills or group dynamics. Many examples where mean peer assessments resembled lecturer assessments were found, and the overwhelming view seems to be that peer assessment is a useful, reliable and valid exercise. Student evaluations of peer assessment suggest that they also perceive it to be beneficial. However, some students expressed a dislike of awarding a grade to their peers, particularly in the context of a small, well established group. A study which attempted to capitalize on the benefits of peer assessment while minimizing the problems is described. In this study, the emphasis was on critical feedback, rather than on the awarding of a grade, though this was required also. Results indicated a close corr...

PRODUCT COMPARISONS AND PROCESS BENEFITS OF COLLABORATIVE PEER GROUP AND SELF ASSESSMENTS

ABSTRACT Any student assessment procedure should meet a number of criteria. It should be -valid, reliable, practicable and fair, and useful to students.(1) The prevailing authoritarian model of assessment in higher education is examined and its disadvantages elaborated. Results of some previous studies of self assessment are discussed. The present study attempts to meet Percival and Ellingtons criteria, and addresses itself to a number of important questions concerning the comparability of self and peer group assessment with traditional methods; the extent of over‐ or undermarking by students, the relationships between accuracy of grading and age or overall ability, and the possible effects on learning or personal development of self and peer group assessment procedures. Details of the implementation of the scheme are recorded, and results presented and discussed. In terms of both product (the correspondences between self or peer and tutor assessment) and process (the evaluation by students of the effect...

Detecting Gender Bias in Peer Marking of Students’ Group Process Work

Abstract Concerns relating to the reliability of teacher and student peer assessments are discussed, and some correlational analyses comparing student and teacher marks described. The benefits of the use of multiple ratings are elaborated. The distinction between gender differences and gender bias is drawn, and some studies which have reported gender bias are reviewed. The issue of ‘blind marking’ is addressed. A technique for detecting gender bias in cases where student raters have awarded marks to same and opposite sex peers is described, and illustrated by data from two case studies. Effect sizes were found to be very small, indicating an absence of gender bias in these two cases. Results are discussed in relation to task and other contextual variables. The authors conclude that the technique described can contribute to the good practice necessary to ensure the success of peer assessment in terms of pedagogical benefits and reliable and fair marking outcomes.

Group Process Analysis: Self and Peer Assessment of Working Together in a Group

SUMMARY Cooperation has been found to confer many benefits in the educational setting. While, in higher education, the small group project may provide an ideal setting for cooperative working, it is often not chosen as a learning strategy because of problems with assessment of individual contributions. The present study describes a small group project in which the process of working together is assessed by the group members themselves, while the product of the exercise is marked in the traditional way by the lecturer. Responsibility for choice of project and format of product was devolved to group members themselves, in order to maximize involvement and learning benefits. Consultation between group members (seven final‐year developmental psychology students) and lecturer took place over the self‐ and peer‐assessment checklist, the final form of which was decided by the student participants. On completion of the exercise, no consistent pattern of over‐ or under‐marking was found when comparing self markers...

“Full on Until the Sun Comes Out”: the effects of assessment on student approaches to studying

ABSTRACT Qualitative and quantitative data from first‐year students from three contrasting academic courses were collected as part of an ongoing longitudinal study. The findings support the widely held belief that assessment has an effect on student learning. These findings are echoed in data from a parallel study of second and third‐year students on the same courses. Interview data provided a snapshot of student experiences of learning and assessment. A number of important issues emerged relating both to organisational and personal factors. In addition, student preferences for particular types of assessment provided insights into their approaches to studying. Interview data were related to approaches to studying profiles and stress measures. Mismatches were identified and discussed, and some year and area differences were explored. Implications for both teachers and learners were considered.

Adolescent Attitudes to Abuse of Women Are Wives and Nonmarital Partners Viewed Differently

Attitudes of three groups of adolescents were measured by means of two versions of Brieres Attitudes to Wife Abuse (AWA) scale. Self-reports of the likelihood of using physical violence in future relationships also were collected by means of four versions of Brieres Likelihood of Battering (LOB) scale. Results suggested that, overall, boys are more tolerant of domestic violence than girls. However, girls recorded a greater likelihood of using physical violence in future relationships than did boys. There was some suggestion that wives (or husbands) were viewed differently from nonmarital partners. Attitude measures indicated that if the attitudes expressed translate into action, in future relationships, women may be better off as partners than as wives, but behavior predicted by girls hinted that husbands might be subjects of higher expectations than nonmarital partners. Meanings of the results are explored, and implications of the findings considered.

Attitudes and Values of Lecturing Staff: Tradition, Innovation and Change.

Attitudes and values of academic staff in a Scottish polytechnic were measured by means of a survey and a Q sort. Seven significant factors emerged from the rotated factor analysis, which represented groupings of staff who shared attitudes (I = Pro- student autonomy (student focus), II = Traditionalists, III = Pro- student autonomy (staff focus), IV = Staff under pressure, V = Seniors, VI = The Professionals and VII = Defensive Traditionalists). Innovators were found to share certain characteristics, and tended to be concentrated in factor groups I and V. All groups valued and enjoyed teaching, though other aspects of the academic role were valued by one or two groups only. Senior lecturers tended to enjoy course development and administration. Gender differences were not marked, though women were over represented in the factor I group. Faculty differences were also small, but pointed to Science faculty staff being somewhat more traditional than others. Furthermore, science faculty staff endorsed the higher levels of intellectual and ethical development less strongly than staff from other faculties. Results are discussed in the light of professional and institutional changes taking place in higher education in the U.K. at present.