![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
This article explores student attitudes and perceptions relating to peer assessment, as observed at the International School of Lausanne, where the case study was restricted to students in the International Baccalaureate (IB) Diploma Economics course of the programme. Informed by a review of literature on the relative merits of peer assessment, this article highlights its specific strengths and weaknesses as assessment for learning and highlights specific gaps in the literature, before investigating students’ perceptions of its value and social dynamics within small student groups. The article concludes by considering the clear preference expressed by the majority of students participating in the study for anonymity in the peer assessment process. It is clear that this adds a more complex and not yet thoroughly explored set of consideration to the debate about the merits of peer assessment. Students’ preference for anonymity concurs with Falchikov’s findings that such concern was more likely to be found in relatively small, well-established groups, exactly like the one that is the focus of this study.
References
Section:
|
Black, P (1998) Testing: Friend or Foe? London: Falmer Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Black, P, Wiliam, D (1998a) Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 5(1): 7–74. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Black, P, Wiliam, D (1998b) Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards through Classroom Assessment. London: School of Education, King’s College London. Google Scholar | |
|
Black, P, Harrison, C, Lee, C (2003) Assessment for Learning: Putting It into Practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press. Google Scholar | |
|
Black, P, Harrison, C, Lee, C (2004) Working inside the black box: assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan 86(1): 9–21. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Cho, K, MacArthur, C (2010) Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction 20(4): 328–338. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Cohen, L, Manion, L, Morrison, K (2007) Research Methods in Education, 6th edn. Abingdon: Routledge. Google Scholar | |
|
Edmonson, A (1999) Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 44: 350–383. In: Van Gennip, NAE, Segers, MSR, Tillema, HH (2010) Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity: the role of interpersonal factors and conceptions. Learning and Instruction 20(4): 280–290). Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Falchikov, N (1995) Peer feedback marking – developing peer assessment. In: Topping, K (1998) Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research 68(3): 249–276. Google Scholar | |
|
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. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Fry, SA (1990) Implementation and evaluation of peer marking in higher education. In: Topping, K (1998) Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research 68(3): 249–276. Google Scholar | |
|
Gaillet, LI (1992) A foreshadowing of modern theories and practices of collaborative learning: the work of the Scottish rhetorician George Jardine. In: Topping, KJ (2009) Peer assessment. Theory into Practice 48(1): 20–27. Google Scholar | |
|
Gielen, S, Peeters, E, Dochy, F (2010) Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction 20(4): 304–315. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
International Baccalaureate (IB) (2004) Diploma programme assessment: principles and practice. Available at: http://www.ibo.org/diploma/assessment/documents/DPAssessmentPrinciplesandPractice.pdf (accessed 12 July 2009). Google Scholar | |
|
International Baccalaureate (IB) (2013) http://www.ibo.org (accessed 29 September 2013). Google Scholar | |
|
Johnson, R (2004) Peer assessments in physical education. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 75(8): 33–41. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Kollar, I, Fischer, F (2010) Commentary: Peer Assessment as collaborative learning: a cognitive prespective. Learning and Instruction 20(4): 344–348. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Noonan, B, Duncan, CR (2005) Peer and Self-assessment in the High Schools. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation 10(17): 1–8. Google Scholar | |
|
Sadler, D (1998) Formative assessment: revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education 5(1): 77–84. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Sadler, PM, Good, E (2006) The impact of peer-grading on student learning. Educational Assessment 11: 1–31. Google Scholar | Crossref | |
|
Strijbos, JW, Narciss, S, Dünnebier, K (2010) Peer feedback content sender’s competence level in academic writing revision tasks: are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and Instruction 20(4): 291–303. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Strijbos, JW, Sluijsmans, DMA (2010) Unravelling peer assessment: methodological, functional and conceptual developments. Learning and Instruction 20(4): 265–269. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Topping, K (1998) Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research 68(3): 249–276. Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI | |
|
Topping, KJ (2009) Peer assessment. Theory into Practice 48(1): 20–27. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Van Gennip, NAE, Segers, MSR, Tillema, HH (2010) Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity: the role of interpersonal factors and conceptions. Learning and Instruction 20(4): 280–290. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Van Steendam, E, Rijlaarsdam, G, Sercu, L (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. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI | |
|
Van Zundert, M, Sluijsmans, DMA, Van Merriënboer, JJG (2010) Effective peer assessment processes: research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction 20(4): 270–279. Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI |
