learning - Academic Conferences Limited

Linda Martin et al.
“critical space” (Jankowska and Atlay, 2008), to work collaboratively with less tutor input and
ultimately to develop independent learning skills, which would enable reflection, critical thinking, and
experimentation as students embraced deep learning (Gellin, 2003; Henri, 1992, Shulman, 2002). All
of this can improve grades (Tross et al, 2000), but only if students engage (Fredericks et al, 2004).
Numerous models of engagement were reviewed including the assessment to online contributions,
but peer assessment was identified as offering potential for students to engage more critically and in
more detail with the process of learning. Defined by Lindblom-Ylanne (2006:52), as learners
assessing 'the achievement, learning outcomes or performance of their fellow students' it offered a
range of potential benefits for the learner. Participation encourages the development of skills in giving
and receiving feedback which are an essential aspect of professional responsibility, judgment and
autonomy (ibid). Additionally the process of formative feedback supports disciplinary understanding,
encourages increased ownership of academic work, encourages understanding of learning outcomes
and facilitates student autonomy (Sadler, 2010). Brew (1999) outlines that these opportunities
therefore encourage deep learning. Falchikov (2005) (cited in Nicol, 2010: 509) argues that peer
feedback was often considered more helpful than that of a tutor alone, whilst others (Race, 2001,
Coleman, 2006) suggest that peer assessment enhances assessment outcomes. In particular, the
team felt it would help the students engage more actively with the process of writing so that students
are required to engage and share their understanding of concepts, scholarly identity and the ways
that they express their ideas (Bass, 2010, Meyer et al, 2009). Peer assessment, it was felt, offered
fresh perspectives to learning communities through sharing how others approach the same topic,
promoting reflexivity by broadening and deepening students’ understanding of the subject and
academic rigour (Yang, 2010) as well as engaging learners in an activity which resembles
professional practice (van der Pol, 2008). From their research, Ballantyne, Hughes and Mylones (in
Vickerman, 2009) report that students found the experience of assessing other students' work
motivating as well as aiding knowledge development of subject content and increasing their
understanding of the assessment process.
Peer assessment is not without critics, Par and Joordens (2008: 528) raise the issue of the quality of
peer reviewers comments and the related justification for 'peer-derived' grades while Brown, Rust and
Gibbs (1994) and Hartley (1998, in Vickerman, 2009) highlight that judging boundaries can be
challenging for staff, let alone learners who are not usually focused on assessing each others' work.
Further Par and Joordens (2008) argue that the choice of assessment tool is important, a point
supported by Fowler and Mayer (in Kelly et al, 2010), who recognise that while a range of
pedagogical approaches can be adopted to support on line learning, appropriate selection of 'internet
tools' based on contextual factors is important. Factors such as the anticipated learning outcomes and
the role of the teacher and learner, i.e. locus of control, all contribute to student learning, performance
and satisfaction. There is considerable concern about the use of peer assessment in summative
assessment; however, research has demonstrated its reliability and validity (DeNisi & Stevens, 1981;
Reilly & Chao, 1982; Bamberger et al, 2005) although this debate continues (Cho and Schunn, 2003).
The decision to undertake summative peer assessment was based on concerns that students may
not engage with formative peer feedback and the importance of the process encouraging improved
course engagement. Two assessments were developed for each module, the first one being peer
assessed and representing 40% of the module mark and the second one being assessed by the
module tutor, representing 60% of the module mark. Students needed to provide feedback on the
assessment and discuss this within a small group before allocating a mark. The mark was then
moderated by the module leader. Due to small cohort numbers, it is too early to tell whether the
change has impacted on student achievement. The tool selected for the assessment process is
PeerMark, a facility of Turnitin, a plagiarism detection programme through which students regularly
submit their work. Familiarity was the key determining factor. To date the process has been used in
three modules involving students at different stages of their degree.
5. Student perceptions
Qualitative data was collected by questionnaire from the students who have been involved in the pilot.
Six out of a possible thirteen students responded to the opportunity to give feedback. They were
asked to comment on their memories of peer assessment, the challenges, the benefits and any
contribution the exercise has made to their learning. It is interesting that although a range of positive
comments were made about the project; the responses to the first question, about their memory of it
were negative. The overriding feelings that have stayed with them are unease, discomfort and lack of
451