Upload
mustafa-serhat
View
221
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/17/2019 Peer Self and Tutor Assessment Relative Reliabilities
1/8
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cshe20
Download by: [Ondokuz Mayis Universitesine] Date: 02 May 2016, At: 08:35
Studies in Higher Education
ISSN: 0307-5079 (Print) 1470-174X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cshe20
Peer, self and tutor assessment: Relativereliabilities
Lorraine A.J. Stefani
To cite this article: Lorraine A.J. Stefani (1994) Peer, self and tutor assessment: Relative
reliabilities, Studies in Higher Education, 19:1, 69-75, DOI: 10.1080/03075079412331382153
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079412331382153
Published online: 05 Aug 2006.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1446
View related articles
Citing articles: 109 View citing articles
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/03075079412331382153#tabModulehttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1080/03075079412331382153#tabModulehttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/03075079412331382153http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1080/03075079412331382153http://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=cshe20&page=instructionshttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=cshe20&page=instructionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075079412331382153http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/03075079412331382153http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cshe20http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cshe20
8/17/2019 Peer Self and Tutor Assessment Relative Reliabilities
2/8
Studies in Higher Education Volume 19 , No . t , 1994 69
RESEARCH NOTE
P e e r S e l f a n d T u t o r A s se s sm e n t :
re la t ive re l iab i l i t i es
L O R R A I N E A J S T E F A N I
The Queen s University of Belfa st
ABSTRACT A collaborative peer, self an d tutor assessment scheme in w hich the students themselves
defined the m ark ing schedule for a scientific report of a laboratory experiment wi thin the biological
sciences, is evalute d in terms o f correlations between sets of marks. The issues addressed in this report
include: (t ) the reliability of student-derived ma rks, wi th particular emphasis o n perceived tendencies
of high achieving students to underestimate their performance an d low achieving students to
overestimate their performance; (2) the use of student-derived ma rks in for m al grading procedures;
an d (3) the learning benefits which accrue for students participating in peer an d self-assessment
procedures. Th e results of this stud y undertaken with in the context o f a clearly defined, carefully
monitored assignment indicate tha t students h ave a realistic perception of their ow n abilities an d can
m ake rational judgements on the achievements of their peers. T he positive implications o f introducing
peer an d self-assessment schemes into undergraduate courses are discussed.
n t r o d u c t i o n
Over the past few years the United Kingdom Enterprise Higher Education (EHE) initiative
has provided an impetus for change in the way lecturers and tutors interact with and
communi cate knowledge to large groups of students. There is a growing awareness amongs t
university lecturers of the pressure to increase student participation in the learning process
and to provide a skills-based education as well as one based on academic achievement.
Many of the new teaching and learning strategies developed within EHE institutions
have been designed to ensure that students become more aware of the demands of future
employers for graduates who are able to display a range of personal transferable skills.
Communication and presentation skills, problem-solving and organisational skills, team-work
and leadership skills have all been incorporated into degree courses. In addition, in many
fields o f professional training there has been a conce rn for developing students ' ability to
assess and evaluate their own work in ways which are applicable to their future profession
(Magin & Churches, 1989). According to Boud & Lublin (1983), one of the most important
processes that can occur in undergraduate education is the growth in students of the ability
to be realistic judges of their own performance and the ability to moni tor their own learning .
The prevalent model for assessment throughout the education system has been one in
which students have little o r no input, are often unaware of the assessment criteria and have
little recourse regarding the judgements made o f them (Falchikov, 1986). Within the
context of the changing climate of higher education, development of the skill of self-assess-
ment is becoming an increasingly important issue in many EHE institutions, and many
self-assessment devices are being introduced as aids to learning. However, an issue which is
still an obstacle to wider introduction of self-assessment over a range of courses and learning
formats, is the summative use of self-assessment for grading purposes.
As discussed by Boud (1989), many people believe that s tudent-derived marks could not
8/17/2019 Peer Self and Tutor Assessment Relative Reliabilities
3/8
70 L A 7 S t e f a n i
be used in formal grading procedures because they would not be accurate enough. In a
comprehensive review of the available literature on self-assessment procedures, Boud
Fatchikov (1989) reported the general trend in the studies was that high achieving students
underestimate their performance and low achieving students overestimate their performance.
However, a close examination of many of the studies which were included in Boud
Falchikov's review highlights the fact that much of the work which has been carried out on
peer and self-assessment is reported in an inconsistent manner and it can be difficult to define
the parameters of many of the studies. More extensive analyses of the reliability of student-
derived marks across a range of subject areas is required to determine the extent to which
peer and self-assessments could be used in formal grading procedures.
This paper reports the results of a study undertaken with a large class of students
self-assessing a biochemistry laboratory practical report and a second class peer-assessing the
same laboratory report using a student-derived marking schedule. The questions addressed
are: (1) Do students of lower ability overmark themselves and student s o f higher ability
undermark themselves? (2) Could self- and peer-assessments be used summatively in formal
grading procedures as well as formatively in contributing to the learning process by assisting
learners to direct their energies to areas o f improvement? (3) Is there any correlation between
self, peer and tutor assessment of an assigned piece of work and the end of term ranking of
students after traditionally assessed examinations? (4) Is self- and peer-assessment beneficial
as a learning experience for students?
ethodology
A peer and self-assessment procedure was presented to two first-year undergraduate classes
within the context o f writing a report o f a laboratory practical project which constitutes part
of the student training in biochemical techniques. The students themselves drew up the
marking schedules which they felt were appropriate for the task. This was done by a class
representative negotia ting with the rest of the s tudents until the class was satisfied with the
scheme. No modification of the schemes was made by the tuto r on the basis that engendering
high levels of communicati on and negotiation within large classes of students was considered
to be an important contribution to the success of this innovation. Student ownership of the
work was also considered to be a high priority. As it can be extremely difficult to obtain
agreement between lecturers and tutors on appropriate marking criteria, it seemed unfair to
thwart the student efforts by introducing modifications.
One class of 87 students agreed to self-assessment of the laboratory reports and another
class of 67 students agreed to peer assessment of the reports using the student generated
marking schedules. An ideal situation would be self, peer and tutor assessment occurring
within the same class, but timetable constraints did not allow for this. The student marking
schedules are shown in Table I.
When the laboratory work was completed, the students were given 7 days to hand in
their reports. All the reports were assessed by the tutor, but these marks were not initially
released to the students. The reports to be self-assessed were handed back to the students
who were then given 7 days to assess their own work before handing in the report to receive
the tuto r assessment. T he reports to be peer-assessed were handed back to the class randomly
and this class was also given 7 days to complete the assessment. This project was carried out
with first year undergraduate students and with such a large class (67), the students did not
know many o f their peers. Although the projects were not coded in any way, it turned out that
no student peer-assessed a friend's laboratory report.
It had been agreed with the class that the reports would be marked out of 100 and that
8/17/2019 Peer Self and Tutor Assessment Relative Reliabilities
4/8
P e e r , S e l f a n d T u t o r A s s e s s m e n t 7 1
TABLE I . S tuden t -der ived mark ing
schedules
a) Self-assessment Schedule
Aim s and hypothes i s 15
M ethods and appara tus 20
Results (calculations etc.) 25
In terp re ta t ion o f resu l ts 25
Discussion 15
Tota l 100
b) PeerAssessment Schedule
In t roduct ion 15
Aims 15
Met h o d 1 0
Results 10
Discuss ion o f resu l ts 25
Conclus ions 25
Tota l 100
w e w o u l d h a ve a - 1 0 m a r k ' a c c e p t a n c e r a n g e ' . T h e a g r e e d m a r k w o u l d b e th e a v er a g e o f
t h e t u t o r a n d t h e s t u d e n t m a r k w i t h in t h i s c o n st r a in t . F o r m a r k s w h i c h f e ll o u t s i d e o f t h e
' a c c e p t a n c e r a n g e ' a d i s c u s s io n m e e t i n g w o u l d b e s e t u p b e t w e e n s t u d e n t s a n d t u t o r t o
d e c i d e u p o n a n a p p r o p r i a t e f i na l m a r k . I t w a s a ls o a g r e e d w i t h in t h e S c h o o l o f B i o lo g y a n d
B i o c h e m i s t r y t h a t t h e m a r k s f r o m t h is p r o j e c t w o u l d b e u s e d s u m m a t i v e l y a s p a r t o f t h e
o v e r a ll c o n t i n u o u s a s s e s s m e n t c o m p o n e n t o f t h e e n d o f y e a r m a r k s . T h e c o n t r i b u t i o n o f t h is
p r o j e c t w as 2 o f t h e f in a l m a r k . F u l l d e ta i ls o f t h e a b o v e p r o c e d u r e h a v e p r e v io u s l y b e e n
p u b l i s h e d ( S t e f a n i , 1 9 9 2 ) .
I n t h e f i rs t i n s t a n c e , t h e d a t a f r o m t h i s e x p e r i m e n t i n c o l l a b o r a t i v e s e lf , p e e r a n d t u t o r
a s s e s s m e n t w e r e a n a l y s e d to d e t e r m i n e : t h e l e ve ls o f s t u d e n t u n d e r m a r k i n g o r o v e r m a r k i n g
i n c o m p a r i s o n w i t h tu t o r m a r k i n g , u n d e r m a r k i n g o r o v e r m a r k i n g b a s e d o n g e n d e r c o m p a r i -
s o n s a n d t h e a c c u r a c y o f t h e m a r k i n g r e l a t iv e t o s t u d e n t a g e ( S t e fa n i , 1 9 9 2 ). T h e d a t a
o b t a i n e d f r o m t h is e x p e r i m e n t c a n f u r t h e r b e u s e d t o e x a m i n e t w o c r u c ia l q u e s t io n s r e l a t in g
t o t h e u s e o f p e e r a n d s e l f- a s s e s sm e n t p r o c e d u r e s i n a s u m m a t i v e a s w e l l a s f o r m a t i v e
m a n n e r : ( 1 ) D o s t u d e n t s o f lo w e r a b i l it y o v e r m a r k t h e m s e l v e s a n d s t u d e n t s o f h i g h e r a b i l i t y
u n d e r m a r k t h e m s e l v es ? ( 2 ) W h a t i s t h e c o r r e l a t io n b e t w e e n t u t o r , s e l f a n d p e e r a s s e s s m e n t
o f a c o u rs e a s s i g n m e n t a n d e n d o f t e r m s t u d e n t m a r k i n g ? I n t h e c u r r e n t p a p e r , t h e s e
q u e s t i o n s a r e n o w a d d r e s s e d a n d s t a ti s ti c a l a n a ly s is o f t h e d a t a d e r i v e d f r o m t h e e x p e r i m e n t
a r e p r e s e n t e d a n d d i s c u s s e d w i th s u c h i s su e s i n m i n d .
e s u l t s
M a r k A n a l y s i s
O u t o f a c l a ss o f 8 7 s t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g in t h e s e l f - a s s e s s m e n t e x er c i se , 8 0 s t u d e n t s
p r e s e n t e d t h e i r r e p o r t s f o r t u t o r a s s e s s m e n t . T a b l e I I p r o v id e s i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e a v e ra g e s
o b t a i n e d f r o m t u t o r a s s e s s m e n t a n d s e l f- a s se s s m e n t . T h e s e l f- a s s e ss m e n t m a r k s a p p e a r m o r e
s t r i n g e n t th a n t h e t u t o r m a r k s a n d t h e r e i s s l ig h t i n d i c a t i o n th a t s t u d e n t s m a r k w i t h in a m o r e
r e s t r ic t e d r a n g e a s i n d i c a t e d b y t h e l o w e r s t a n d a r d d e v i a ti o n .
T h e s e r e s u k s i n t h e m s e l v e s g i v e n o i n d i c a t i o n a s t o w h e t h e r s t u d e n t s w i t h h i g h m a r k s
f r o m t h e t u t o r t e n d e d t o a w a r d t h e m s e l v e s a l o w e r m a r k a n d s t u d e n t s w i t h l ow m a r k s f r o m
8/17/2019 Peer Self and Tutor Assessment Relative Reliabilities
5/8
7 2 L A f t S t e f a n i
T A B L E I I . Tu tor versus se l f as sessment : comp ar i son o f means a nd
s tandard dev ia t ions
N Me an S t an d a r d d ev ia t io n
Tu tor ma rk 80 75 .3 10.1
Studen t se l f m ark 80 72 .7 9 .3
N.B. Fo r var ious reasons seven s tuden t s d id n o t pa r t i c ipa te in the
self-assessment exercise.
t h e t u t o r a w a r d a h i g h e r s e lf m a r k . T h i s c a n b e e x a m i n e d b y c a t e g o r i s i n g t h e s t u d e n t m a r k s
i n to q u a r t i le s b a s e d o n t h e s c o r e s o b t a i n e d f r o m l e c t u re r m a r k s . T a b l e I I I s h o w s t he o u t c o m e
o f t h i s a n a l y s i s .
TABLE II I Tutor versus self-assessment : di fferences in means based on performance quart i les
Quar t i l e g roup Tu tor ma rk Sel f ma rk Di fference o f mean s
t u t o r mar k s ) N u m b er i n q u a r ti le mean ) mean ) T - S )
45 -62 T uto r 12 56.2 54.9 + 1.3
Studen t 20
63-74 Tu tor 42 70 .9 67 .9 + 3
Studen t 41
75- 87 Tu tor 21 81.5 78.2 + 3.3
Studen t 16
88-100 Tu tor 5 92 .4 89 .7 + 2 .7
S t u d en t 3
T h e g r o u p i n th e l o w e s t q u a r t i le r e c e iv i n g t u t o r m a r k s b e t w e e n 4 5 a n d 6 2 ) p r o v i d e d s e l f
m a r k s w h i c h w e r e o n a v e r a g e 1 .3 m a r k s l o w e r th a n t h e m a r k s a w a r d e d b y th e t u to r . S t u d e n t s
i n t h e h ig h e s t q u a r t il e r e c e iv i n g t u t o r m a r k s b e t w e e n 8 8 a n d 1 0 0) p r o v i d e d s e l f m a r k s w h i c h
w e r e o n a v e r a g e 2 .7 m a r k s b e l o w t h e t u t o r m a r k . T h e h i g h e s t d i s c r e p a n c i e s o c c u r w h e r e
t h e r e is g r e a t e st c l u st e r in g o f t h e m a r k s - - b e t w e e n 6 3 a n d 8 7 . T h e i m p o r t a n t p o i n t s t o n o t e
a r e th a t t h e s e f i g u re s r u n c o u n t e r t o t h e n o t i o n t h a t s t u d e n t s r e c e i v in g l o w e r m a r k s f r o m t h e
t u t o rs a w a r d t h e m s e l v e s h i g h e r m a r k s , a n d c o u l d b e i n t e r p r e t e d t o c o n f i r m t o s o m e e x t e n t th e
b e l i e f t h a t h i g h e r a c h i e v er s m a y m a r k t h e m s e l v e s d o w n . H o w e v e r , o n t h i s l as t p o i n t i t is j u s t
a s f e a s i b le t o a r g u e t h a t t h e d i s c r e p a n c i e s a r e n o g r e a t e r t h a n m i g h t b e f o u n d a s a re s u l t o f
i n t e r - e x a m i n e r v a r ia b i l it y i n d o u b l e m a r k i n g p r o c e d u r e s .
A n a l y s is o f t h e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e s e l f- a s se s s m e n t s a n d t h e t u t o r a s s e s s m e n t s g i v es
a n r v a l u e o f 0 .9 3 . F r o m t h e s e r e su l ts i t c a n b e i n f e rr e d t h a t u s e o f t h e s t u d e n t m a r k s i n p l a c e
o f tu t o r m a r k s w o u l d r e s u l t i n a s i m i la r o r d e r i n g o f i n d i v i d u a l p e r f o r m a n c e w i t h o n l y th e
s l ig h t e st t e n d e n c y t o w a r d s u n d e r m a r k i n g , p a r t i c u la r l y w i t h h i g h a c h i e v e rs , b u t n o c o r r e -
s p o n d i n g o v e r m a r k i n g w i t h l o w a c h i e v e rs .
D u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f t h is e x p e r i m e n t , a n d w h e t h e r t h e s t u d e n t s w e r e e n g a g e d i n
s e l f- a s s e ss m e n t a s r e p o r t e d a b o v e ) o r p e e r a s s e s s m e n t y e t t o b e r e p o r t e d ) , i t w a s n o t e d t h a t
t h e s t u d e n t s w e r e h i g h l y m o t i v a t e d a n d m o r e i n t e r e s te d i n t h e t a s k th a n i s g e n e r a l ly o b s e r v e d
d u r i n g l a r g e p r a c t i c a l cl a ss e s . T h i s m a y h a v e b e e n d u e t o a g r e a t e r s e n s e o f i n v o l v e m e n t i n
a ll a s p e c t s o f th e p r o j e c t t h a n i s u s u a l l y t h e c a s e . O n e c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h i s w a s a v e r y h i g h
s t a n d a r d o f w o r k p r o d u c e d a n d o v e ra l l h i g h e r a c h i e v e m e n t i n in t e r p r e t i n g e x p e r i m e n t a l d a t a
a n d p r e s e n t i n g a s c i e n ti f ic r e p o r t .
T h e r o l e o f se l f - a ss e s s m e n t i n th e d e v e l o p m e n t o f p r o f e s s io n a l c o m p e t e n c e h a s b e e n
r e c o g n i s e d , a n d B o u d 1 9 8 9 ) a r g u e s t h a t o n e o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f e f f e ct iv e l e a r n e r s is t h a t
8/17/2019 Peer Self and Tutor Assessment Relative Reliabilities
6/8
Peer Se lf and Tutor Assessment 7 3
t h e y h a v e a r e a l i st i c s e n s e o f t h e i r o w n s t r e n g t h s a n d w e a k n e s s e s . T o e x a m i n e t h i s i s su e , th e
e x t e n t t o w h i c h a n e x e r c is e o f t h is n a t u r e c o u l d b e u s e d a s a s tu d e n t p e r f o r m a n c e i n d i c a t o r
w a s a d d r e s s e d . T h e s t u d e n t r a n k i n g d e t e r m i n e d b y t h e s e l f- a s s e ss m e n t m a r k s w a s c o r r e l a t e d
w i t h t h e e n d o f te r m s t u d e n t r a n k i n g a f t e r t r a d i t i o n a l l y a s s e s se d e x a m i n a t i o n s . T h i s w a s t h e n
c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n r a n k i n g o f t h e s t u d e n t s a c c o r d i n g to t u t o r d e r i v e d
m a r k s f o r th i s e x e rc i se a n d t h e e n d o f t e r m r a n k in g . T h e c o r r e l a t io n b e t w e e n s e l f -a s s e s sm e n t
o f a sc i e n ti f i c r e p o r t a n d t h e o u t c o m e o f e x a m i n a t i o n s g iv e s a n r v a l u e o f 0 .7 1 , a n d t h e
c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t u t o r a s s e s s m e n t o f th e s c ie n t i f i c r e p o r t a n d t h e o u t c o m e o f e n d o f t e r m
e x a m i n a t i o n s g i v e s a n r v a l u e o f 0 . 5 8 .
T h i s i s a n i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t b e c a u s e i t s u g g e s t s th a t i f s e l f - a s s e s s m e n t m a r k s a l o n e w e r e
t o b e u s e d a s t h e d e t e r m i n a n t o f e x a m i n a t i o n r e s u l ts , th e r e s u l t w o u l d b e a m o d e r a t e l y s i m i l a r
o r d e r i n g o f i n d i v i d u a l p e r f o r m a n c e t o t h a t o b t a i n e d f r o m t r a d i t i o n a l l y a s s e ss e d e x a m i n a t i o n s .
S u c h a s w e e p i n g g e n e r a l i s a t i o n b a s e d o n o n e e x e r c i s e i n s e l f - a s s e s s m e n t w i t h o n e c l a ss i s o f
c o u r s e q u i te u n a c c e p t a b l e , b u t t h e s e r e su l ts d o p r o v i d e e n c o u r a g e m e n t f o r c o n t i n u e d
i n t r o d u c t i o n o f s e l f - a s s e s s m e n t e x e r c i se s in d i f f e r e n t c o u r s e s a t d i f f e r e n t s ta g e s o f u n d e r -
g r a d u a t e t r a in i n g . S i m i l a r a n a l y s es w e r e p e r f o r m e d w i t h th e d a t a o b t a i n e d f r o m t h e p e e r
a s s e s s m e n t c l a s s . O u t o f a t o t a l o f 6 7 , f o u r s t u d e n t s f a i l e d to p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e e x e r c i s e d u e
t o a b s e n c e .
T a b l e I V s h o w s t h e a v e r a g e s a n d s t a n d a r d d e v i a t io n s o f t h e p e e r a n d t u t o r a s s e s s m e n t s
o f t h e l a b o r a t o r y r e p o r t a n d T a b l e V s h o w s t h e a s s e s s m e n t s c a t e g o r i s e d i nt o q u a r t i le s t o
d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e p e e r m a r k i n g o f t h e h i g h e r a n d l o w e r a c h ie v e r s is m o r e o r le s s
s t r i n g e n t t h a n t h e t u t o r m a r k i n g . A s w i t h t h e s e l f - a ss e s s m e n t s , t h e p e e r a s s e s s m e n t f ig u r e s
s u g g e s t t h a t t h e s t u d e n t s m a r k w i t h in a m o r e r e s t r i c t e d ra n g e t h a n t u to r s .
TABLE IV. Tu tor versus pe er assessment : com parison of
means and s t andard dev ia t ions
N M ean S t an d a r d d ev i at io n
Tu tor m ark 63 74 12 .01
Pee r m ark 57 74.4 10.7
T h i s s e t o f r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e s t h a t p e e r a s s e s s m e n t is m o r e s t r i n g e n t t h a n t u t o r a s s e s s m e n t
w i t h i n t h e l o w e r m a r k r a n g e a n d s l ig h t ly l e ss s t r i n g e n t t h r o u g h o u t t h e r e s t o f t h e r a n g e .
H o w e v e r , t h e s m a l l d if f e re n c e s i n t h e m e a n s a n d t h e r e a s o n a b l e a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e
n u m b e r s o f s tu d e n t s w i t h i n e a c h q u a r t i le i n d i c a t e a s w i t h th e s e l f - a s s e s s e d s c r i p t s t h a t t h e
g e n e r a l r a n k i n g w i t h i n t h e c la s s s h o w s g o o d a g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e p e e r a n d t u t o r a s s e s s-
m e n t s . T h i s i s f u r t h e r h i g h l i g h t e d w i t h a c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c ie n t b e t w e e n p e e r a s s e s s m e n t a n d
t u t o r a s s e s s m e n t o f r = 0 . 8 9 .
A s w i t h t h e s e l f - a s se s s m e n t s , t h e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e p e e r a n d t u t o r a s s e s s m e n t s i n
t h i s e x e r c is e a n d t h e s t u d e n t r a n k i n g a f t e r t r a d i t i o n a l l y a s s e s s e d e x a m i n a t i o n s w a s c a l c u l a t e d .
T h e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n p e e r a s s e s s m e n t o f a s c ie n t if ic r e p o r t a n d t h e o u t c o m e o f t r a d i t i o n -
a l ly a s s e s s e d e x a m i n a t i o n s g i v e s a n r v a l u e o f 0 . 4 7 a n d t h e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e t u t o r
a s s e s s m e n t s o f t h is e x e r c i se a n d t h e o u t c o m e o f t h e e x a m i n a t i o n s g iv e s a n r v a l u e o f 0 . 5 8 .
T h e d i s c r e p a n c i e s b e t w e e n t h e a s s e s s m e n t s o f t h is e x e rc i se a n d t h e o u t c o m e o f e x a m i n a -
t i o n s a r e n o t p a r t i c u l a r ly su r p r is i ng . A q u e s t i o n n a i r e w h i c h w a s d e s i g n e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e
p e r c e i v e d b e n e f i t s o f p e e r a n d s e l f - a s s e s s m e n t p r o c e d u r e s w a s g i v e n t o a11 t h e s t u d e n t s .
A l m o s t 1 0 0 o f t h e s t u d e n t s s a id t h a t p e e r a n d se l f -a s s e s sm e n t p r o c e d u r e s m a d e t h e m t h i n k
m o r e a n d 8 5 s a i d t h a t i t m a d e t h e m l e a r n m o r e t h a n t r a d i t io n a l l y a s s e s se d w o r k . T h e r e f o r e ,
i t m u s t b e a c c e p t e d t h a t t h e r e s u l t s o b s e r v e d h e r e r e l a t e t o a h i g h l y m o t i v a t e d a c t i v i ty
8/17/2019 Peer Self and Tutor Assessment Relative Reliabilities
7/8
74 L A J S te fan i
TABLE V. T uto r versus pe er assessment : di fferences in m eans based on p erform ance quarti les
Quar t i l e g roup Tu tor ma rk Peer ma rk Di fference o f means
( tu to r marks ) Nu m ber in quar t i le (mean) (mean) (T - P)
4 5 - 6 2 T u t o r 8
Stu den t 7 56.8 53.5 + 3.3
6 3 - 7 4 T u t o r 2 5
Stu den t 20 67.8 70.15 - 2 .4
7 5 - 8 7 T u t o r 1 9
Stud ent 26 79.6 81.0 - 1 .4
8 8 - 1 0 0 T u t o r 5
Stu den t 4 91.6 93.0 - 1 .4
c o m p a r e d t o e n d o f t e r m e x a m i n a t i o n s , a n d n o f i rm c o n c l u s i o n s c a n b e m a d e o n t h e b a s is
o f t h i s o n e e x e r c i s e . N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e o b s e r v a t i o n s m a d e d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f t h is e x e r c i s e
a r e h i g h l y e n c o u r a g i n g w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e r e l i a b i li t y o f l e a r n e r s ' p e e r a n d s e l f- a s s e ss m e n t s .
i s c u s s i o n
T h i s s t u d y h a s s h o w n t h a t s t u d e n t a s s e s s m e n t c a n b e a s r e l ia b l e a s t h a t o f l e c t u re r s a n d g o e s
s o m e w a y t o d i s p e l l in g f e ar s t h a t l o w e r a c h ie v e r s a w a r d t h e m s e l v e s h i g h e r m a r k s a n d h i g h e r
a c h i e ve r s m a r k t h e m s e l v e s d o w n r e la t iv e t o t u t o r m a r k i n g . A l t h o u g h t h is p a p e r r e p o r t s t h e
r e s u l t s o f o n e e x e r c i s e i n p e e r a n d s e l f - a s s e s s m e n t , th e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f si m i l a r p r o c e d u r e s t o
o t h e r g r o u p s o f s t u d e n t s i n d i f f e re n t c o n te x t s a n d s u b j e c t a re a s h a s s h o w n r e m a r k a b l y s i m i l a r
r e s u l t s ( F i t z g e r a l d & S t e f a n i , i n p r e p a r a t i o n ) .
W i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e v a l i d i t y o f s tu d e n t m a r k s , t h e d i f f e r en c e s i n c o r r e la t i o n s b e t w e e n t h e
a s s e s s m e n t s o f a s c ie n t if ic r e p o r t a n d e n d o f t e r m r a n k i n g o f s tu d e n t s r a is e i n te r e s t in g p o i n ts .
S t u d e n t m o t i v a t i o n i n t h i s e x e r c i s e w a s p e r c e i v e d t o b e v e r y h i g h a n d i t i s l i ke l y t h a t t h e
s t u d e n t s w o r k e d h a r d e r t o r e a c h h i g h e r l e v el s o f a c h i e v e m e n t t h a n m i g h t n o r m a l l y b e t h e c a s e
w i t h r e s p e c t t o e n d o f t e r m e x a m i n a t i o n s . G i v e n t h e t a c k o f t r a i n in g i n p e e r a n d s e lf - as s e ss -
m e n t e x p e r i e n c e d b y t h e t w o c l as s es o f s t u d e n t s i n th i s s tu d y , n o f i rm c o n c l u s i o n s s h o u l d b e
d r a w n r e g a r d i n g t h e se r e s u lt s . H o w e v e r , l o n g - t e r m m o n i t o r i n g o f t h e s e g r o u p s o f s t u d e n t s i s
u n d e r w a y r e g a r d i n g t h e i r a bi l i t i e s a n d a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d s a l t e r n a t iv e a s s e s s m e n t m e t h o d s .
P r o c e d u r e s h a v e b e e n i n t r o d u c e d t o g iv e s t u d e n t s f o r m a t i v e a n d c o n s t r u c t iv e f e e d b a c k o n
t h e i r a c h i e v e m e n t s i n t h i s a r e a .
M a n y l ec turers / tu tors e x p r e s s g r e a t f e a r o f h a n d i n g a n y o f t h e p o w e r o f a s se s s m e n t o v e r
t o s t u d e n t s . T h i s f e a r g e n e r a l l y s t e m s f r o m t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h e s t u d e n t m a r k s w i ll d i f fe r
s i g ni f ic a n t ly f r o m l e c t u r e r m a r k s . T o c o u n t e r a c t t h i s fe a r , i t c a n b e a r g u e d t h a t i n t r o d u c i n g
s t u d e n t s t o s e l f a n d p e e r a s s e s s m e n t e a r l y i n th e i r a c a d e m i c c a r e e r a n d u s i n g t h e m a r k
s u m m a t i v e l y a s w e l l a s fo r m a t i v e l y w i l l e n g e n d e r a s e n s e o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n s t u d e n t s s u c h
t h a t b y t h e t i m e t h a t t h e g r a d i n g a n d r a n k i n g o f s tu d e n t s b e c o m e s a c r u c i a l m a t t e r , f o r
e x a m p l e i n t h e f i na l y e a r o f u n d e r g r a d u a t e t r a in i n g , s t u d e n t s w i l l b e w e l l a c c u s t o m e d t o t h e
p r o c e d u r e s . G r a d u a l l y , w i th i n t h is u n i v e r s it y s t u d e n t d e r i v e d m a r k s a r e c o n t r i b u t i n g to e n d
o f t e r m s t u d e n t r a n k i n g .
C o w a n ( 1 9 8 8 ) h a s a r g u e d t h a t t h e b e n e f i t s o f s e l f - a s s e s s m e n t a r e so g r e a t t h a t w e s h o u l d
t r u s t s t u d e n t s t o a c t a p p r o p r i a t e l y e v e n w h e n t h e r e i s a r i s k t h a t t h e r e c o u l d b e d i f f e r e n c e s
b e t w e e n t h e s t u d e n t m a r k a n d t h e t u t o r m a r k . I n s u p p o r t o f t h is id e a , w h e n t h e s t u d e n t s
p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n th i s p e e r a n d s e l f - a s s e s s m e n t e x e r c i s e w e r e g i v e n a q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o e v a l u a t e
t h e l e a r n i n g b e n e f i t s , a l m o s t 1 0 0 o f t h e s t u d e n t s s a id t h a t t h e s c h e m e m a d e t h e m t h i n k
8/17/2019 Peer Self and Tutor Assessment Relative Reliabilities
8/8
Peer Self and Tutor Assessment 7
m o r e , 8 5 s a id i t m a d e t h e m l e a r n m o r e a n d 9 7 s a id t h a t i t w a s c h a l le n g i n g . T h e s e
r e s p o n s e s w e r e g i v e n d e sp i t e t h e f a c t t h a t 1 0 0 o f t h e st u d e n t s s a id th a t i t w a s m o r e t im e
c o n s u m i n g a n d o v e r 7 5 s a id t h a t i t w a s h a r d ( S te f a n i, 1 9 9 2 ) . S i n c e i n t r o d u c i n g th i s
a s s e s s m e n t s t r a t eg y , m a n y s t u d e n t s h a v e a s k e d i f t h is p r o c e d u r e w i l l o p e r a te i n a n y s u b -
s e q u e n t c o u r s e s . P e r h a p s s t u d e n t d e m a n d w i l l t a k e o v e r a n d l e c t u r e r s w i l l b e f o r c e d t o
r e s p o n d t o s t u d e n t n e e d s a n d i n t r o d u c e p e e r a n d s e l f - a s s e s s m e n t p r o c e d u r e s m o r e w i d e l y . I n
t h e w r i t e r ' s o p i n i o n t h i s w o u l d b e n o b a d t h i n g .
Correspondence
L o r r a i n e A . J. S te f a n i, S c h o o l o f B i o l o g y a n d B i o c h e m i s t r y , T h e Q u e e n ' s
U n i v e r s i ty o f B e l fa s t, B e l f as t B T 9 7 B L , U n i t e d K i n g d o m .
REFF~.ENCES
BOUD, D. (1989) T he ro l e o f se l f - a sse ssmen t in s t uden t g rad ing , Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Education 14 , pp . 20 -30 .
BOUD, D. FALCHIKOV, N. (1989) Q uan t i t a t i ve s t ud ie s o f s t uden t se l f - asse ssmen t i n h ighe r educa t i on : a
cr i t ica l analysis of f indings, Higher Education 18 , pp . 529-549 .
BOtrD, D . LUBLIN,J . ( I 983) Self-assessment in Professional Education. A Report to the Comm onwealth Research
and Development Committee ( T e r t ia r y E d u c a t i o n R e s e a r c h C e n t r e , U n i v e r s i t y o f N e w S o u t h W a l e s ) .
COW AN, J . (1988) S t rugg l ing wi th s t ud en t se l f -a sse ssmen t , i n : D. J . Bou D (Ed . ) Developing Student A utono my
in Learning 2 n d e d n , p p . 1 9 2 - 2 1 0 ( L o n d o n , K o g a n P a g e ).
FALCmKOV, N. (1986) Pro duc t com par i sons a nd p rocess bene f i t s o f co l l abora t ive pee r and se l f -a sse ssmen t ,
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 11 (4 ) , pp . 146-16 6 .
MAGrN, D. J . CHURCHES, A.E . (1989) W ha t do Students Learn from Se lf and Peer Assessment in Designing
for Learning in Industry and Education p p . 2 2 4 - 2 3 3 ( C a n b e r r a , A u s t r a l ia n S o c i e t y f o r E d u c a t i o n a l
T e c h n o l o g y ) .
STEFA~I, L .A. J . (1992) Co mp ar i son o f co l l abora t ive se lf , pee r and t u to r a sse ssmen t i n a b iochemis t ry
prac t i c a l , Biochemical Education 2 0 , p p . 1 4 8 - 1 5 1 .