| Images of connected features: |
| | | Neutral space for stating non-objective viewpoints in peer-evaluation |  |
| | | Face to face dicussion to support online peer evaluation activity |  |
| | | Anonymous peer evaluation in CeLS environment |  |
| | | Automated gathering of peer-evaluation outcomes in CeLS |  |
| | | Standards Table: Guidelines for Writing Notes |  |
| | | Alternated Individual and Group Discourse (eStep) |  |
| | | Discussion Maker (Automated Sorting) |  |
|
Connections 
|
|
|
| Description: |
| Peer-evaluation is an educational strategy in which students are required to evaluate the work of their peers. The evaluation can focus either on a learning product, or on the process. |
|
Theoretical background:
|
Many studies have shown that peer-evaluation is a powerful method for leveraging learning processes in a variety of contexts (e.g., Falchikov, 2003; McConnell, 2002; Suthers, Toth, & Weiner, 1997; Topping, 1998). Learning outcomes from peer-evaluation are related to: a) leveraging student understanding of evaluation criteria, and thus supporting students in creating improved artifacts, b) learning by reviewing peers’ work, c) consideration of a wide range of feedback, and d) development of evaluation skills (Ronen and Langley, 2004; Zariski, 1996; Dominick et al., 1997; Miller, 2003).
There is a debate concerning the legitimacy of using peer-evaluation scores as replacement of instructor’s scores. In such cases, the outcomes of the peer-evaluation are usually validated by comparison with the instructor’s evaluation (e.g., McGourty et al., 1997).
One of the main obstacles in the implementation of peer-evaluation is that it demands a great deal of management, organization and analysis work. Technology can provide powerful tools to reduce this workload, either by using generic online environments including forums and email (Mann, 1999), or by using targeted environments developed specifically for online peer-evaluation (e.g., Davies, 2000; Cuddy et al., 2001).
Another obstacle of peer-evaluation is the issue of bias (Topping, 1998). Approaches that have been used to minimize bias in many cases are solved by anonymous evaluation.
|
|
|
| Tips (Challenges, Limitations, Tradeoffs, Pitfalls): |
Note that when the contents being evaluated in a peer evaluation activity have to do with beliefs and morals, there is higher probability for biased scoring. In such cases it is recommended to enable students to state their personal, non-objective viewpoints about their peers’ work in a neutral space, which does not affect scoring (see feature connected to this principle). However, as in other peer evaluation contexts this feature works best when students are involved in developing the criteria. To do that, it is recommended seed the discussion (or any other means for criteria building) with ideas for non-objective criteria.
Note also that biased scoring and inappropriate language in peer evolution can occur when the contents that are being evaluated are socio-culturally sensitive. In such cases it is advised to avoid grading students according to peer-evaluation results. Rather, to reduce tensions it is recommended to evaluated students as evaluators, based on their respecting of classroom norms, and on the quality of their justifications (see feature connected to this principle).
|
| References (Off-line): |
Cuddy, P., J. Oki, (2001). Online peer evaluation in basic pharmacology. Academic medicine, 76(5): 532-3.
Davies, P., (2000), Computerized Peer Assessment. Innovations in Education & Training International, 37(4), 346-355.
Dominick P. G., Reilly, R. R., & McGourty J. (1997). The effects of peer feedback on team member behavior. Group and Organization Management, 22, 508-520.
Falchikov, N. (2003). Involving Student in Assessment. Psychology Learning and Teaching, 3(2), 102-108.
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.
Mann, B. (1999). Web course management. "Post and Vote" Peer Assessment Using Generic Web Tools. Australian Educational Computing 14(1).
McConnell, D. (2002). Collaborative assessment as a learning event in Elearning environments. Proceedings of CSCL ‘02, January 2002, Boulder, CO.
McGourty, J. Sebastian, C., & Reilly, R. (1997). Incorporating student peer review and feedback into the assessment process. Paper presented to the Best Assessment Processes in Engineering Education: A Working Symposium, April 1997, Terre Haute, Indiana.
Miller, P. J. (2003) The Effect of Scoring Criteria Specificity on Peer and Self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(4), 383 – 394
Ronen, M., & Langley, D. (2004) Scaffolding complex tasks by open online submission: Emerging patterns and profiles. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks (in Press).
Suthers. D.D., Toth, E.E., & Weiner, A. (1997). An integrated approach to implementing collaborative inquiry in the Classroom. Proceedings of CSCL ‘97, December 1997, Toronto, Ontario.
Topping, K. (1998) Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities, Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276.
Zariski, A. (1996). Student peer assessment in tertiary education: Promise, perils and practice. In Abbott, J. and Willcoxson, L. (Eds), Teaching and Learning Within and Across Disciplines, p189-200. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, Murdoch University, February 1996. Perth: Murdoch University. |
| Summary of changes (wiki): |
| Change of name from "enable students to give feedback to their peers" to "Involove students in evaluation processes". The new name seems to be a bit more general. |
|
History
|
|
|
|
|
Login
