Student Evaluation of the
Implementation of Peer Assessment in
Group Work to Allocate Individual Marks
A Study conducted by Dr Jan Grajczonek,
National School of Religious Education
with the financial assistance from
the Australian Catholic University
Learning and Teaching Development Grant
Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1
Literature Review ....................................................................................................................... 2
The present study....................................................................................................................... 3
Sample .................................................................................................................................... 4
Nature of the assignment....................................................................................................... 4
Research Design ..................................................................................................................... 4
Research Methods .................................................................................................................. 5
Results ........................................................................................................................................ 5
Part A: Peer Allocation of Student IWFs and Affects on Individual Marks ............................. 5
Cohort 1: 2nd Year Students................................................................................................ 5
Cohort 2: 3rd Year Students .............................................................................................. 10
Part B: Student Evaluation of the Peer Assessment Process ................................................ 14
Cohort 1: Survey Questionnaire Items for 2nd Year Students .......................................... 14
Cohort 2: Survey Questionnaire Items for 3rd Year Students........................................... 18
Cohort 1: Student Qualitative Evaluation for 2nd Year Students ..................................... 21
Cohort 2: Student Qualitative Evaluation for 3rd Year Students ...................................... 24
Discussion ................................................................................................................................. 26
Comparing the two cohorts .................................................................................................. 26
Peer Allocation of Student IWFs and Affects on Individual Marks .................................. 26
Survey Questionnaire Items Evaluating Peer Group Assessment Process ...................... 28
Students’ Qualitative Evaluation of Peer Group Assessment Process ............................. 29
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 29
References ................................................................................................................................ 30
Appendix 1: Peer Group Participant Assessment Form ........................................................... 32
Appendix 2: Group Mark Distribution Survey .......................................................................... 33
Key words: group assessment, peer assessment
Introduction
Group work increasingly occupies a significant place within tertiary education. According to Biggs
(2003) the two major reasons for this are that it develops teamwork and lessens the burden of
marking time for teachers of large cohorts (p. 187). The development of teamwork and interpersonal
skills are valued elements of both university graduate attributes (Australian Catholic University, 2009)
and the teaching profession across Australia (Department of Education and Children's Services, 2006;
Department of Education Tasmania, 2007; Education Queensland, 2005; New South Wales Institute
of Teachers, 2006; Queensland College of Teachers, 2006; Victorian Institute of Teachers, 2003;
Western Australian College of Teachers, 2008). Other benefits for group work in higher education
include:

students gain insight into group dynamics

group assessments allow the development of more comprehensive assignments than would
be possible for individual assessments

students are exposed to other points of view

students are prepared for the real world. (Cheng & Warren, 2000; Johnston & Miles, 2004)
Accompanying this increased implementation of group work has been an increased concern
with assessment practices, particularly with assessing individual students’ contributions to group
projects. Lejk, Wyvill and Farrow (1996) surveyed a number of methods for assessing students
involved in group work, noting the most widely practised method was the Lecturer/Tutor allocating
the same mark to each member of the group. This method has invited much criticism as it does not
acknowledge individual contribution to either the group process or to the product, and further, it
rewards ‘free-riders’ (Fink, 2004 cited in Freeman, Hutchinson, Treleaven, & Sykes, 2006; Habeshaw,
1989 cited in McLaughlin & Simpson, 2004). Of the other methods used to allocate marks, which
acknowledge individual contribution to group work surveyed by Lejk, Wyvill and Farrow (1996), the
majority implement some form of peer assessment. Peer assessment has been introduced to a
number of higher education courses as a means of facilitating more just and equitable assessment of
individual students’ contributions to group work (Cheng & Warren, 2000; Conway, Kember, Sivan, &
WU, 1993; Gatfield, 1999; Goldfinch & Raeside, 1990; Kilic & Cakan, 2006; Lejk & Wyvill, 2001).
This paper reports on a study that investigated the introduction of peer assessment in group
work to allocate individual marks with second year early childhood education undergraduates, and
third year and primary education undergraduates. The study follows on from an earlier similar study
conducted with final year primary education students (Grajczonek, 2009a, 2009b) which found that
students’ marks were more spread and more reflective of their contributions than if all students had
received the allocated Lecturer/Tutor marks. It also found that students’ involvement in the process
did make many more aware of their own and others’ contributions and that overall they enjoyed the
process. Further, the previous study indicated that students felt the process should be introduced
earlier to the course. However, students were not satisfied with the gradings that were assigned to
the criteria of each student’s contribution which were devised by Deeks (as cited in Lejk & Wyvill,
2001) as they felt they were competitive, rather than collaborative criteria.
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 1
Literature Review
Boud, Cohen and Sampson (1999) argued that as peer learning became more prevalent in tertiary
courses then formal assessment associated with peer learning should also reflect that prevalence.
Further, they argued that any assessment should assess process as well as product, and it should be
included in summative grades (Boud et al., 1999). The question of assessing process as well as
product had been strongly advocated by Habershaw (1989, as cited in McLaughlin & Simpson, 2004)
whose research noted that assessing the product only and omitting the process, not only limits the
learning objectives of subjects, but also limits students’ collaboration and contribution. Goldfinch and
Raeside’s (1990) study addressed this challenge by devising a technique that allocated individual
marks calculated using a Peer Assessment (PA) factor. The PA had been calculated by group members
according to each member’s performance of the task and to how much effort each group member
made to the group project. This PA was then multiplied by the group mark to obtain each student’s
individual mark. Conway, Kember, Sivan and WU (1993) revised this formula and replaced the PA
factor with an Individual Weighting Factor (IWF). The IWF is calculated by dividing the total number
of points (Individual Effort Rating) awarded by each member to the other members in the group for
specific tasks such as Literature Search, Writing Report and so on, completed for the group project by
the Average Effort Rating for the group:
IWF= Individual Effort Rating
Average Effort Rating
Students who rated above average received IWFs of more than 1 whilst those who rated below
average received IWFs of less than 1. The final individual mark was the product of the IWF and the
group mark. In the Conway et al. study, students were involved in the actual assessment of the
assessment product and determined the group mark along with the teacher using a five-point scale
for three criteria:
• informativeness
• enjoyment
• preparation for future career.
Following student evaluation of this peer assessment process which indicated that overall they were
in favour of peer assessment, Conway et al. (1993) concluded that using peer assessment to
determine individual marks in group work is appropriate.
Gatfield (1999) revised Conway et al.’s (1993) method and introduced the element of splitting
the group mark in a 50/50 split of the group mark awarded by the teacher. Half of this mark was a
fixed element given to each student in the group. The second half of the group mark was distributed
to each student according to their IWF. Gatfield argued that the 50/50 split, which can be varied,
provided a safe margin to ensure students would take the process seriously and a safeguard against
marks being manipulated (p. 367). Whilst Gatfield’s study found that students were satisfied with the
process overall, it did show that the international students in the sample indicated a higher rate of
satisfaction than Australian students in the same sample.
The belief that students are in a unique position in being able to assess their peers’
contributions to group work more insightfully than their teacher alone who in most cases is not part
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 2
of the group work process, prompted Cheng and Warren (2000) to adopt the method used by
Conway et al. (1993). The results of their study indicated that an IWF determined by peers made an
impact on the numerical grades of individual students and more fairly differentiated the
contributions made by individual students.
The impact of including self-assessment with peer assessment conducted confidentially to
determine individual marks in group work was investigated by Lejk and Wyvill (2001). In their study
they also investigated the differences noted between confidential peer and self-assessment and
open peer and self-assessment. The peer assessment they used was a hybrid version derived from
Goldfinch (1994) using six categories devised by Deeks (as cited in Lejk & Wyvill, 2001, p. 552). Their
study found that peer assessment done in secret, which did not include self-assessment leads to a
more discriminating assessment as the spread of marks within the group were greater for these two
variables.
A study that specifically focused on how students felt about peer assessment involved a cohort
of first year construction management students who perceived the process to be successful
(McLaughlin & Simpson, 2004). They felt that they had learnt a great deal throughout the process
and 59 per cent enjoyed assessing the work of their peers. A total of 43 per cent of students
indicated that they preferred this type of assessment to ‘lecturer only’ assessment.
However, the implementation of peer assessment in group work to determine allocation of
individual marks has also received criticism from Kennedy (2005) who questioned the validity and
reliability of students’ abilities to assess the contributions of their peers. He also argued that the time
involved adds considerably to teachers’ workloads, that the allocated marks based on peer
assessment in most cases differs only marginally from equal allocation and that rather than develop
teamwork, in many cases results in counter-productive tensions among group members. The study
reported in this paper built upon and extended this research.
The present study
The purpose of the present study was twofold: (i) to evaluate the introduction of peer assessment in
group work to determine students’ individual marks with two different cohorts in pre-service teacher
education courses completing the same academic subject unit; and (ii) to determine in what ways
the two cohorts were similar and/or different. The two key changes made between the former study
(Grajczonek, 2009a) and this study were first, inviting students to choose the criteria and the grading
scores to be used for the peer assessment of individual’s contributions to the group task, and second,
having two different year levels participate. The specific research questions for this study were:
1. Did the introduction of peer assessment to allocate individual marks affect students’
individual marks?
2. Did students feel that the introduction of peer assessment of individual students affect
students’ levels of engagement and contribution?
3. In what ways were the two cohorts similar and/or different?
4. How did students perceive the introduction of writing their own criteria for the peer
assessment of individual contributions?
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 3
Sample
The study’s participants were 47 second year early childhood education students and 71 third year
primary education students. Students were asked to form groups of four to work on an assignment
that comprised an individual component and a group component. In the early childhood cohort
there were 13 groups: 8 groups of four students and 5 groups of three students and in the primary
cohort there were 20 groups: 15 groups of four students and 5 groups of three students.
Nature of the assignment
The assignment comprised two elements: a group assessment piece which was a PowerPoint
presentation of the required teacher background for the group’s chosen topic and the individual
component was to create a corresponding teaching and learning activity that contributed to the
development of outcomes in a particular Key Learning Area for early childhood, that is, Prep to Year
3, school students. The group mark out of 30 was given specifically to the group component. The
individual component was marked out of 20, but did not form part of the peer assessment process.
Research Design
The project collected three sets of data from students:
 Assessment data relating to the actual distribution of points to peers, Peer Group Participant
Assessment (PGPA) (Please see Appendix 1) form, which were used to calculate Individual
Weighting Factors (IWFs);
 Students’ evaluation of the assessment process, from the Group Mark Distribution Survey
(GMDS) (Please see Appendix 2) form; and
 Student voluntary comments added at end of the Group Mark Distribution Survey (GMDS)
(Please see Appendix 2) form.
In the first tutorial the lecturer explained the group assessment process and discussed at
length the nature of the criteria. Following this discussion, all tutorial groups decided to keep the
criteria categories (Deeks, as cited in Lejk & Wyvill, 2001), but made changes to the scores so that
they would be less competitive as outlined in the Peer Group Participant Assessment (PGPA) (please
see Appendix 1). The criteria categories (Deeks, as cited in Lejk & Wyvill, 2001) remained unaltered:
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
Motivation/Responsibility/Time Management.
Indictors: attends meetings regularly and on time, accepts fair share of work and reliably
completes by the required time.
Adaptability
Indicators: wide range of skills, readily accepts changed approach or constructive criticism.
Creativity/Originality
Indicators: problem-solver, originates new ideas, initiates team decisions.
Communication skills
Indicators: proficient at writing clear tasks and instructions for students, effective in
discussions, good listener, capable presenter.
General team skills
Indicators: positive attitude, encourager, supporter of team decisions, desire for consensus.
Technical skills
Indicators; provides technical solutions to problems, ability to create designs on own
initiative.
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 4
However, students did amend the qualifiers for each score:





3 for ‘exemplary, insightful and instructive (meaning willing to mentor/show)
contribution in this respect’
2 for ‘competent and helpful contribution in this respect’
for ‘useful contribution in this respect’
for ‘no help at all in this respect’
-1 for ‘a hindrance to the group in this respect’.
After the group assessment items were handed in but before they were assessed by the
lecturer, students submitted this Peer Group Participant Assessment (PGPA) form confidentially via
the online Blackboard site. Their ratings were then calculated to determine each student’s Individual
Weighting Factor (IWF), as outlined in the Peer Group Participant Assessment (PGPA) (please see
Appendix 1). This IWF was applied to the group mark for their submission, in order to calculate each
individual’s final mark.
At the end of the process, students were handed out the Group Mark Distribution Survey
(GMDS) (please see Appendix 2) forms to complete confidentially in class time. This survey was
conducted in the same manner as for Unit Evaluations, that is, collected and placed into a sealed
envelope and stored in another office. The LIC did not access these until after the group work
submissions had been marked and students received their individual marks so as to ensure their
feedback did not affect their marks.
Research Methods
The research method involved a two part investigative process implementing combined methods
(Gorard & Taylor, 2004). A quantitative approach was applied in Part A to investigate the differences
between the Lecturer allocated group marks and students’ individual marks after the IWF was
applied, and in Part B to the survey items in the students’ evaluation of the assessment process.
Students’ comments from the surveys were examined using a qualitative approach. Students’ peer
allocated IWFs and individual marks and their survey items were analysed using exploratory data
analysis of frequencies and percentages (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007, pp. 506-514) using SPSS
statistical software package. Students’ qualitative descriptions of the assessment process were
analysed using constant comparative data analysis (Creswell, 2008) wherein repeating ideas
(Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003) in students’ comments were grouped into common topics and in turn,
further clustered into categories.
Results
Part A: Peer Allocation of Student IWFs and Affects on Individual Marks
As described above, students were asked to complete and submit the Peer Group Participant
Assessment form (see Appendix 1) confidentially via the university online Blackboard site after their
group project was completed and before the group presentations. The two student cohorts are
analysed separately.
Cohort 1: 2nd Year Students
Table 1 presents an overview of the Lecturer Allocated Group Mark, the Peer Allocated IWF, the Peer
Allocated Individual Student Mark, the Difference between the Lecturer Allocated Group Mark and
the Peer Allocated Mark, as well as the Individual Component Lecturer Allocated Mark.
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 5
Table 1: Lecturer Allocated Marks & Peer Allocated Marks for 2nd Year Cohort
Group
Student
ID
LIC
Allocated
Grp Mark
/30
Peer
Allocated
IWF
Peer
Allocated
Indiv Mark
/30
Difference
between Grp
Mark & Peer
Grp Mark
Assn' 2 Ind
Comp't
/20
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
E
E
E
E
F
F
F
F
G
G
G
G
H
H
H
I
I
I
I
J
J
J
K
K
K
L
L
L
M
M
M
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
F8
F9
F10
M11
F12
F13
F14
F15
F16
M17
F18
M19
F20
F21
F22
F23
M24
F25
F26
F27
F28
F29
F30
F31
F32
F33
F34
F35
F36
F37
F38
F39
F40
F412
F42
F43
F44
F45
F46
F47
15
15
15
15
26
26
26
26
21
21
21
21
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
26
26
26
26
24
24
24
24
19
19
19
21
21
21
21
23
23
23
22
22
22
20
20
20
21
21
21
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.01
1.05
1.07
0.87
1.09
0.76
0.95
1.20
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.04
0.96
0.96
1.04
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.08
0.65
1.16
1.11
0.98
1.11
0.91
1.09
1.05
1.05
0.80
0.24
1.38
1.38
0.90
1.10
1.00
1.02
0.95
1.08
1.01
1.09
0.90
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
26.00
27.00
27.00
24.00
22.00
19.00
20.00
23.00
23.00
23.00
23.00
23.00
24.00
22.00
22.00
24.00
26.00
26.00
26.00
26.00
25.00
20.00
26.00
25.00
19.00
20.00
18.00
22.00
21.50
21.50
19.00
14.00
27.50
27.50
21.00
23.00
22.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
21.00
22.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
1.00
-2.00
1.00
-2.00
-1.00
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
-1.00
-1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
-4.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
-1.00
1.00
0.50
0.50
-2.00
-9.00
4.50
4.50
-1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
-1.00
12
10
12
10
13
13
14
15
14
11
11
15
9
13
13
13
13
9
9
19
10
15
15
16
10
13
14
10
13
10
12
12
15
14
10
10
18
14
12
12
9
10
10
10
10
14
13
The range of lecturer allocated marks was between 15 and 26 with a mean of 21.96, standard
deviation of 2.93 and a range of 11, as shown in Figure 1.
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 6
Figure 1: Lecturer Allocated Group Marks /30 for 2nd Year Cohort
Individual Weighting Factors (IWFs) calculated according to students’ peer assessment of
group members’ contribution to the group project, ranged between 0.24 and 1.38 and was greater
than 1 or less than 1 for 34 students or 72.3 per cent as shown in Figure 2. Of the 13 groups involved
in this study, three groups comprising 12 students did not differentiate between group members; all
members gave their peers an equal rating, which converts to an IWF of 1.00. The remaining 10
groups, that is, 35 students did differentiate between individual students in their groups.
Figure 2: Students’ Allocated IWFs for 2nd Year Cohort
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 7
The range in students’ marks after the IWF had been applied to allocated group marks was
between 14 and 27.5 with a mean of 21.96, a standard deviation of 2.93, and a range of 13.5, as
shown in Figure 3. This indicates a much greater spread of marks for students had the IWF not been
applied. Figure 4 shows the comparison of the sets of marks. The IWF had a negative effect on
students’ Peer Allocated Marks for 10 students whose marks decreased by between 1 and 9 and a
positive effect for 16 students whose marks increased by between 0.5 and 4.5. The remaining 7
students’ marks were not affected, as the IWF was too close to 1.00 to make any notable
differentiation to two places.
Figure 3: Peer Allocated Individual Student Marks /30 for 2nd Year Cohort
Figure 4: Comparison between Lecturer Allocated Marks & Peer Allocated Marks after IWF applied to Group Mark
12
Number of Students
10
8
6
4
2
0
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 21.5 22
23
24
25
26
27 27.5
Allocated Marks /30
Lecturer Allocated Marks
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Peer Allocated Marks
Page 8
The significance of these results is clear when the specific lecturer allocated mark of 21 is
considered (see Figure 4). The lecturer allocated the mark of 21 to three groups (Groups C, I & M as
shown in Table 1) comprising 11 students. However, after students’ IWFs had been applied to this
mark, only one of these students retained the mark of 21. The remaining 10 students’ marks were
spread as follows: 19, 20, 21.5, 21, 22, and 23; the range of differences in these marks was between
–2 and +2. Figure 5 presents the spread of the increases and decreases in students’ marks after the
IWF had been applied.
Figure 5: Figure 3: Range of increase and decrease in students’ marks.
Overall 28 (60 per cent) students’ marks were altered as a result of the IWF, indicating that
most students’ individual participation and contribution levels were acknowledged and had an
influence on their marks. The impact of the IWF reflects those found in Cheng and Warren’s (2000)
study. Interestingly, just as in Cheng and Warren’s study, the result of a paired t-test of the
differences between the lecturer allocated group marks and the peer allocated individual marks
revealed that the difference between the means of the two sets of marks was very low and not
statistically significant at the 0.05 level as indicated in Table 2.
Table 2: Paired Samples Test
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
95% Confidence Interval of the
Difference
Mean
Pair LIC Allocated Grp Mark
1 /30 - Peer Allocated
.02128
Indiv Mark /30
Std. Deviation
Std. Error
Mean
Lower
Upper
t
df
Sig. (2tailed)
1.94477
.28367
-.54973
.59228
.075
46
.941
The following section examines the effects of the peer assessment on the second cohort of students.
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 9
Cohort 2: 3rd Year Students
This cohort comprised 3rd year primary education students. Table 3 presents an overview of the
Lecturer Allocated Group Mark, the Peer Allocated IWF, the Peer Allocated Individual Student Mark,
the Difference between the Lecturer Allocated Group Mark and the Peer Allocated Mark, as well as
the Individual Component Lecturer Allocated Mark.
Table 3: 3rd Year Lecturer Allocated Marks & Peer Allocated Marks for 3rd Year Cohort
Group
Student
ID
Lecturer
Allocated
Group
Mark /30
Peer
Allocated IWF
Peer
Allocated
Mark /30
Difference
between Grp
Mark & Peer
Grp Mark
Indiv Component
Mark /20
A
A
A
B
B
B
C
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
E
E
E
E
F
F
F
F
G
G
G
G
H
H
H
H
I
I
I
I
J
J
J
K
K
K
K
L
L
L
L
M
M
M
M
N
N
N
N
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
M6
F7
F8
F9
F10
F11
F12
F13
F14
F15
F16
F17
M18
F19
F20
F21
F22
F23
F24
F25
F26
F27
F28
F29
F30
F31
F32
M33
F34
F35
F36
F37
F38
F39
F40
F41
M42
M43
M44
F45
F46
F47
M48
F49
F50
F51
M52
M53
24
24
24
23
23
23
22
22
22
22
19
19
19
19
25
25
25
25
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
25
25
25
25
23
23
23
23
28
28
28
24
24
24
24
15
15
15
15
17
17
17
17
23
23
23
23
1.29
0.52
1.19
1.00
0.96
1.04
0.97
1.01
1.03
0.99
1.14
0.77
0.91
1.19
1.31
1.36
1.31
0.03
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.07
1.07
1.10
0.76
1.01
0.97
1.01
1.01
0.97
1.01
1.01
1.16
0.98
1.02
0.84
0.92
0.92
0.86
1.30
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.01
0.98
1.01
28
18
26
23
23
23
22
22
22
22
20
17
18
21
29
30
29
12
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
26
26
26
22
23
23
23
23
28
28
28
26
24
24
22
14
14
14
18
17
17
17
17
23
23
23
23
4
-6
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
-2
-1
2
4
5
4
-13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
-3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
-2
-1
-1
-1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
13
15
9
14
13
13
18
12
14
16
9
13
12
18
18
12
11
18
13
14
9
9
11
13
13
18
19
13
12
13
18
10
12
17
19
19
13
12
12
11
5
9
11
16
10
12
14
10
10
12
11
13
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 10
O
O
O
P
P
P
P
Q
Q
Q
R
R
R
R
S
S
S
S
F54
F55
F56
F57
F58
F59
M60
F61
M62
M63
F64
F65
M66
M67
F68
F69
F70
F71
23
23
23
27
27
27
27
23
23
23
20
20
20
20
23
23
23
23
0.94
0.97
1.09
0.95
1.02
1.06
0.97
1.36
1.27
0.37
1.12
1.09
0.83
0.96
1.09
1.18
0.75
0.98
22
23
24
26
27
28
27
27
26
16
21
21
18
20
24
25
20
23
-1
0
1
-1
0
1
0
4
3
-7
1
1
-2
0
1
2
-3
0
13.5
12
13
18
14
17
16
10
16
5
13
10
9
9
16
16
13
11
The range of lecturer allocated marks was between 15 and 28 with a mean of 22.52, standard
deviation of 3.08 and a range of 13, as shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6: Lecturer Allocated Marks /30 for 3rd Year Cohort
Individual Weighting Factors (IWFs) calculated according to students’ peer assessment of
group members’ contribution to the group project, ranged between 0.03 and 1.36 and was greater
than 1 or less than 1 for 57 students or 80 per cent as shown in Figure 7. Of the 19 groups involved in
this study, three groups comprising 12 students did not differentiate between group members; all
members in these groups gave their peers an equal rating, which converts to an IWF of 1.00. The
remaining 16 groups, that is, 59 students, did differentiate between individual students in their
groups, although for 25 of these students the IWF was not significant enough to change their
allocated mark. Hence, for this cohort the implementation of peer assessment changed 34 (48 per
cent) students’ individual marks for their group component.
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 11
Figure 7: Student Allocated IWFs for 3rd Year Cohort
The range in students’ marks after the IWF had been applied to allocated group marks was
between 12 and 30 with a mean of 22.52 and a standard deviation of 3.94, as shown in Figure 8. This
indicates a much greater spread of marks for students had the IWF not been applied.
Figure 8: Peer Allocated Individual Student Marks for 3rd Year Cohort
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 12
Figure 9 shows the comparison of the sets of marks. The IWF had a negative effect on
students’ Peer Allocated Marks for 14 students whose marks decreased by between 1 and 13 and a
positive effect for 20 students whose marks increased by between 1 and 5. Twelve students had not
differentiated their marks giving all in their group the same mark. The remaining 25 students’ marks
were not affected, as the IWF was too close to 1.00 to make any notable differentiation to two
decimal places.
Figure 9: Comparison between Lecturer Allocated marks & Peer Allocated Marks after IWF applied to Group Mark
35
Number of Students
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Allocated Marks
Lecturer Allocated Marks
Peer Allocated Marks
Figure 10: Range of increase and decrease in students’ marks
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 13
Overall 34 (48 per cent) students’ marks were altered as a result of the IWF indicating that
their individual participation and contribution levels were acknowledged and had an influence on
their marks. The result of a paired t-test of the differences between the lecturer allocated group
marks and the peer allocated individual marks revealed that the difference between the means of
the two sets of marks was negligible and not statistically significant at the 0.05 level as indicated in
Table 4.
Table 4: Paired Samples Test
Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences
95% Confidence Interval
of the Difference
Mean
Pair 1 LIC Allocated
Grp Mark /30 Peer Allocated
Indiv Mark /30
.00000
Std.
Deviation
2.45531
Std. Error
Mean
Lower
.29139
-.58116
Upper
.58116
t
.000
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
70
1.000
Part B: Student Evaluation of the Peer Assessment Process
This section comprises two sections:

Part B.1: Survey Questionnaire items in which the results are shown for students’ responses
to the eleven items included in the survey; and

Part B.2: Student Comments on the Group Mark Distribution Survey.
Cohort 1: Survey Questionnaire Items for 2nd Year Students
Following their group presentations, students in the 2nd year early childhood education cohort
individually and anonymously completed the Group Mark Distribution Survey (see Appendix 2). Table
5 presents the frequency, mean and standard deviation for each of the survey items. A total of 43 of
the 47 students who participated in the study completed this survey.
Table 5: Response Proportions for Student Evaluation of the Peer Assessment Process Survey (N=43)
Response %
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Missing
Values
Mean
Standard
Deviation
2.3
7.0
74.4
16.3
0
3.95
0.815
2. It is an appropriate group
assessment method.
0
4.7
67.4
23.3
4.7
4.15
0.654
3. Students should assess their peers.
0
9.3
51.2
39.5
0
4.21
0.861
4. It is a fair way to divide marks.
2.3
11.6
55.8
27.9
2.3
3.98
0.999
5. Peers can assess fairly.
7.0
25.6
53.5
14.0
0
3.42
1.220
0
32.6
60.5
7.0
0
3.42
1.029
Items
1. I have understood the process.
6. Grades will be a fair reflection of the
students’ efforts.
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 14
7. The peer assessment process made
me conscious of my own
participation and contribution to my
group.
8. The peer assessment process
assisted others to be more aware of
their own participation and
contribution to the group.
9. I believe the peer assessment
process directly influenced some to
be more participative in the group.
4.7
9.3
55.8
30.2
0
3.98
1.058
2.3
16.3
65.1
16.3
0
3.77
0.996
7.0
18.6
62.8
11.6
0
3.53
1.141
10. The criteria for the peer
assessment of individual
contributions were appropriate.
2.3
7.0
81.4
9.3
0
3.88
0.762
11. How satisfied were you with the
group assessment process?
2.3
9.3
75.6
11.6
4.7
3.85
0.853
Several observations can be made from the data of Table 5. First, it is clear that overall,
students in this second year cohort were satisfied with the introduction of this group peer
assessment process to allocate individual marks in all aspects, as shown in the number of ‘strongly
agree’ and ‘agree’ responses to all survey items. The mean range on the four-point scale was
between 3.42 and 4.21. The data also indicated a range of distribution of values about the mean with
SD ranging between 0.654 and 1.22.
Further, students felt they had understood the group assessment process evidenced by 39 of
the 43 (91 per cent) students ‘strongly agreeing’ and ‘agreeing’ with item 1: I have understood the
assessment process and reflected in the high mean of 3.95. Overall, students were satisfied with the
process as shown in Item 11: How satisfied you with the group assessment process with 36 (84 per
cent) students ‘strongly agreeing’ and ‘agreeing’. Their level of satisfaction was reflected in a high
mean of 3.85 and a standard deviation of 0.853.
Figure 11 showing items 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, reveals insights into students’ thoughts and feelings
about the appropriateness of peer group assessment. 91 per cent of students agreed that this is an
appropriate group assessment method (item 2) and that students should assess their peers (item 3)
with both items scoring the highest means of 4.15 and 4.21 respectively. Also 84 per cent of students
agree that it is a fair way to divide marks (item 4) which scored a mean of 3.98. However, students
were less certain about peers being able to assess fairly (item 5) and grades being a fair reflection of
students’ marks (item 6) with these two items scoring the lowest means of 3.42 each. There was also
a greater distribution of values for these two items of 1.22 and 1.029 respectively.
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 15
Figure 11: Students’ evaluation of the appropriateness of peer group assessment.
Item 2: It is an appropriate assessment method.
Item 4: It is a fair way to divide marks.
Item 3: Students should assess their peers.
Item 5: Peers can assess fairly.
Item 6: Grades will be a fair reflection of students’ efforts.
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 16
Items 7, 8 and 9 focused on students’ evaluation of whether the peer assessment process
increased their own and others’ actual participation and contribution (see Figure 12) to the group
assignment. Overall scores indicate that the peer assessment process did enhance peer learning in
that students felt the process positively affected both their and others’ levels of participation and
contribution. Students were more positive about the effect that peer assessment process had on
assisting themselves and others to be more conscious of their levels of participation and contribution
(items 7 and 8), with 86 per cent and 81 per cent of students respectively agreeing to these.
However, they were not quite as certain that the process directly influenced some to be more
participative (item 9) with 73 per cent agreeing to this item.
Figure 12: Students’ evaluation of peer assessment impact on participation and contribution.
Item 7: The peer assessment process made me conscious of
my own participation and contribution to my group.
Item 8: The peer assessment process assisted others to be more
aware of their own participation and contribution to the group.
Item 9: I believe the peer assessment process directly
influenced some to be more participative in the group.
A specific aspect of this study was to evaluate if students felt the criteria for the peer
assessment of individual contributions were appropriate. 91 per cent of students agreed that they
were, suggesting that the changes made by the students to the criteria were favourable, unlike
participants in the previous study who referred to their dislike of the set criteria in their written
evaluation comments. The following section investigates the 3rd Year Primary Education cohort’s
evaluation of the peer group process.
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 17
Cohort 2: Survey Questionnaire Items for 3rd Year Students
As for their 2nd year counterparts, the third year primary students also individually and anonymously
completed the Group Mark Distribution Survey (see Appendix 2) after their group presentations.
Table 6 presents the frequency, mean and standard deviation for each of the survey items. A total of
62 of the 71 students who participated in the study completed this evaluation survey.
The data in Table 6 reveal several important insights. First, it is clear that overall, students in
this cohort (70 per cent) were satisfied with the introduction of the group peer assessment process
to allocate individual marks in all aspects as shown in the number of ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’
responses to all survey items. The mean range on the four-point scale was between 3.03 and 3.79.
The data also indicated a range of distribution of values about the mean with SD ranging between
0.968 and 1.399.
Table 6: Response Proportions for Student Evaluation of the Peer Assessment Process Survey (N=62)
Response %
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Missing
Values
Mean
Standard
Deviation
1. I have understood the process.
4.8
9.7
71
12.9
1.6
3.79
0.968
2. It is an appropriate group
assessment method.
6.5
14.5
59.7
17.7
1.6
3.69
1.133
3. Students should assess their peers.
6.5
29
41.9
22.6
0
3.45
1.302
4. It is a fair way to divide marks.
9.7
32.3
37.1
21
0
3.27
1.369
5. Peers can assess fairly.
12.9
35.5
36.1
14.8
1.6
3.03
1.366
9.7
29
1.6
3.25
1.287
6.5
16.1
53.2
24.2
0
3.73
1.190
9.7
22.6
56.5
11.3
0
3.37
1.231
6.5
29
51.6
12.9
0
3.35
1.216
6.5
16.1
59.7
17.7
0
3.66
1.144
9.7
19.4
48.4
21.3
1.6
3.52
1.399
Items
6. Grades will be a fair reflection of
the students’ efforts.
7. The peer assessment process
made me conscious of my own
participation and contribution to
my group.
8. The peer assessment process
assisted others to be more aware
of their own participation and
contribution to the group.
9. I believe the peer assessment
process directly influenced some
to be more participative in the
group.
10. The criteria for the peer
assessment of individual
contributions were appropriate.
11. How satisfied were you with the
group assessment process?
46.8
12.9
Further, students felt they had understood the group assessment process evidenced by 52 of
the 62 (84 per cent) students ‘strongly agreeing’ and ‘agreeing’ with item 1: I have understood the
assessment process and reflected in the high mean of 3.79, and overall students were satisfied with
the process as shown in Item 10: How satisfied you with the group assessment process with 43 (69
per cent) ‘strongly agreeing’ and ‘agreeing’.
Examining items 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 affords deeper insights into students’ thoughts about the
appropriateness of peer group assessment. 77 per cent of students agreed that this was an
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 18
appropriate group assessment method (item 2) and 64 per cent agreed that students should assess
their peers (item 3) with both items scoring means of 3.69 and 3.45 respectively. However, whilst
overall students did agree that the assessment process was fair, the next three items regarding
fairness were less well received by the cohort. 58 per cent of students agreed that it was a fair way to
divide marks (item 4) which scored a mean of 3.27, but only 51 per cent agreed that peers are able to
assess fairly (item 5) and 60 per cent agreed that grades were a fair reflection of students’ marks
(item 6). These three items (4, 5, & 6) scored the lowest means in the survey, 3.27, 3.03 and 3.25
indicating these were students’ greatest concerns.
Figure 13: Students’ evaluation of the appropriateness of peer group assessment.
Item 2: It is an appropriate assessment method.
Item 4: It is a fair way to divide marks.
Item 3: Students should assess their peers.
Item 5: Peers can assess fairly.
Item 6: Grades will be a fair reflection of students’ efforts.
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 19
Items 7, 8 and 9 focused on students’ evaluation of whether the peer assessment process
increased their own and others’ actual participation and contribution (see Figure 14) to the group
assignment. Overall scores indicate that the group peer assessment process did enhance peer
learning in that students felt the process positively affected both their and others’ levels of
participation and contribution. Students in this cohort were quite positive (77 per cent of students)
about the effect that peer assessment process had on making them individually more conscious of
their own participation and contribution to their group (item 7). With a mean of 3.73, this aspect of
the group peer assessment process was second only to the cohort’s evaluation of understanding the
process. 68 per cent of the students agreed that the assessment process made others more
conscious of their levels of participation and contribution (item 8), whilst 64 per cent agreed that the
process directly influenced some to be more participative in their group (item 9).
Figure 14: Students’ evaluation of peer assessment impact on participation and contribution.
Item 7: The peer assessment process made me conscious of
my own participation and contribution to my group.
Item 8: The peer assessment process assisted others to be more
aware of their own participation and contribution to the group.
Item 9: I believe the peer assessment process directly
influenced some to be more participative in the group.
With regards to how students in this cohort viewed the appropriateness of the criteria, 77 per
cent agreed that they were appropriate indicating that the changes made by students to the criteria
were favourable.
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 20
The next section considers students’ qualitative evaluation of the group peer assessment
process.
Cohort 1: Student Qualitative Evaluation for 2nd Year Students
Of the 43 students who completed the survey items evaluating the peer assessment process, 21
students (49 per cent) added qualitative comments to the Group Mark Distribution Survey about the
process as a whole, as well as with specific elements within it. As outlined in the Research Methods’
section (please see p. 7) students’ qualitative descriptions of the assessment process were analysed
using constant comparative data analysis (Creswell, 2008). Table 7 shows students’ comments
grouped into four categories:

Assessment process as a whole

Awareness of contribution & participation

Elements specific to the course

Recommendations
Table 7: 2nd Year Cohort Student Comments
Categories
Topics
Good process
Repeated Ideas in Student Comments
8. I approve of the process
11(a) This process was great.
12. I did initially find it unusual however it seemed rational.
15(a) Peer assessment group [work] is a great way to be involved in
team work. Sometimes it is a good opportunity for all group members
as it allows for equal share on the assignment.
20(a) I think that the peer assessment was appropriate.
40(a) I believe that the peer assessment process was effective.
41(a) It is a good process and almost always is a success.
43. I feeling... that this process was well done and thought out. The
questions were well written and provide enough time and space for
answers.
3. I thought that the process was good as it was a fair way for the
teacher to get an idea of the involvement of each student. I think that
peers should assess each other as sometimes group members don’t
contribute equally and get the same mark as everyone else.
Peer Assessment
process as a whole
Fair and
equitable
process.
10. I found this way of assessment to be useful as people are given
the marks that they deserve.
14. I feel that this process was very effective in ensuring that all
members of the group were commended and marked accordingly to
the work that they contributed.
37(a) I generally agree with the marking process. If someone doesn’t
pull their weight (and has been addressed to the lecturer) then I feel
they do not have the right in getting the same mark as the other
group members who pulled their weight.
Extend process to
other years /
subjects
35. I believed that this process was quite well organised and a fair
way to separate marks fairly, if needed. I recommend that this
program continues to be used.
Unsure/
suspicious
4. I liked the idea, however some people are simply hard markers,
which doesn’t reflect positively.
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 21
19. I did not like that the group marks were totalled and divided
because if some people didn’t put in much effort despite other group
members encouraging them to do so, all members were
disadvantaged by the “lazy” member. I did like that everyone had to
hand in presentation material at the same time, no one was at a
disadvantage.
31. I liked the process, but I’m not sure how well it worked. The
person who I found to have done the least work got the highest
mark!
11(b) Though some students did not complete the process
confidentially.
28. I feel that other students who do not share the load still get
carried by the students who do everything. Although I still do not
know how you would resolve this issue.
Unfair process
34. I’m not sure if I agree entirely with this process, as I spoke to
others one main thing was determined. If people had other members
in their group they did not like, they marked them down –
competition for the best marks happen! I do believe in peer
evaluations, however I believe it works best when the tutor gives
each member the same mark to begin with in group assessment,
UNLESS one or more members have expressed concern about an
individual.
38. I have a concern that one member of the group received low
markings from others because of their participation yet still received
a higher mark.
39. I think that group work assessment works well when each
member pulls their weight, however, it can put a lot of pressure on
other members if those members don’t pull their weight. It can even
decide on whether you pass or fail which is not a good way to be
assessed if half the group pulls their weight and the other doesn’t!
Thus palming their work onto the others just so the group will pass.
26. The process was good. I think it made members of groups who
don’t participate to participate. I found in other evaluations which did
not outline assessment marks that some people did not really care
about the evaluation.
Awareness of
contribution &
participation
Others’ more
aware
40(b) Everyone contributed
40(c) I was more conscious of my participation and I think everyone
was too
40(d) also feel that some people in your group may have a greater
knowledge than yourself, therefore you feel as though your
contribution isn’t really helpful and your peer assessment may suffer
because of this.
Elements specific to
course
Emphasis of
process
20(b) However I think more emphasis on its importance should
happen in the week leading up to the assessment being due.
Create criteria for
peers (?)
15(b) Although in some group assignments I have found not all peers
participated and put their fair share in. This makes it difficult when
the end result is overall for all group members. I think to fix this
problem would be to create a criteria for other peers. Making it fair
and equal for all team members.
Lecturer to
choose groups
37(b) However, this didn’t happen by/to me, but immature people
have marked down people as they are jealous? That’s probably just a
suggestion somehow? Perhaps the lecturer choosing the groups
would be better.
Add selfevaluation &
place for
comments on
peer assessment
form
41(b) However, some students have different opinions so I would add
a self-evaluation as well as (c) a place for students to make actual
comments on maybe other group member’s attitude, performance
and contribution.
Recommendations
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 22
Within the categories, comments were further classified into particular topics, which show the
more specific nature of their comments within that category. Several students commented on a
number of different elements of the process. Such comments were separated into specific categories
but their identifying numbers remained. For example, Student Number 41’s comment dealt with
three aspects: (1) the assessment process overall and two recommendations that (2) self-evaluation
be included as well as (3) room for comments on peer assessment, so each one was categorised
accordingly, that is the first part of the comment was categorised as 41(a) in ‘Peer Assessment
process as a whole’, the second and third parts of the comment were categorised as 41(b) and 41(c)
in ‘Recommendations’ as follows:
41(a)
41(b)
It is a good process and almost always is a success.
However, some students have different opinions so I would add a self-evaluation as
well as (c) a place for students to make actual comments on maybe other group
member’s attitude, performance and contribution.
Overall, students’ comments support the positive results of the survey items but provide
deeper insights into their perceptions of the assessment process as well as with specific elements
within it. Students felt the assessment process was a good one and for the most part, a fair one
indicated in twelve comments, of which two samples are:
11
15(a)
I found this way of assessment to be useful as people are given the marks that they
deserve.
Peer assessment group [work] is a great way to be involved in team work. Sometimes
it is a good opportunity for all group members as it allows for equal share on the
assignment.
However, there were a number of comments that explained students’ specific difficulties with
the assessment process. Some of these focused on unfair elements such as the ability of group
members to mark others down:
34.
I’m not sure if I agree entirely with this process, as I spoke to others one main thing was
determined. If people had other members in their group they did not like, they marked
them down – competition for the best marks happen! I do believe in peer evaluations,
however I believe it works best when the tutor gives each member the same mark to
begin with in group assessment, UNLESS one or more members have expressed concern
about an individual.
This concern with unfairness is explored more closely in the discussion section. Other students
expressed a level of uncertainty and suspicion with the process:
31.
I liked the process, but I’m not sure how well it worked. The person who I found to have
done the least work got the highest mark!
Three recommendations were made by this cohort, one concerning criteria for peers, another
that the lecturer chooses the groups and the third one included two recommendations: to include
self-assessment as well as provide a place for comments on peers’ contributions.
The next section presents the other cohort’s, 3rd year Primary Education students’ qualitative
comments.
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 23
Cohort 2: Student Qualitative Evaluation for 3rd Year Students
Of the 62 students who completed the survey items evaluating the peer assessment process, 24
students (39 per cent) added qualitative comments to the Group Mark Distribution Survey about the
process as a whole, as well as with specific elements within it. The constant comparative analysis
suggested four key categories as shown in Table 8:

Assessment process as a whole

Awareness of contribution & participation

Elements specific to the course

Recommendations.
Table 8: 3rd Year Cohort Student Comments
Categories
Topics
Repeated Ideas in Student Comments
1(a) I think this was great as it truly reflected each member’s
contribution, something that is overlooked in a group mark...
2(a) This process was very useful, however ...
4(a) I was happy to reflect on my peers’ input, however...
22. I like the process of peer assessment
Good process
29(a) I felt that the process was beneficial. All too often students
work within groups and reap the rewards of hard work and
dedication that other students have put in.
31(a) This process is good however...
51(a) The idea surrounding this process, however
12. I was in a fantastic group so the peer assessment was not as
important as everyone participated fully in all aspects of the
assessment. If I was to be in a group where peers did not participate I
would be grateful of the group mark distribution.
Fair and
equitable
process.
Peer Assessment
process as a whole
24. Satisfied with process but not group. Process was good and fair. I
personally struggled with my group as they did nothing! So was not
happy with my overall mark. Was happy however that I was awarded
slightly higher for my effort although I’m sure that they did not award
me high marks that I expected.
42(a) This method was excellent as it fairly distributed marks among
the group members. I did not agree with original working of peer
assessment but when changed much better.... Overall though a great
process.
Extend process to
other years /
subjects
2(b)...it is probably only better used in later years of a course. i.e. not
for first year.
Unsure/
suspicious
6. I felt like the peer assessment was a waste of time overall. Only
because some of the lazy members of the group do nothing but no
one wants to mark them down because it might upset them.
7. I believe that peer assessment should not be done as many people
do not take it seriously.
8. I think that some people didn’t use the peer evaluation form
accurately and/or take it seriously, which made me worry about my
own results and how others’ opinions of me would influence my
grade.
9. It’s hard to be honest with people – if they say “let’s just give each
other 3’s”, it’ll be obvious in their name if you give them something
other than a 3. I don’t know what can be done about this really, but I
know it affected a few groups.
18. I think it can make people uncomfortable.
49(b) However, a person may feel they have done all they can to help
but their peers thought otherwise.
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 24
4(b) I believe some group members could unfairly grade each other.
35. I was very unhappy with how the peer assessment was
conducted; as I was working with a group of friends they tended to
leave me out of discussions and the work load. And as they did their
peer assessments together, I think that I was therefore marked
unfairly.
Unfair process
39. I don’t think that other students should affect the marks of others
in such a harsh manner. If peers are not participating, talking to the
lecturer should be an adequate response.
42(b) The results however could be manipulated though if friends
worked together.
47. For someone who did most of the work being marked down
[because] of lazy people was unfair.
55. I believe that the peer assessment can be unfair, as I believe
people/students can be quite biased and mark according to liking or
disliking a person, rather than a person’s participation/contribution.
Awareness of
contribution &
participation
Elements specific to
course
Recommendations
Others more
aware
29(b) This process made students more inclined to contribute more
as peers are often more critical.
49(a) I feel it’s a good idea as people will want to participate more...
IT difficulty
3. We were not able to upload it.
Impact on grades
31(b) ...I don’t think it should weigh as heavily on the grades as it did.
Marking peers
41. I didn’t feel comfortable in marking my peers, although it did have
a good points and intentions. I didn’t like it.
Not anonymous
51(b)... the anonymity first thought to be behind you is lost when
members receive an individual peer mark. I found that the people
who did not participate were not even aware of the assessment.
General trend = if they don’t go to lectures/tutorials they won’t know
about the peer assessment.
Communication
59. I believe some group members think they did all the work but in
fact don’t know how hard the others worked.
Add written
comments
52. Each group members’ mark should be justified with a written
piece, particularly when group members fail to contribute at all.
Group members who have been identified as not contributing should
not be involved in assessing other group members as they have not
been involved to see the others' contribution.
Of the 24 qualitative 12 were positive and 12 were negative suggesting that this cohort was
not as satisfied with the group peer process as the early childhood cohort. Some of the specific
positive comments concerned fairness, recognition of effort, and participation:
24.
Satisfied with process but not group. Process was good and fair. I personally struggled
with my group as they did nothing! So was not happy with my overall mark. Was happy
however that I was awarded slightly higher for my effort although I’m sure that they
did not award me high marks that I expected.
29(a) I felt that the process was beneficial. All too often students work within groups and
reap the rewards of hard work and dedication that other students have put in.
49(a) I feel it’s a good idea as people will want to participate more...
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 25
Regarding the fairness of the process, more comments in this cohort referred specifically to
the unfair aspects that can arise when working with friends:
35. I was very unhappy with how the peer assessment was conducted; as I was working with
a group of friends they tended to leave me out of discussions and the work load. And as
they did their peer assessments together, I think that I was therefore marked unfairly.
39. I don’t think that other students should affect the marks of others in such a harsh manner.
If peers are not participating, talking to the lecturer should be an adequate response.
55. I believe that the peer assessment can be unfair, as I believe people/students can be quite
biased and mark according to liking or disliking a person, rather than a person’s
participation/contribution.
Some comments indicated degrees of suspicion and uncertainty with others’ abilities
to be serious about the process or of their judgement capabilities:
7.
I believe that peer assessment should not be done as many people do not take it
seriously.
49(b) However, a person may feel they have done all they can to help but their peers thought
otherwise.
Feedback concerning the more specific elements concerned students being uncomfortable in
assessing peers, the seeming anonymity being negated when individual marks were revealed, some
students’ contribution not being recognised, and the weighting of the peer assessment aspect being
too high.
The one recommendation that came from this cohort suggested that the marks assigned to
individual students by their peers should be accompanied with written justification and that those
students who do not contribute should not be part of the assessment process of their group peers.
These three data sets, Peer Group Assessment Forms, Group Mark Distribution Surveys and
students’ individual comments have highlighted some noteworthy issues, which are discussed in the
next section.
Discussion
Comparing the two cohorts
Peer Allocation of Student IWFs and Affects on Individual Marks
There are several points of similarity and difference between the two cohorts. With regards to the
lecturer allocated marks to each group, the second year cohort lecturer allocated group marks
ranged between 15 and 26, while the third year cohort lecturer allocated group marks ranged
between 15 and 28. This revealed a slight difference of two marks between the two cohorts.
However, there are some significant differences between the two cohorts when the IWFs were
applied. In the second year cohort, the two most common lecturer allocated marks were 21/30
(given to three groups comprising 11 students) and 23/30 each (also given to three groups
comprising 11 students). After the IWFs had been calculated, 17 of these 22 students’ (77 per cent)
individual marks changed. However, in the third year cohort, 8 groups comprising 29 students,
received the same lecturer allocated mark of 23/30, but after the IWFs were calculated only 8
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 26
students’ (28 per cent) individual marks changed. Of the 21 students whose marks did not change, 9
in four groups remained the same as their IWFs were not enough to alter their marks, but for the
remaining 12 students in three groups, their individual marks did not change as these groups did not
differentiate their peer allocated scores, giving the same scores to everyone.
When we examine the IWFs more closely the second year cohort allocated Individual
Weighting Factors of between 0.24 and 1.38 which resulted in a range of individual student marks of
between 14/30 and 27.5/30 (see Figure 16). The third year cohort allocated IWFs of between 0.3 and
1.36, resulting in the range of individual student marks of between 12/30 and 30/30, slightly higher
than their second year counterparts (see Figure 16). The implementation of peer assessment to
allocate individual marks in group work was more significant in the 2nd year early childhood
education student cohort, where 60 per cent of students’ marks changed due to the application of
their peers’ IWFs. Although fewer students in the 3rd year primary education cohort had their marks
changed, nevertheless almost half of students, 34 or 48 per cent, did.
Number of Students
Figure 15: Comparison of two cohorts’ lecturer allocated marks.
30
25
20
2nd Year Cohort
15
3rd Year Cohort
10
5
0
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Lecturer allocated marks.
Figure 16: Comparison of two cohorts’ individual allocated marks after IWFs had been calculated.
Number of Students
25
20
15
2nd Year Cohort
10
3rd Year Cohort
5
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
21.5
23
25
27
28
30
Individual allocated marks.
As the results of the data analysis showed, for both groups individual students’ marks were
more varied than if all students had received the allocated Lecturer mark, which was also what
Cheng and Warren’s (2000) study found. A further point that needs to be made regarding this
present study is that students’ individual marks were not required to be scaled either up or down as
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 27
was required in Kilic and Cakan’s study (2006), in which the differentiation in individual student
marks after IWF had been applied were too high, necessitating the marks to be scaled down.
Survey Questionnaire Items Evaluating Peer Group Assessment Process
Whilst overall both cohorts were satisfied with the group peer assessment process, the second year
early childhood education students were more satisfied in every respect as shown in Figure 17. The
percentage of second years who agreed with the items ranged between 68 per cent and 91 per cent
with a range in means of 3.42 and 4.21, whereas the percentage of third year students who agreed
with every item ranged between 51 per cent and 84 per cent with a range in means of 3.03 to 3.79.
An interesting aspect of these two cohorts is that for both, the lowest level of agreement was with
item 5, that peers can assess fairly with 68 per cent of the second year cohort and 60 per cent of the
third year cohort agreeing. Further, both cohorts also agreed less with item 6 that grades would be a
fair reflection of students’ efforts. The item that separated the two cohorts the most was item 3, that
students should assess their peers, with 91 per cent of the second years agreeing with this, whereas
only 65 per cent of the third years agreed with the item. This result indicates that there is an anomaly
in the second year cohort as overall it, like the third year cohort, was less sure about peers assessing
fairly but unlike their third year counterparts, were in stronger agreement that students should
assess their peers.
% of Students who agreed.
Figure 17: % of Students in both cohorts who agreed with each item.
100
80
60
2nd Year Cohort
40
3rd Year Cohort
20
0
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
How satisfied were you with the group assessment process?
The criteria for the peer assessment of individual
contributions were appropriate.
I believe the peer assessment process directly
influenced some to be more participative in the group.
The peer assessment process assisted others to be more aware
of their own participation and contribution to the group.
The peer assessment process made me conscious of
my own participation and contribution to my group.
Grades will be a fair reflection of students’ efforts.
Peers can assess fairly.
It is a fair way to divide marks.
Students should assess their peers.
It is an appropriate assessment method.
I have understood the process.
Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item Item
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Page 28
Students’ Qualitative Evaluation of Peer Group Assessment Process
Students’ volunteered comments regarding the peer group assessment process indicate that overall
the second year early childhood education cohort was more favourable towards it than the third year
primary education students. However, the two groups shared similar concerns regarding fairness and
their confidence that students can judge peers’ contributions. Individual recommendations came
from both groups and included some worthwhile suggestions that could be considered for future
similar assessment processes, namely that self-assessment is included and that comments be added
to justify the student allocated IWFs.
Conclusion
The aims of this study were to investigate the effects of introducing peer assessment of students’
contributions to group work to determine individual marks to two different cohorts in pre-service
teacher education courses. The results of this study indicate that the peer assessment process clearly
made an impact on the spread of marks for students in both cohorts, although it had a greater affect
on the second year early childhood students, with the majority of students receiving a different mark
from the one they would have received if the IWF had not been applied. These results were similarly
reported in Conway et al. (1993), Gatfield (1999) and Cheng and Warren’s (2000) studies. Although
the t-test results failed to reveal any significant statistical difference, 60 per cent of second year
students and 48 per cent of third year students received a different mark because of the application
of the IWF, hence making this a valid and meaningful procedure as it did in Cheng and Warren’s
(2000) study.
The study also showed that the introduction of the peer assessment process to this subject was an
overall positive experience for the majority of students who endorsed the process itself. These
results were also shown in McLaughlin and Simpson’s (2004) study. However, student written
comments highlighted a number of concerns with specific elements within the process such as
students’ faith in their peers being able to assess fairly and for the third year student cohort that
some did not take the process seriously. Overall the second year cohort was more positive about
peer assessment of groups work to allocate individual marks.
Whilst the results of this study cannot claim absolutely that students’ marks clearly reflected their
participation in, and contribution to, the group project, it can be claimed that their marks were more
spread and more reflective of their contributions than if all students had received the allocated
Lecturer marks. It can also be concluded that students’ involvement in the process did make many
more aware of their and others’ contributions and that overall they enjoyed the process.
Acknowledgements:
The significant assistance provided by the Australian Catholic University Learning and Teaching
Development Grant in making this study possible is gratefully acknowledged and appreciated.
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 29
References
Auerbach, C. F., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis.
Retrieved 8 January, 2009, from
http://site.ebrary.com.ezproxy2.acu.edu.au/lib/australiancathu/Top?channelName=australia
ncathu&cpage=1&docID=10078435&f00=text&frm=smp.x&hitsPerPage=20&layout=docume
nt&p00=qualitative+data&sortBy=score&sortOrder=desc
Australian Catholic University. (2009). Graduate attributes. Retrieved 9 November 2010, 2010, from
http://www.acu.edu.au/student_resources/study_resources/graduate_attributes/
Biggs, J. (2003). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. Buckingham:
Society for Research in Higher Education, Open University Press.
Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999). Peer learning and assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 24(4), 413-426.
Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (2000). Making a difference: Using peers to assess individual students'
contributions to a group project. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(2), 243-255.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). London:
Routledge.
Conway, R., Kember, D., Sivan, A., & WU, M. (1993). Peer assessment of an individual's contribution
to a group project. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1), 45-56.
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and
qualitative research. New Jersey: Pearson.
Department of Education and Children's Services. (2006). Professional standards for teachers in
South Australia. from http://www.decs.sa.gov.au/ods/files/links/link_58585.pdf
Department of Education Tasmania. (2007). Tasmanian professional teaching standards framework.
from http://www.trb.tas.gov.au/Final%20Standards%20July12%2007.pdf
Education Queensland. (2005). Professional standars for teachers: Guidelines for professional
practice. Retrieved 15 June, 2009, from
http://education.qld.gov.au/staff/development/pdfs/profstandards.pdf.
Freeman, M., Hutchinson, D., Treleaven, L., & Sykes, C. (2006). Iterative learning: Self and peer
assessment of group work. Paper presented at the 23 rd Annual Ascilite Conference: Who's
learning? Whose technology?, The University of Sydney.
Gatfield, T. (1999). Examining student satisfaction with group projects and peer assessment.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 365-377.
Goldfinch, J. (1994). Further developments in peer assessment of group projects. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 19(1), 29-35.
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 30
Goldfinch, J., & Raeside, R. (1990). Development of a peer assessment technique for obtaining
individual marks on a group project. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 15(3),
210-231.
Gorard, S., & Taylor, C. (2004). Combining methods in educational and social research. Berkshire,
England: Open University Press.
Grajczonek, J. (2009a). Exploring students’ perceptions of peer assessment in group work to allocate
individual marks in higher education. International Journal of Learning, 16(3), 105-126.
Grajczonek, J. (2009b). The good, the bad, the ugly: Students' evaluation of the introduction of
allotting individual marks to group work assessment. Paper presented at the ATN Conference
2009: Assessment in different dimensions, RMIT University, Melbourne.
Johnston, L., & Miles, L. (2004). Assessing contributions to group assignments. Retrieved 6 August,
2008, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0260293042000227272.
Kennedy, G. J. (2005). Peer-assessment in group projects: Is it worth it? Paper presented at the
Australasian Computing Education Conference 2005, Newcastle.
Kilic, G. B., & Cakan, M. (2006). The analysis of the impact of individual weighting factor on individual
scores. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(6), 639-654.
Lejk, M., & Wyvill, M. (2001). The effect of self assessment with peer assessment of contributions to
a group project: A quantitative study of secret and agreed assessments. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(6), 551-561.
Lejk, M., Wyvill, M., & Farrow, S. (1996). A survey of methods of deriving individual grades from
group assessments. Retrieved 6 August, 2008, from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0260293960210306.
McLaughlin, P., & Simpson, N. (2004). Peer assessment in first year university: How the students feel.
Studies in Educational Evaluation, 30, 135-149.
New South Wales Institute of Teachers. (2006). Professional teaching standards. from
http://www.nswteachers.nsw.edu.au/IgnitionSuite/uploads/docs/Professional%20Teaching
%20Standards.pdf
Queensland College of Teachers. (2006). Professional standards for Queensland teachers. Retrieved
15 June, 2009, from
http://www.qct.edu.au/Publications/ProfesionalStandards/ProfessionalStandardsForQldTeac
hers2006.pdf
Victorian Institute of Teachers. (2003). Standards for graduating teachers. from
http://www.vit.vic.edu.au/files/documents/1435_standards-for-graduating-teachers.pdf
Western Australian College of Teachers. (2008). Western Australian professional standards for
teachers.
from
http://www.wacot.wa.edu.au/files/resourcesmodule/@random46d4c090d9296/121323410
5_WACOTStandards.pdf
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 31
Appendix 1: Peer Group Participant Assessment Form
The purpose of this form is to determine individual marks for members of your group.
Your Name: _____________________________________________________ Student Number: ___________________
All Group Members’ Names:
Please note that I cannot give you your group and individual marks until you have fulfilled the following:
1. Complete this Peer Group Participant Assessment Form for the other members of your group in the Table below; and
2. Submit this form to the Assignment Dropbox on the Blackboard site for this unit, EDRE101/161, by 1:00pm Monday, 12 April, 2010.
You are to rate each member of your group according to the following categories (Deeks, as cited in Lejk & Wyvill,
2001):
C1 Motivation/Responsibility/Time Management.
Indictors: attends meetings regularly and on time, accepts fair share of work and reliably completes by the required time.
C2 Adaptability
Indicators: wide range of skills, readily accepts changed approach or constructive criticism.
C3 Creativity/Originality
Indicators: problem-solver, originates new ideas, initiates team decisions.
C4 Communication skills
Indicators: proficient at writing clear tasks and instructions for students, effective in discussions, good listener, capable presenter.
C5 General team skills
Indicators: positive attitude, encourager, supporter of team decisions, desire for consensus.
C6 Technical skills
Indicators; provides technical solutions to problems, ability to create designs on own initiative.
And scored using the following scale:
3
2
1
0
-1
for ‘exemplary, insightful and instructive (meaning willing to mentor/show) contribution in this respect’
for ‘competent and helpful contribution in this respect’
for ‘useful contribution in this respect’
for ‘no help at all in this respect’
for ‘a hindrance to the group in this respect’
Marks awarded to (Place one
member’s name into each
column but not your own.)
C1Motivation/Responsibility/Time
Management.
C2 Adaptability
C3 Creativity/Originality
C4 Communication skills
C5 General team skills
C6 Technical skills
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 32
Totals (Indiv. Effort Rating)
Appendix 2: Group Mark Distribution Survey
The purpose of this survey is to gather student perceptions on peer distribution of marks for group
assessment tasks. Your feedback will provide critical insights that will assist us in our future teaching
and learning. Please do not place your name anywhere on this survey.
When you have completed the form please hand it to the student collector. He/she will place it
into a sealed envelope and take that to XXXX Room (AC.34) to be locked away in a filing cabinet.
The surveys will not be accessed until after the final grades will be given for this unit.
1. The Questionnaire: Please rate the following scale by circling the corresponding number for each
aspect.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1. I have understood the assessment
process.
1
2
4
5
2. It is an appropriate group assessment
method.
1
2
4
5
3. Students should assess their peers.
1
2
4
5
4. It is a fair way to divide marks.
1
2
4
5
5. Peers can assess fairly
1
2
4
5
1
2
4
5
1
2
4
5
1
2
4
5
1
2
4
5
1
2
4
5
Extremely
Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Extremely
Satisfied
1
2
4
5
6. Grades will be a fair reflection of the
students’ efforts.
7. The peer assessment process made me
more conscious of my own participation
and contribution to my group.
8. The peer assessment process assisted
others to be more aware of their own
participation and contribution to the group.
9. I believe the peer assessment process
directly influenced some to be more
participative in the group.
10. The criteria for the peer assessment of
individual contributions were appropriate.
11. How satisfied were you with the group work
assessment process?
If you wish to add your own further comments you are invited to do so over the page. Thank you.
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 33
2. Your Journal: Briefly describe your general feelings about this process and how it can be improved.
You may like to expand on some of the points made in the questionnaire or add further insights and
perceptions not covered in this questionnaire.
Yes, I would like a copy of the research project’s findings. (Please tick the box if you would like
a copy of the findings when they have been finalised.)
Grajczonek, Peer Assessment in Group Work
Page 34