Peer Feedback and Assessment: Students as
Partners in Designing Inclusive Assessment
and Feedback
Regina Pauli1 and Marcia Worrell2
1Department of Psychology, University of Roehampton
2School of Psychology, Social Work and Human Sciences,
University of West London
Sadler (2010): Beyond Feedback
It is commonly assumed that the teacher’s responsibility for using assessment
events to facilitate improvement in learning is fully discharged by providing
extensive verbal communications relating to assessment task specification
(and, arguably, fixed assessment criteria); information about the quality of an
appraised work; and advice about how future responses to similar
assessment tasks should be tackled.
However, empirical evidence shows that whilst these communications may be
appreciated by students, they often lead to little if any improvement in their
subsequent work.
(p. 548)
An alternative approach
Students as partners pedagogies
• focus is on authenticity, personal relevance, practical
applicability and personal development
• student engagement and motivation through an
acknowledgement of the self-determined nature of
adult learning
• intrinsic motivation and internalization of values and
self-regulation leads to high quality learning as well as
personal development (Deci et al, 1991)
• characterized by inviting students to reflect on, coconstruct and participate actively in their own learning
An alternative approach
• Purposeful peer assessment as a pedagogical
strategy
• Task compliance
• Quality
• Criteria
• Assessment for learning
• Inclusivity = respect for individual learner
• ‘zone of proximal development’ (Vygotsky, 1978)
An alternative approach
• Inclusivity of assessment
• Close attention to individual learner needs
• Some choice over assessment regime to capitalise on
individual strengths
• Empowering students to engage with feedback
• Critical awareness of marking criteria
• Active engagement with marking criteria
• Control over learning through assessment
• Self-evaluation through peer evaluation
Case Study 1:
Perspectives in Consciousness
•
•
•
•
Year 2 module, 150+ students
Assessment task: Portfolio of 8 x 400 words
Patchwork type assessment
Submission every two to three weeks but can be changed
right up to final portfolio submission (end of March)
• Two specific skills workshops
– Understanding criteria and evaluating portfolio tasks
– Making an argument/critical evaluation
• Aims to foster critical reflection on own writing through a
process of peer review
– Facilitated in online forum in small groups
Examples of student feedback
Hi hun. I love the way you've written this piece and the language youve used.
Couple of things you might like to know just so you dont lose maks though
*Chalmers NOT Charmers
*However Chalmers ALSO argued
NOt . However Charmers argued, because you're already arguing his point.
Hope this helps.
I really think you did a good job on your portfolio, I have some similar points. Only
one criticism: maybe summarise it a little bit more in depth at the end? what do you
think? would be glad if you could comment on mine too.
i like the way you have included references to show the controversy of whether animal
consciousness exists. I also like the language you have used and the examples from the
article. It may be an idea to relate the article more to the references you have used?
overall though, really well thought out and shows you understand the points
Case study 2: Criminal and Forensic
Psychology
•
•
•
•
Year 3 elective module
180 (+) students
Assessed by a personal statement and case study analysis
Diverse ways of engaging students with assessment criteria
– In class debates
– Group presentations on various aspects of the task and
assessment criteria
– Choice over which case study to analyse and how to
approach it
– TEL peer assessment/feedback
Other experiences of peer assessment and
feedback?
Advantages?
Disadvantages?
Barriers
• Staff
• Trusting students to take some control
• Lack of confidence in leading such activities (what if
things go wrong?)
• Lack of direct control may require spontaneous reaction
• Students
• Don’t trust peers to give adequate feedback
• Recognise only staff as authority on assessment
• Can’t be bothered to engage with a process that has no
apparent direct benefit
Challenges
• Requires supportive learning environment
• Trust needs to be established between
students and tutors
• Clear marking criteria (possibly negotiated)
• Guidance on constructive feedback
• Students who want to be ‘nice’ to their friends
Risks
•
•
•
•
•
•
Can get out of control
Lack of trust
Unfair decisions (peer marking)
Academic standards
Equivalence of grades
Lurking (in online mediated peer feedback)
Benefits
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Psychological literacy
Graduate skills – complex decision making
Deeper student engagement
Builds self-esteem and self-efficacy
Identification with subject area and discipline
Students as partners – breaks down barriers
Draws out individual strengths