Peer assessment: A valuable tool to differentiate between student contributions to group work?

Authors

  • Caroline Steensels Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Centre for Drug and Patient Information, K.U.Leuven, Edward Van Evenstraat 4, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
  • Lies Leemens Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Centre for Drug and Patient Information, K.U.Leuven, Edward Van Evenstraat 4, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
  • Herman Buelens Information and Communication Technology in Education, University Education Support Office, K.U.Leuven, Naamsestraat 98, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
  • Elisabeth Laga Information and Communication Technology in Education, University Education Support Office, K.U.Leuven, Naamsestraat 98, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
  • Annie Lecoutere Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Centre for Teacher Training, K.U.Leuven, Edward Van Evenstraat 4, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
  • Gert Laekeman Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Centre for Drug and Patient Information, K.U.Leuven, Edward Van Evenstraat 4, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
  • Steven Simoens Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Centre for Drug and Patient Information, K.U.Leuven, Edward Van Evenstraat 4, 3000 Leuven, Belgium

Keywords:

Education, group project, peer assessment, pharmacy, tutor assessment

Abstract

This paper aims to report experiences with peer assessment (PA) during the first year of operation in a pharmacy practice (PP) course. PA was carried out twice. The range and standard deviation of scores were larger during the second assessment, suggesting a more critical way of rating. This indicates that gaining experience with PA is a necessary condition for this tool to enable students to assess each other’s contribution to group work. A significant correlation was observed between scores awarded by peers and external tutors, indicating that students assessed one another in the same way as external tutors. In conclusion, PA can be a valuable tool to differentiate between student contributions to group work if students are properly trained to conduct such an assessment. It is recommended that PA be integrated at an earlier stage of the curriculum to allow students to gain the required expertise.

References

Assiter, A. (Ed.) (1995). Transferable skills in higher education. London: Kogan Page.

Boud, D. J. (1989). The role of self-assessment in student grading. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 14, 20–30.

Boud, D. J., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999). Peer learning and assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24, 413 – 426.

Breitmeyer, B. J., Ayres, L., & Knafl, K. A. (1993). Triangulation in qualitative research: Evaluation of completeness and confirmation purposes. IMAGE Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 25, 237–243.

Brown, S., & Knight, P. (1995). Assessing learners in higher education. In Teaching and learning in higher education. London: Kogan Page.

Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (1999). Peer and teacher assessment of the oral and written tasks of a group project. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 18, 34–56.

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, 45–56.

Das, M., Mpofu, D., Dunn, E., & Lanphear, J. H. (1998). Self and tutor evaluations in problem-based learning tutorials: Is there a relationship? Medical Education, 32, 411–418.

Des Marchais, J. E., & Vu, N. V. (1996). Developing and evaluating the student assessment system in the preclinical problem-based curriculum at Sherbrooke. Academic Medicine, 71, 274–283.

Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 69, 147 – 188.

Dochy, F., Heylen, L., & van de Mosselaer, H. (2002). Assessment in onderwijs: Nieuwe toetsvormen en examinering in studentgericht onderwijs en competentiegericht onderwijs. Utrecht: Lemma.

Falchikov, N. (1986). Product comparison and process benefits of collaborative peer group assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 11, 146–166.

Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: Developing peer assessment. Innovations in Educations and Training International, 32(2), 175–187.

Falchikov, N., & Magin, D. (1997). Detecting gender bias in peer marking of students’ group progress work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 22, 385–396.

Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70, 287–322.

Fox, D. (1989). Peer assessment of an essay assignment. HERDSA News, 11, 6–7.

Fry, S. A. (1990). Implementation and evaluation of peer marking in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 15, 177–189.

Heylings, D. J., & Stefani, L. A. (1997). Peer assessment feedback marking in a large medical anatomy class. Medical Education, 31, 281 – 286.

Kane, J. S., & Lawler, E. E. (1978). Methods of peer assessment. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 555–586.

Leemans, L., Verstraeten, A., Zwaenepoel, L., & Laekeman, G. (2003). The use of a virtual learning environment during the internship of final year pharmacy students. Pharmacy Education, 3, 73–76.

Lejk, M., & Wyvill, M. (2001). Peer assessment of contributions to a group project: A comparison of holistic and category-based approaches. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, 61–73.

Li, L. K. (2001). Some refinements on peer assessment of group projects. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, 6–18.

MacAlpine, J. M. K. (1999). Improving and encouraging peer assessment of student presentations. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(1), 15–25.

MacPherson, K. (1999). The development of critical thinking skills

in undergraduate supervisory management units: Efficacy of student peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24, 273–284.

Magin, D. J. (2001a). A novel technique for comparing the reliability of multiple peer assessments with that of single teacher assessments of group process work. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, 139–152.

Magin, D. J. (2001b). Reciprocity as a source of bias in multiple peer assessment of group work. Studies in Higher Education, 26, 53–63.

Mayer, E. Chair of Committee. (1992). Putting general education to work: The key competency report. Canberra: Mayer committee, Australian Government Publishing Service.

Miller, P. J. (2003). The effect of scoring criteria specificity on peer and self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 383–394.

Orsmond, P., & Merry, S. (1996). The importance of marking criteria in the use of peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 21, 239–251.

Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2000). The use of student derived marking criteria in peer and self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25, 23–38.

Pond, K., & ul-Haq, R. (1997). Learning to assess students using peer review. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 331–348.

Pope, N. (2001). An examination of the use of Peer rating for formative assessment in the context of the theory of consumption values. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26, 235 – 246.

Purchase, H. C. (2000). Learning about interface design through peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25, 341–352.

Segers, M., & Dochy, F. (2001). New assessment forms in problem- based learning: The value-added of the students’ perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 26, 327–343.

Sim, J., & Sharp, K. (1998). A critical appraisal of the role of triangulation in nursing research. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 35, 23–31.

Sluijsmans, D. M., Moerkerke, G., Merrienboer, J. J., & Dochy, F. J. (2001). Peer assessment in problem-based tutorials. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 27, 153–173.

Somervell, H. (1993). Issues in assessment, enterprise and higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 18, 221 – 233.

Stephenson, J., & Yorke, M. (Eds.) (1998). Capability and quality in higher education. London: Kogan Page.

Sullivan, M. E., Hitchcock, M. A., & Dunnington, G. L. (1999). Peer and self-assessment during problem-based tutorials. American Journal of Surgery, 177, 266–269.

Thomas, R. E. (1997). Problem-based learning: Measurable outcomes. Medical Education, 31, 320–329.

Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249–276.

Williams, E. (1992). Student attitudes towards approaches to learning and assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 17, 45–58.

Wright, P. (1995). What are graduates? Clarifying the attributes of “Graduateness”. London: The Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC).

Downloads

Published

18-08-2018

How to Cite

Steensels, C., Leemens, L., Buelens, H., Laga, E., Lecoutere, A., Laekeman, G., & Simoens, S. (2018). Peer assessment: A valuable tool to differentiate between student contributions to group work?. Pharmacy Education, 6(2). Retrieved from https://pharmacyeducation.fip.org/pharmacyeducation/article/view/100

Issue

Vol. 6 No. 2 (2006)

Section

Research Article

License

It is a condition of the publication that authors vest or license copyright in their articles, including abstracts, in FIP. This enables us to ensure full copyright protection and to disseminate the article, and the journal, to the widest possible readership in print and electronic formats as appropriate. Authors may, of course, use the material elsewhere after publication providing that prior permission is obtained from FIP. Authors are themselves responsible for obtaining permission to reproduce copyright material from other sources.