Peer assessment in large undergraduate classes: An evaluation of a procedure for marking laboratory reports and a review of related practices

American Journal of Physiology - Advances in Physiology Education

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 178-187

  Harris, Judy R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79958757467     PISSN: 10434046     EISSN: 15221229     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1152/advan.00115.2010     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Ballantyne R, Hughes K, Mylonas A. Developing procedures for implementing peer assessment in large classes using an action research process. Assess Eval Higher Educ 27: 427-441, 2002.
2. Billington HL. Poster presentations and peer assessment: novel forms of evaluation and assessment. J Biol Educ 31: 218-20, 1997.
3. Boud D, Falchikov N. Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assess Eval Higher Educ 31: 399-413, 2006.
4. Bradley C. Sex bias in student assessment overlooked? Assess Eval Higher Educ 18: 3-8, 1993.
5. Brindley C, Scoffield S. Peer assessment in undergraduate programmes. Teach Higher Educ 3: 79-89, 1998.
6. English R, Brookes ST, Avery K, Blazeby JM, Ben-Shlomo Y. The effectiveness and reliability of peer-marking in first-year medical students. Med Educ 40: 965-972, 2006.
7. Falchikov N, Goldfinch J. Student peer assessment in higher education: a meta analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Rev Educ Res 70: 287-322, 000.
8. Falchikov N, Magin D. Detecting gender bias in peer marking of students' group process work. Assess Eval Higher Educ 22: 385-396, 1997.
9. Ferguson GC, Sheader EA, Grady RE. Computer-Assisted and Peer Assessment: a Combined Approach to Assessing First Year Laboratory Practical Classes for Large Numbers of Students (online). http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol11/beej-11-4.aspx [12 January 2011]
10. Hafner J, Hafner P. Quantitative analysis of the rubric as an assessment tool: an empirical study of student peer-group rating. Int J Sci Educ 25: 1509-1538, 003.
11. Hanrahan SJ, Isaacs G. Assessing self- and peer-assessment: the students' views. Higher Educ Res Dev 20: 53-68, 2001.
12. Harris JR. A procedure for peer assessment of physiology practical reports by medical science undergraduates. Proc Physiol Soc 3: PC65, 2006.
13. Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res 77: 81-112, 2007.
14. Hughes IE, Large BJ. Staff and peer group assessment of oral communication skills. Studies Higher Educ 18: 379-385, 1993.
15. Jacobs RM, Briggs DH, Whitney DR. Continuous-progress education: III. Student evaluation and peer evaluation. J Dent Educ 39: 535-541, 1975.
16. Langan MA, Wheater PC, Shaw EM, Haines BJ, Cullen RW, Boyle JC, Penney D, Oldekop JA, Ashcroft C, Lockey L, Preziosi RF. Peer assessment of oral presentations: effects of student gender, university affiliation and participation in the development of assessment criteria. Assess Eval Higher Educ 30: 21-34, 005.
17. Lejk M, Wyvill M. The effect of inclusion of self-assessment with peer assessment of contributions to a group project: a quantitative study of secret and agreed assessments. Assess Eval Higher Educ 26: 551-561, 2001.
18. Magin D, Helmore P. Peer and teacher assessments of oral presentations: how reliable are they? Studies Higher Educ 26: 287-298, 2001.
19. National Student Satisfaction Survey. Unistats (online). http://unistats.direct.gov.uk/ [12 January 2011].
20. National Survey of Student Engagement. NSSE Homepage (online). http://www.nsse.iub.edu/ [12 January 2011].
21. Newstead SE, Dennis I. Blind marking and sex bias in student assessment. Assess Eval Higher Educ 15: 132-139, 1990.
22. Newstead SE, Dennis I. Examiners examined: the reliability of exam marking in psychology. The Psychologist 7: 216-219, 1994.
23. Nulty DD. Peer and self-assessment in the first year of university (Abstract). Assess Eval Higher Educ; http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a920637606~frm=titlelink.
24. O'Moore LM, Baldock TE. Peer assessment learning sessions (PALS): an innovative feedback technique for large engineering classes. Eur J Eng Educ 32: 43-55, 2007.
25. Orsmond P, Merry S, Reiling K. The importance of marking criteria in the use of peer assessment. Assess Eval Higher Educ 21: 239-250, 1996.
26. Orsmond P, Merry S, Reiling K. The use of exemplars and formative feedback when using student derived marking criteria in peer and selfassessment. Assess Eval Higher Educ 27: 309-323, 2002.
27. Pelaez NJ. Problem-based writing with peer review improves academic performance in physiology. Adv Physiol Educ 26: 174-184, 2002.
28. Searby M, Ewers T. An evaluation of the use of peer assessment in higher education: a case study in the School of Music, Kingston University. Assess Eval Higher Educ 22: 371-383, 1997.
29. Shute VJ. Focus on formative feedback. Rev Educ Res 78: 153-189, 2008.
30. Smith H, Cooper A, Lancaster L. Improving the quality of undergraduate peer assessment: a case study for student and staff development. Innov Educ Teach Int 39: 71-81, 2002.
31. Stefani LAJ. Comparison of collaborative self, peer and tutor assessment in a biochemistry practical. Biochem Educ 20: 148-151, 1992.
32. Stefani LAJ. Peer, self and tutor assessment: relative reliabilities. Studies Higher Educ 19: 69-75, 1994.
33. Topping KJ, Smith EF, Swanson I, Elliot A. Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assess Eval Higher Educ 25: 149-169, 2000.
34. Van Hattum-Janssen N, Pacheco JA, Vascocelos RM. The accuracy of student grading in first year engineering courses. Eur J Eng Educ 29: 291-298, 2004.
35. Vickerman P. Student perspectives on formative peer assessment: an attempt to deepen learning? Assess Eval Higher Educ 34: 221-230, 2009.