Peer assessment without assessment criteria

Studies in Higher Education

Volumn 39, Issue 10, 2014, Pages 1774-1787

  Jones, Ian ^a   Alcock, Lara ^a  

^a LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

comparative judgement; mathematics; peer assessment; reliability; validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 84909635621     PISSN: 03075079     EISSN: 1470174X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2013.821974     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Bond, T.G., & C.M. Fox. 2007. Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Abingdon: Routledge.
2. Boud, D., R. Cohen, and J. Sampson. 1999. Peer learning and assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 24: 413–26. doi: 10.1080/0260293990240405
3. Bramley, T. 2007. Paired comparison methods. In Techniques for monitoring the comparability of examination standards, ed. P. Newton, J-A. Baird, H. Goldstein, H. Patrick, and P. Tymms, 264–94. London: QCA.
4. Bramley, T., J. Bell, and A. Pollitt. 1998. Assessing changes in standards over time using Thurstone paired comparisons. Education Research and Perspectives 25: 1–24.
5. Bramley, T., and T. Gill. 2010. Evaluating the rank-ordering method for standard maintaining. Research Papers in Education 25: 293–317. doi: 10.1080/02671522.2010.498147
6. Chang, C.C., K.H. Tseng, P.N. Chou, and Y.H. Chen. 2011. Reliability and validity of Web-based portfolio peer assessment: A case study for a senior high school's students taking computer course. Computers and Education 57: 1306–16. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.014
7. Cho, K., C.D. Schunn, and R.W. Wilson. 2006. Reliability and validity of scaffolded peer assessment of writing from instructor and student perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology 98: 891–901. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.891
8. Derrick, K. 2012. Developing the e-scape software system. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 22: 171–85. doi: 10.1007/s10798-011-9193-1
9. Dochy, F., M. Segers, and D. Sluijsmans. 1999. The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education 24: 331–50. doi: 10.1080/03075079912331379935
10. Falchikov, N., and J. Goldfinch. 2000. Student peer assessment in Higher Education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research 70: 287–322. doi: 10.3102/00346543070003287
11. Gielen, S., F. Dochy, P. Onghena, K. Struyven, and S. Smeets. 2011. Goals of peer assessment and their associated quality concepts. Studies in Higher Education 36: 719–35. doi: 10.1080/03075071003759037
12. Jones, I., M. Swan and A. Pollitt. in press. Assessing mathematical problem solving using Comparative Judgement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education.
13. Kimbell, R. 2012. Evolving project e-scape for national assessment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 22: 135–55. doi: 10.1007/s10798-011-9190-4
14. Kollar, I., and F. Fischer. 2010. Peer assessment as collaborative learning: A cognitive perspective. Learning and Instruction 20: 344–48. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.005
15. Laming, D. 1984. The relativity of “absolute” judgements. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 37: 152–83. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1984.tb00798.x
16. Laming, D. 2004. Marking university examinations: some lessons from psychophysics. Psychology Learning and Teaching 3: 89–96. doi: 10.2304/plat.2003.3.2.89
17. Levesley, J. 2011. Taking control of the assessment agenda. In Report of the HE Mathematics Curriculum Summit, ed. P. Rowlett, 21–23. York: Higher Education Academy.
18. Magin, D.J. 2001. A novel technique for comparing the reliability of multiple peer assessments with that of single teacher assessments of group process work. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 26: 139–52. doi: 10.1080/02602930020018971
19. Magin, D.J., and P. Helmore. 2001. Peer and teacher assessments of oral presentation skills: how reliable are they? Studies in Higher Education 26: 287–98. doi: 10.1080/03075070120076264
20. Murphy, R. 1982. A further report of investigations into the reliability of marking of GCE examinations. British Journal of Educational Psychology 52: 58–63. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1982.tb02503.x
21. Newton, P. 1996. The reliability of marking of General Certificate of Secondary Education scripts: Mathematics and English. British Educational Research Journal 22: 405–20. doi: 10.1080/0141192960220403
22. Orsmond, P., S. Merry, and K. Reiling. 1996. The importance of marking criteria in the use of peer assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 21: 239–50. doi: 10.1080/0260293960210304
23. Orsmond, P., S. Merry, and K. Reiling. 2000. The use of student derived marking criteria in peer and self-assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 25: 23–38. doi: 10.1080/02602930050025006
24. Pachur, T., and H. Olsson. 2012. Type of learning task impacts performance and strategy selection in decision making. Cognitive Psychology 65: 207–40. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2012.03.003
25. Pollitt, A. 2012. The method of Adaptive Comparative Judgement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 19: 281–300. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2012.665354
26. Russo, J.E., E.J. Johnson, and D.L. Stephens. 1989. The validity of verbal protocols. Memory and Cognition 17: 759–69. doi: 10.3758/BF03202637
27. Seery, N., D. Canty, and P. Phelan. 2012. The validity and value of peer assessment using adaptive comparative judgement in design driven practical education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 22: 205–26. doi: 10.1007/s10798-011-9194-0
28. Slavin, R. 1991. Synthesis of research of cooperative learning. Educational Leadership 48: 71–82.
29. Sluijsmans, D., S. Brand-Gruwel, J. van Merriënboer, and R. Martens, 2004. Training teachers in peer-assessment skills: Effects on performance and perceptions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 41: 59–78. doi: 10.1080/1470329032000172720
30. Swan, M., and H. Burkhardt. 2012. Designing assessment of performance in mathematics. Educational Designer 2: 1–40.
31. Thurstone, L.L. 1927. A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review 34, 273–286. doi: 10.1037/h0070288
32. Thurstone, L.L. 1954. The measurement of values. Psychological Review 61: 47–58. doi: 10.1037/h0060035
33. Topping, K. 2003. Self and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity and utility. In Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards, ed. M. Segers, F. Dochy, and E. Cascallar, Vol. 1, 55–87. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
34. Topping, K. 2010. Methodological quandaries in studying process and outcomes in peer assessment. Learning and Instruction 20: 339–43. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.003
35. Topping, K.J., E.F. Smith, I. Swanson, and A. Elliot. 2000. Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25: 149–69. doi: 10.1080/713611428
36. Tsivitanidou, O.E., Zacharia, Z.C., and Hovardas, T. 2011. Investigating secondary school students' unmediated peer assessment skills. Learning and Instruction 21: 506–19. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.08.002
37. van den Berg, I., W. Admiraal, and A. Pilot. 2006. Design principles and outcomes of peer assessment in higher education. Studies in Higher Education 31: 341–56. doi: 10.1080/03075070600680836
38. van Steendam, E., G. Rijlaarsdam, L. Sercu, and H. van den Bergh. 2010. The effect of instruction type and dyadic or individual emulation on the quality of higher-order peer feedback in EFL. Learning and Instruction 20: 316–27. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.009
39. van Zundert, M., D. Sluijsmans, and J. van Merriënboer. 2010. Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction 20: 270–79. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.004
40. Wright, B.D., & Masters, G.N. 1982. Rating scale analysis: Rasch measurement. Chicago: MESA Press.