Teachers’ reasons for using peer assessment: positive experience predicts use

European Journal of Psychology of Education

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2017, Pages 133-156

  Panadero, Ernesto ^a   Brown, Gavin T L ^b  

^a UNIVERSIDAD AUTÓNOMA DE MADRID   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Assessment conceptions; Assessment for learning; Formative assessment; Peer assessment; Teachers conceptions

Indexed keywords

EID: 84954495279     PISSN: 02562928     EISSN: 18785174     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10212-015-0282-5     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Open University Press.
2. Barnes, N., Fives, H., & Dacey, C. M. (2015). Teachers’ beliefs about assessment. In H. Fives & M. Gregoire Gill (Eds.), International Handbook of Research on Teacher Beliefs (pp. 284–300). New York: Routledge.
3. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.
4. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
5. Borsboom, D. (2006). The attack of the psychometricians. Psychometrika, 71(3), 425–440. doi:10.1007/s11336-006-1447-6.
6. Bryant, D. A., & Carless, D. R. (2010). Peer assessment in a test-dominated setting: Empowering, boring or facilitating examination preparation? Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 9(1), 3–15. doi:10.1007/s10671-009-9077-2.
7. Carvalho, A. (2012). Students’ perceptions of fairness in peer assessment: Evidence from a problem-based learning course. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(5), 491–505. doi:10.1080/13562517.2012.753051.
8. Chen, F., Bollen, K. A., Paxton, P., Curran, P. J., & Kirby, J. B. (2001). Improper solutions in structural equation models: Causes, consequences, and strategies. Sociological Methods & Research, 29(4), 468–508.
9. Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer- and co-assessment in higher education. A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331–350. doi:10.1080/03075079912331379935.
10. Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: Developing peer assessment. Innovations in Education & Training International, 32(2), 175–187. doi:10.1080/1355800950320212.
11. Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287–322.
12. Fan, X., & Sivo, S. A. (2007). Sensitivity of fit indices to model misspecification and model types. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(3), 509–529.
13. Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2012). Spring cleaning for the “messy” construct of teachers' beliefs: What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us? In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA Educational Psychology Handbook: Individual Differences and Cultural and Contextual Factors (Vol. 2, pp. 471–499). Washington, DC: APA
14. Gao, M. (2009). Students’ voices in school-based assessment of Hong Kong: A case study. In D. M. McInerney, G. T. L. Brown, & G. A. D. Liem (Eds.), Student perspectives on assessment: What students can tell us about assessment for learning (pp. 107–130). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
15. Harris, L. R., & Brown, G. T. L. (2013). Opportunities and obstacles to consider when using peer- and self-assessment to improve student learning: Case studies into teachers' implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36(0), 101–111. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.008.
16. Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
17. Hwang, G. J., Hung, C. M., & Chen, N. S. (2014). Improving learning achievements, motivations and problem-solving skills through a peer assessment-based game development approach. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(2), 129–145. doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9320-7.
18. IBM. (2011). Amos [computer program] (version 20, Build 817). Meadville, PA: Amos Development Corporation
19. Ion, G., & Cano, E. (2011). Assessment practices at Spanish universities: From a learning to a competencies approach. Evaluation & Research in Education, 24(3), 167–181. doi:10.1080/09500790.2011.610503.
20. Kim, M., & Ryu, J. (2013). The development and implementation of a Web-based formative peer assessment system for enhancing students’ metacognitive awareness and performance in ill-structured tasks. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 549–561. doi:10.1007/s11423-012-9266-1.
21. Lingard, B., & Lewis, S. (2016). Globalization of the Anglo-American approach to top-down, test-based educational accountability. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.). Handbook of Social and Human Conditions in Assessment (pp. 1–30). New York: Routledge.
22. Lynch, D. H., & Golen, S. (1992). Peer evaluation of writing in business communication classes. Journal of Education for Business, 68(1), 44–48. doi:10.1080/08832323.1992.10117585.
23. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320–341.
24. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.
25. Noonan, B., & Duncan, C. R. (2005). Peer and self-assessment in high schools. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(17). http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=10&n=17.
26. Panadero, E., Brown, G. T. L., & Courtney, M. G. R. (2014). Teachers’ reasons for using self-assessment: A survey self-report of Spanish teachers. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(3), 365–383. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2014.919247.
27. Panadero, E., Romero, M., & Strijbos, J. W. (2013). The impact of a rubric and friendship on construct validity of peer assessment, perceived fairness and comfort, and performance. Studies In Educational Evaluation, 39(4), 195–203. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.10.005.
28. Panadero, E. (2016). Is it safe? Social, interpersonal, and human effects of peer assessment: a review and future directions. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Human factors and social conditions of assessment. New York: Routledge.
29. Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Strijbos, J. W. (2016). Scaffolding self-regulated learning through self-assessment and peer assessment: Guidelines for classroom implementation. In D. Laveault & L. Allal (Eds.), Assessment for learning: meeting the challenge of implementation. Springer, In press.
30. Peterson, E. R., & Irving, S. E. (2008). Secondary school students’ conceptions of assessment and feedback. Learning and Instruction, 18(3), 238–250.
31. Reinholz, D. L. (2015). The assessment cycle: A model for learning through peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–15. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1008982
32. Remesal, A. (2007). Educational reform and primary and secondary teachers' conceptions of assessment: The Spanish instance, building upon Black and Wiliam (2005). Curriculum Journal, 18(1), 27–38. doi:10.1080/09585170701292133.
33. Remesal, A. (2011). Primary and secondary teachers’ conceptions of assessment: A qualitative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 472–482. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.017.
34. Schacter, D. L. (1999). The seven sins of memory: Insights from psychology and cognitive neuroscience. American Psychologist, 54(3), 182–203.
35. Spandorfer, J., Puklus, T., Rose, V., Vahedi, M., Collins, L., Giordano, C., & Braster, C. (2014). Peer assessment among first year medical students in anatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education, 7(2), 144–152. doi:10.1002/ase.1394.
36. Tan, K. H. K. (2012). Student self-assessment. Assessment, learning and empowerment. Singapore: Research Publishing.
37. Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276.
38. Topping, K. J. (2003). Self and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity and utility. In M. Segers, F. Dochy & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (Vol. 1, pp. 55–87): Springer Netherlands.
39. Topping, K. J. (2013). Peers as a source of formative and summative assessment. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of research on classroom assessment Vol (pp. 395–412). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40. Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(4), 4–70.
41. Vanderhoven, E., Raes, A., Montrieux, H., Rotsaert, T., & Schellens, T. (2015). What if pupils can assess their peers anonymously? A quasi-experimental study. Computers & Education, 81, 123–32. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.001.
42. Van Gennip, N. (2012). Assessing together. Peer assessment from an interpersonal perspective. (PhD), Universiteit Leiden.
43. van Gennip, N., Gijbels, D., Segers, M., & Tillema, H. H. (2010). Reactions to 360° feedback: The role of trust and trust-related variables. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 10(4), 362–379. doi:10.1504/IJHRDM.2010.036088.
44. van Gennip, N., Segers, M., & Tillema, H. H. (2009). Peer assessment for learning from a social perspective: The influence of interpersonal variables and structural features. Educational Research Review, 4(1), 41–54. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2008.11.002.
45. van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & van Merriënboer, J. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 270–279. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.004.
46. Yu, F. Y., & Wu, C. P. (2011). Different identity revelation modes in an online peer-assessment learning environment: Effects on perceptions toward assessors, classroom climate and learning activities. Computers & Education, 57(3), 2167–2177. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.012.