First year university courses frequently use ‘Peer and Self-Assessment’ strategies as part of the assessment process.
First year university courses frequently use ‘Peer and Self-Assessment’ strategies as part of the assessment process.
Abstract
This paper reviews the literature about peer and self assessment in the university courses in first year of the university study. The paper is divided into three parts: explanation of the peer and self assessment strategies and outlining potential benefits and problem affiliated to them; discussion of my findings of my research and present my argument based on these strategies and eventually, form a conclusion for the report and outline recommendation on the use of these use of these strategies.
Introduction
In spite of the number of books and research papers on this subject, (Dewey, 2011) stated that the writing on peer-assessment in the universities and the colleges education is at an premature stage of development, very inconsistency in quality and type, fragmentary and scattered in nature (Conklin, 2009). To a large extent, what Conklin said in 2009 appears to stay true more than a decade on.
Of more importance to this study is that a number of these studies do not spell out year level and certain do not say it at all. In addition, the part of this writing that connects to the employ of peer and self-assessment in the first year of study at college level (in higher education) is quite less than other year levels. More outstandingly, the majority of these studies do not confer the chemistry between the employ of peer and self-assessment, and exact attributes of first-year assessment, studying and tutor. Therefore, the appropriateness of peer and self-assessment to first-year students and courses can be deduced, but is seldom directly addressed (Frankland, 2007).
2.0 Background
Peer and self-assessment is where student evaluate themselves (each other). It motivates students to take greater accountability for their studies, for instance, by encouraging them to get involved in the evaluation criteria and mirroring on the performance of their peers and their own (Barbara E. Walvoord, 2011). It has various merits: it contributes big time to the learners judgment skills, it give students more relevant response or reaction given that it is generated by fellow students and it minimizes the ‘free rider’ issues as students understands that their contribution is graded by their fellow learners (Barbara E. Walvoord, 2011).
Peer and self-assessment can be used summatively or formatively. The application of formative assessment is more regular, possibly due to matters surrounding reliability and validity of learners having accountability for giving summative grades to their colleagues (Showalter, 2007). Nonetheless, even when not employed precisely in summative assessment, it can enlighten your summative marking; particularly with regard to evaluating group work where it can be useful in measuring subjective contributions to a group task (Dewey, 2011).
3.0 Strategies
3.1 Reflection / Self assessment –generic prompt questions
It helps a student to narrow on specific attributes of learning. This gives a student a scaffold to direct there reflections. For example after a major summative assessment point, learners are given a self assessment prompt sheet to mirror on their performance and spot their strength and weakness. They might also be asked to highlight on topics in which they struggle (Conklin, 2009).Recent research has emphasized the importance of reflection for students in an intelligent learning environment.
Researchers have not agreed on the most effectual manner to design scaffolding to induce reflection, nor have they agreed to a common method that can clarify the scaffolding’s results on reflection. Two kinds of agent induces to promote reflection are compared in this section, both from the view of a tutee specificity- wise varying (Sue Johnston-Wilder, 2010). Generic prompts are gist-dependent tutee questions, aspiring at promoting reflection of students on met cognitive belief and strategies considering their learning-by-teaching practices. On the other hand, Specific prompts are gist-independent tutee questions that motivate reflection of students on task-specific and domain-related skills, and articulation of their explanatory reactions. In this case, the disadvantage is the results might not be reliable (Hilary Burgess, 2005).
3.2 Peer Evaluation - random marker, using criteria, moderated
Completed evaluation items are deliberately distributed to learners who are demanded to complete a marking sheet acknowledging whether their fellows has met the evaluation criteria and rewarding a mark. These scores are averaged by the staff member and jointly with the student marking sheets are given back with the assessment item. It has some key benefits that back it up: helps clarify criteria to be used for evaluation. - Triggers logic of involvement and accountability. - Helps students to develop prowess in dependent judgment. - Raises reactions to students (Conklin, 2009).On the other hand it has got some limiting factors: much time may have to be invested in tutoring students to evaluate each other and the staff averaging is time consuming.
4.0 Discussion
In the 44, just 10 clearly stated that first-year university students were indulged. Only an exceptional study precisely talked about ‘first-year’ in its title – and that was never published. Semi (22) of the 44 studies was connected to the employ of self-assessment in other years, and about 12 did not mention year level humanly.
This work created a meta-analysis developing on the previous analysis by (Barbara E. Walvoord, 2011). This appraisal chart details of 35 in print quantitative studies of student peer-assessment in college and university level (higher education) between 1963 and 2004. Among these, 9 studies involved first-year undergraduates.
In appraisal of peer- (not self) assessment, (Barbara E. Walvoord, 2011) appraised 109 studies. Just 7 of the headings amongst these articles talked about year level and only three talks about ‘freshers’ (or ‘first-year’). Barbara’s analysis centered on what was appraised or how the appraisal was practiced, instead of the year level of those going through assessment. In isolation, the chance that year level is itself a vital variable to reflect on was not examined – and, to be just, it seems that any such assessment would have been hard. Barbra’s principal note about year level was that when peer-assessment is practiced, it is usually among students of the same year level. Accordingly, where Barbra includes ‘year’ as one of the 17 attributes of a typology of peer-evaluation, he meant whether peer-assessment is among learners of different or same year levels.
Sadly, little appears to have revolutionized in the superseding years since this suggestion. An explore of the past decade of papers from Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education extracted 41 items that involved ‘peer’ and ‘assessment’ in their headings. (The two words were intentionally kept detached as search terms to raise the capture of potentially pertinent papers.) Of these, none mentioned first-year in the title, although some of them did involve first-year students and courses in their research. Eventually, the meta-analysis given by Barbra also does not evaluate the issue of the suitability of peer and self-assessment to different year level (Barbara E. Walvoord, 2011).
Therefore, not only are papers that report on the employ of peer or self-assessment involving first-year university students rather limited (at least, in contrast to other year levels), but it is not wrong to say that papers on peer or self-assessment tend not to openly report on the appropriateness (or otherwise) of peer or self-assessment for any specific year level.
The cases that do openly involve ‘freshers’ (first-year students) in a first-year course, include an interesting series by Merry and others (Merry, Orsmond and Callaghan 2004; Orsmond, Merry, and Reiling 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2002) While these papers operate to support the line of reasoning that peer and self-assessment can be productively employed in first-year courses, they do so incidentally instead of by design (Conklin, 2009). These papers are descriptive of the tendency to report on the employ of peer and self-assessment itself – the fact that the courses or the students employed in this research are first-year is largely minor (Dewey, 2011). This is not destined as criticism of these writers but just a note that the appropriateness of peer and self-assessment for freshers (first-year students) and courses was not itself the center of their research.
5.0 The appropriateness of peer and self-assessment in the first year
The solitary aim of this paper is to start by seeking to know whether there is an attribute of the first-year university education or first-year university students in particular. This also excludes the use of peer or self-assessment, and thereby tries to settle on whether the use of peer and self-assessment with first-year university students guarantees greater attention.
This paper seeks to explore three main subjects. To begin with, whether academics know how can make good use of peer and self-assessment (the level of the year is perceived as inappropriate). Secondly, whether there is some attribute or attributes of students in first-year University courses that hinder them from successfully engaging in peer and self- assessment and that the students at this year level may not be capable of successfully engaging in the use of peer and self-assessment (Sue Johnston-Wilder, 2010). Finally, whether there is some educational feature of first-year university teaching, assessment and learning, which is not well suited to the use of peer or self- assessment and which renders it difficult at best, or inappropriate at worst, that is the educational purpose of first-year courses may not be well served by peer or self-assessment, and/or the learning strategies that are employed might be incompatible with peer and self-assessment.
6. Conclusion
In conclusion, peer and self- assessment is adequate manner of educating students. It involves students evaluating fellow students and research has it that some students understand better when a colleague teaches him or her as opposed to the tutor. Though it has some pitfall like it is time consuming, I think it is a good way of educating this generation. I would recommend reflection / Self assessment as the best strategy to employ this.
7.0 Reference
Barbara E. Walvoord, V. J. (2011). Effective Grading: A Tool for Learning and Assessment in College. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Conklin, W. (2009). Differentiation Strategies for Language Arts. New York: Shell Education.
Dewey, J. (2011). Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: Indo-European Publishing.
Frankland, S. (2007). Enhancing Teaching and Learning Through Assessment: Deriving an Appropriate Model. New York: Springer.
Hilary Burgess, I. T. (2005). Effective Learning and Teaching in Social Policy and Social Work. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Showalter, S. W. (2007). Student Assessment in Web-based Instruction. New York: ProQuest.
Sue Johnston-Wilder, P. J.-W. (2010). Learning to Teach Mathematics in the Secondary School: A Companion to School Experience. New York: Routledge.
Duncan D. Nulty (2011): Peer and self‐assessment in the first year of university, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36:5, 493-507
Ormond P, Merry, (2011): Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Volume 36, Number 2. New York: Rutledge.
