Online self‐ and peer assessment for groupwork

Abstract

Purpose -Group-based tasks or assignments, if well designed, can yield benefits for student employability and other important attribute developments. However there is a fundamental problem when all members of the group receive the same mark and feedback. Disregarding the quality and level of individual contributions can seriously undermine many of the educational benefits that groupwork can potentially provide. This paper aims to describe the authors' research and practical experiences of using self and peer assessment in an attempt to retain these benefits. Design/methodology/approach -Both authors separately used different paper-based methods of self and peer assessment and then used the same web-based assessment tool. Case studies of their use of the online tool are described in Business Faculty and Design School subjects. Student comments and tabular data from their self and peer assessment ratings were compared from the two Faculties.Findings -The value of anonymity when using the online system was found to be important for students. The automatic calculation of student ratings facilitated the self and peer assessment process for large classes in both design and business subjects. Students using the online system felt they were fairly treated in the assessment process as long as it was explained to them beforehand. Students exercised responsibility in the online ratings process by not over-using the lowest rating category. Student comments and analysis of ratings implied that a careful and reflective evaluation of their group engagement was achieved online compared with the paper-based examples quoted.Research limitations/implications -This was not a control group study as the subjects in business and design were different for both paper-based and online systems. Although the online system used was the same (SPARK), the group sizes, rating scales and self and peer assessment criteria were different in the design and business cases. Originality/value -The use of paper-based approaches to calculate a fair distribution of marks to individual group members was not viable for the reasons identified. The article shows that the online system is a very viable option, particularly in large student cohorts where students are unlikely to know one another.

Investigating Factors Affecting the Uptake of Automated Assessment Technology

“…• moving beyond online multiple-choice testing to assessment of higher-order learning outcomes via use of automated essay grading; • improving formative feedback by using automated assessment technologies to decrease submission-feedback latencies and freeing educators' resources to interact with students to provide formative feedback and to assist training to mastery (as a cohort, in groups, and individually) (H. Dreher, 2006); • improving self-assessment through online assessments that provide quick/immediate interactive feedback (self-assessment is integral to students learning how to learn independently, which is a valuable skill in life generally as well as academia and industry specifically); • integrating assessment with the learning process in a comprehensive system that is intrinsically motivating to students (e.g., educational gaming innovations such as Alice or 3D virtual world constructivist learning applications such as Students@Work and the Online Automated Assessment Laboratory) (C. Dreher, Reiners, Dreher, & Dreher, 2009); • involving students in the design of assessment tasks and assessment criteria (Hulsart & McCarthy, 2009) to enhance ownership of and motivation in the learning process and educational outcomes, and; • involving students in self-assessment during group-work (see for example Thompson & McGregor, 2009) for formative reflection and to inform educators' summative assessment.…”

Regulation of Motivation: Students’ Motivation Management in Online Collaborative Groupwork

“…design of collaborative online collaborative learning activities has received little attention, especially on how to help online students deal with motivational challenges. The lack of research in this area is particularly troubling in the light of increasing calls to attend to the issue of how to promote and sustain students' motivation in online collaborative learning environments (Brindley et al, 2009;Davies, 2009;Roberts & Mc-Innerney, 2007;Rovai, 2007;Thompson & McGregor, 2009;Zafeiriou, Nunes, & Ford, 2001).…”

“…Yet, online groupwork presents new and significant motivational challenges for students, relating to communication, scheduling, individual accountability, and increased dependence on peers (Brindley, Walti, & Blaschke, 2009;Davies, 2009;Liu, Joy, & Griffiths, 2010;Piezon & Ferree, 2008;Roberts & McInnerney, 2007;G. G. Smith et al, 2011;Thompson & McGregor, 2009). Largely due to these challenges, students' ability to influence their own motivation becomes crucial to their learning in online collaborative learning environments.…”

Assessment rocks? The assessment of group composing for qualification

“…But selfassessment is not always a valid indicator of achievement either (Falchikov 1991;Johnson and Johnson 2004), and issues of fairness, institutional accountability and consequential validity dominate the discourse when students assess each other for high-stakes qualifications (Sadler 2005;Thompson and McGregor 2009).…”