Students' Perceptions of Peer Evaluation: An Expectancy Perspective

Practitioners' participation in the accounting standard-setting process

“…This average represents a high level of explanatory power and suggests that the valence model is highly relevant to explain practitioners' participation in the standard-setting process. The mean adjusted R 2 value obtained is also comparable to that found in several studies that successfully used Vroom's valence model (1964) with either students (Geiger and Cooper 1996, Chen and Hoshower 1998, Geiger et al 1998, Campbell et al 2003, Chen and Lou 2004 or managers (Griffin andHarrell 1991, Snead andHarrell 1994).…”

“…The latter dominates in four cases and the expectancy beta weight is similar to the valence beta weight for one individual. Prior research findings also show a dominance of valence over expectancy as a motivational force (Harrell and Stahl 1986, Griffin and Harrell 1991, Snead and Harrell 1994, Geiger and Cooper 1996, Chen and Hoshower 1998, Geiger et al 1998, Chen and Lou 2004.…”

“…A within-subjects methodology requires obtaining judgment or decision measurements from each subject under different combinations of strength or values associated with the cues. Our withinsubjects design is similar to those used in previous studies mobilising expectancy theory to examine accounting-related phenomena (Snead and Harrell 1994, Chen and Hoshower 1998, Chen and Lou 2004. We used a complete factorial design (Montgomery 1984) that provided each respondent with 16 scenarios in order to gather their behavioural intentions under various combinations of two instrumentality and expectancy levels, as we now explain.…”

“…It has also been conclusive in explaining student motivation to participate in peer (Chen and Lou 2004) and teaching evaluations (Chen and Hoshower 1998), and to exert academic effort (Stahl and Harrell 1981, Harrell et al 1985, Geiger et al 1998, Campbell et al 2003). In addition, it has been used to predict accountants' migration intentions (Dillard 1979).…”

Peer assessment and evaluation in team‐based learning

“…However, the peer evaluation process also may reduce student motivation to participate unless its use is clearly communicated and aligned with students' expectations and values for its use (Chen and Lou, 2004). Peer assessment is not a set prescriptive process, but rather one that may take time to develop and may also change over time depending on the course content, class size, the curriculum, the university culture, and the students themselves.…”