Student Peer Evaluation

This article focuses on how teachers use student peer evaluation in their classrooms. Student peer evaluation is a method of formative assessment that can be a powerful tool for improved student performance. Suggestions are given for effective peer evaluation strategies. The article also includes the advantages and disadvantages of using student peer evaluation and addresses the concerns of students and parents and how they can be mediated.

Keywords Assessment; Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974; Formative Assessment; Peer Evaluation; Peer Grading; Portfolio; Reflection; Rubric; Student Feedback; Teamwork; Valid Feedback

Overview

Student peer evaluation, or peer assessment, is a method of formative assessment that, when properly executed, can be a powerful educational tool that helps many students improve classroom performance. Peer evaluation or assessment can mean different things, such as students grading other students' homework, quizzes, and papers; a technique used to improve teamwork in the classroom; an aid to determine each individual's effort and individual grades on team projects; and a way to expose poor, average, and above-average students to other bodies of work. Peer assessment in a teamwork environment is a process in which instructors can adjust each student's grade for team assignments. Teachers use data collected by asking team members to evaluate other team members in terms of participation, body of work, and quality of work. There are a few concepts that should be taken into consideration when implementing a peer evaluation program because students may not have had much experience with peer evaluation. Students should be told as early as possible that they will be peer evaluators, and they should be provided with rubrics and any other information that can help them understand the assessment and evaluation process. Students should also be given time to practice evaluating assignments that will not affect anyone's grades. As with any type of formative assessment, feedback is an important component of peer evaluation (The Foundation Coalition, 2007).

Traditional Classroom Setting

A traditional classroom is instructor controlled and tends to be a summative learning experience. The instructor dictates the assignments; the student complete the assignment; and then the instructor evaluate the work submitted, assigns a grade, and returns the assignment to the students. When student peer evaluation enters the picture, the instructor must be willing to cede some of the classroom power to the students and encourage them to turn to each other, while the instructor is always available to provide assistance and guidance when necessary.

Peer evaluation came under close scrutiny when the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the claimant in Owasso Independent School District v. Falvo. At the heart of the claim was a parent's assertion that peer grading violated the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) and subjected her children to embarrassment and humiliation in the classroom. However, on February 19, 2002, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that peer grading does not violate federal law. In an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme court recognized that peer grading can be a valuable educational tool stating, "It is a way to teach material again in a new context," and that it helps instructors determine "whether the students have understood the material and are ready to move on" (cited in Simpson, 2002, p. 20). Even though the Supreme Court ruled in favor of peer grading, individual school districts are left to decide for themselves whether or not they want to implement or ban the practice.

In the earlier grades, students tend to have typical childish responses when faced with peer evaluations, but they also have the same initial skepticism and doubts that most students express when they first encounter peer evaluation. Lensmire (1992) provides an example of third grade students showing typical patterns of girls wanting to pair off with girls and boys wanting to pair off with other boys. These students also tended to be divided by social class, with those who lived in a trailer park only associating with other students from the trailer park and others dividing by their neighborhoods. Teachers implementing peer evaluation in the lower grades can have a more difficult time than middle or high school teachers because younger children tend to only want to work with their friends, and all identified children they did not want to work with (Lensmire, 1992). The data showed, however, that the few instances that did arise came from the children working with each other on the project and not from instances of children teasing or hurting each other when they were paired together. Most students reported enjoying working with their classmates and sharing their work with the rest of the class despite all their initial misgivings. One way to try to assure satisfaction and success of an ongoing peer evaluation program is to begin by letting students pick their own partners to work with to get them comfortable with the process and how it works. From there, the instructor can start blending the pairs by gender and social class, which can also help teach tolerance and understanding (Lensmire, 1992).

Applications

Writing Classes

Portfolios are a good way for grade school students to enter into the world of peer evaluation. Very few assessment tools can match portfolios for showcasing the best of students' work and their progress throughout the term or year. Instructors can have students share their portfolios regularly. By having other students review the portfolio, teachers ensure that each portfolio remains a true representation of what is going on in the classroom. One way to use peer evaluation with portfolios is to have each student hand their portfolio to a student who will read through it and write comments on sticky notes and then pass it on to another student. The instructor keeps track of who has looked at what and makes sure that each student in the class has an opportunity to look at and comment on everyone else's portfolio, which not only encourages learning but also helps students get to know their classmates a little better (Hill, Kamber & Norwick, n.d.).

Once an instructor has decided to implement peer evaluation in the curriculum, it is important to determine what kind of work lends itself best to student peer evaluation. Writing classes seem to be one of the most appropriate, and the following example from Johnson (2001) is an account of a remedial writing class for eleventh graders; however, the setup of the class should work for many other grades. This particular class was comprised of students who had yet to pass their writing proficiency exams, which meant they would not graduate from high school until they did, making it truly a high-stakes, high-stress classroom environment that had successful results using student peer evaluation. These were all students who had never really been able to see what a passing paper actually looked like because all they ever saw were their own papers given back to them with instructor comments. The instructor was able to hand his students copies of other students' work-some strong, some weak, some proficiency exam appropriate, some not. By having access to these exams, they could all begin evaluation sessions by putting themselves in the place of the official exam readers. The students were given a scoring rubric so they could try to make sense of how the scoring process worked, and then they held mock scoring sessions. By participating in these sessions, they were able to figure out what better writers were doing and started doing it themselves (Johnson, 2001).

Students then submit their own papers without names, just an identification number. Quality evaluator teams comprised of eight members were set up to evaluate the papers. Each quality evaluator team is given 8-10 essays written by students from other classes. Each session begins with the assumption that all papers are in the mid range until proven otherwise so that the papers balance themselves on either side of the norm. Then students begin reading and make note of any particular strengths and weaknesses they see in the essay, offering advice they might have for the writer for the current or future essays. After everyone has read all the papers, then the papers are sorted by quality. Since the supposition is that every essay is on target unless determined to be otherwise, all papers are put in the "On Target" pile. Then the students discuss and decide which papers exceeded the expectations of the students who read them and who also wrote on the same subject and which ones needed work. Those that exceeded expectations were moved to an "Exceeds Expectations" pile, and those that still needed work were moved to a "Needs Work" pile. The remaining papers received further scrutiny. The remaining papers have basically competently met the criteria for the assignment, but there are still levels of competency and quality ("On Target Plus," "On Target," and "On Target Minus") that the rubric addresses and students must determine. Separating the "Exceeds Expectations" and the "Needs Work" out from the pack before focusing on those that can be plus or minus papers came about because the instructor found that if you had students use the full spectrum at one time the reliability from one quality evaluator team to another dropped considerably. Letter grading did not seem to work because, as with schools, instructors, and parents, students have different ideas of what constitutes an A and what a C paper is; but they can seem to come to consensus about which papers are the strongest, which are the weakest, and which seem normal.

The discussions that go on as each group came to consensus can be the most educational part of the entire process. Part of the role of the instructor is to be an outside member of each quality evaluation team who makes sure that everyone on the team voices an opinion and contributes to the group consensus. This needs to be understood by everyone before they begin and can be done by dissenting but allowing the assessment to go as is, by dissenting more strongly and making note of their dissent on the student's paper, or by blocking the consensus of the team, which sends the paper to the instructor for review (Johnson, 2001).

At the beginning of the class and as outside members of each team, it is important that instructors model appropriate evaluation techniques, showing students the reasons why they write the comments they do and the elements they think are important in quality writing. However, the ultimate goal is to have each team turn to the instructor less and less as the term goes on because they are confident in their own knowledge of what comprises a quality paper.

Reflection is another important aspect of student peer evaluation. It is important to make sure there is time at the end of each evaluation session to discuss what exactly it was that made the good papers good so that students know and remember when it comes time for them to complete their next writing assignment. Reflection requires students to figure it out for themselves and learn to articulate and cite specific examples from the works they read with the instructor acting as facilitator. It is also important for the instructor to keep a close eye on all the evaluator teams to make sure they are all keeping close to the same standards in their evaluations. As mentioned previously, the results using this type of student peer evaluation have been outstanding, with only two students having to repeat the course in the twelfth grade after the first year of implementation (Johnson, 2001).

Student Presentations

Peer student evaluations can also work for student presentations, but is important that students are fully informed about the content of each student's presentation before the actual event. Students should also be provided with mock presentation opportunities so that they can understand what is required of them when it comes time to really rate their classmate's presentations. One incentive to assure that the evaluations are fair and unbiased is to make part of each student's final grade dependent upon the accuracy of the feedback they provide to their peers. Several ways to involve students in the assessment process is to “have them generate possible criteria, provide weights to each criterion, and ask questions about specific attributes” that should be covered (“Peer assessment,” 2002, ¶ 2). Instructors should also make sure that they provide ample time at the end of each presentation so that the assessments given are not quick afterthoughts and the assessments should be reviewed periodically to ensure that they are still valid. Instructors should also have a more formal system in place so that if students feel that their mark is not accurate, they can appeal to the instructor for a final determination. As long as the marking system is simple, students understand the possible ramifications of incorrectly assessing, and there is an appeals process, this format can provide learning benefits for everyone (Brown, Race, & Smith, 1996, cited in "Peer Assessment," 2002).

Viewpoints

There is more to teaching teamwork for student peer evaluations than just assigning the work and providing the rubrics. Instructors need to train students how to work in teams and how to work through any differences they may have. It also requires frequent formative feedback and dialogue about how things are progressing so that the instructor does not find out about any problems until things are at a breaking point (Vik, 2001). Some studies show that the majority of students felt peer evaluations were a fair grading process because everyone in the class was going to be evaluated the same way. Group peer evaluation was preferred by students as opposed to having a single student evaluate them to eliminate any possible bias. However, some students were concerned that peer evaluators would still be biased because they may evaluate everyone low in order to improve their own grade or assign a lower evaluation if they were not personally interested in the work. There was also concern that peer evaluators were not qualified to assess their work because they did not have the necessary knowledge (Sherrard & Raafat, 1994).

However, when properly done, student peer evaluation can work well and almost every student will buy into the process. There may be suspicion at first until students begin to see that group consensus is probably fairer than one instructor's opinion, but any complaints and concerns can be addressed by the instructor. Instead of having to defend the grade because it did not come from them alone, instructors can now help students understand why the assignment was scored as it was, and they can also help their students determine what they could have done to improve the work, making the process an even better learning experience and providing another learning opportunity for the student. In true formative assessment, the instructor should give students an opportunity to revise their submission as many times as necessary in order to bring the quality up-making it perfectly clear that they cannot simply resubmit the same work and expect to get a better mark (Johnson, 2001).

Student peer evaluation can work and is an effective learning tool as long as students are properly trained and understand the process. The evaluating process is done blindly whenever possible with assignments given a number instead of a student's name to avoid any possible bias, instructor's award incentives for accuracy when appropriate, and instructors constantly check their students' accuracy against their own assessment and make adjustments as necessary.

Terms & Concepts

Assessment: Educational assessment is the process of determining the amount of information students have retained.

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA): The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 is a federal law that bans schools from relinquishing a student’s academic records to another person or institution without the consent of a parent.

Formative Assessment: Formative assessments are generally considered part of the instructional process and are intended to provide information needed to help instructors adjust their instruction and help students learn while instruction is occurring.

Peer Evaluation: Student peer evaluation is a method of formative assessment using pre-determined rubrics. Students assess each others' work and contribute to group success.

Portfolio: A portfolio is a systematic collection of teacher observations and student work representing the student's progress and activities of a particular class. Portfolios may also contain portions of a completed or unfinished project in order to show the different stages of completion involved.

Reflection: Reflection is the process of deriving meaning and knowledge from an experience and to consciously connect classroom learning to the experience.

Rubric: A rubric is a set of ordered categories to which a given piece of work can be compared. It is a guide that shows how what learners do will be assessed and graded.

Valid Feedback: Valid feedback concerns whether the feedback produces the desired result and is well founded and sound.

Bibliography

The Foundation Coalition (n.d.). Peer assessment and peer evaluation. Retrieved June 23, 2007, from http://www.foundationcoalition.org/publications/brochures/2002peer_assessment.pdf

Hill, B., Kamber, P. & Norwick, L. (n.d.). 6 ways to make student portfolios more meaningful and manageable. Retrieved June 23, 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0STR/is_n1_v104/ai_15669499

Hye-Jung, L., & Cheolil, L. (2012). Peer Evaluation in Blended Team Project-Based Learning: What do students find important?. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 15, 214-224. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=83234628&site=ehost-live

Johnson, R. (2001). The next frontier of the student-centered classroom: Teaching students to recognize quality writing through the use of peer evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 463 813). Retrieved June 23, 2007, from Education Resources Information Center. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/19/f8/45.pdf

Lensmire, T. (1992). Peers, Risk and Writing. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 353 590). Retrieved June 23, 2007, from Education Resources Information Center http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/13/44/2b.pdf

Panadero, E., Romero, M., & Strijbos, J. (2013). The impact of a rubric and friendship on peer assessment: Effects on construct validity, performance, and perceptions of fairness and comfort. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39, 195-203. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=92640236&site=ehost-live

Peer assessment (2002). Gifted Child Today, 25, 8. Retrieved June 24, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=6153269&site=ehost-live

Sherrard, W. & Raafat, F. (1994). An empirical study of peer bias in evaluations: Students rating students. Journal of Education for Business, 70, 43. Retrieved June 23, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=9411072559&site=ehost-live

Simpson, M. (2002). Supreme Court upholds peer grading. NEA Today, 20, 20. Retrieved June 23, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=6604165&site=ehost-live

Tsivitanidou, O. E., Zacharia, Z. C., & Hovardas, T. (2011). Investigating secondary school students’ unmediated peer assessment skills. Learning & Instruction, 21, 506-519. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=60519632&site=ehost-live

Vik, G. (2001). Doing more to teach teamwork than telling students to sink or swim.

Business Communication Quarterly, 64, 112-119. Retrieved June 23, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Business Source Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=5949873&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Cuseo, J. (2002). Igniting Student Involvement, Peer Interaction and Teamwork. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press, Inc.

Gilhooley, J. & Scheuch, N. (2000). Using Peer Mediation in Classrooms and Schools: Strategies for Teachers, Counselors, and Administrators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Haring-Smith, T. (1992). Student Manual for Peer Evaluation. New York, NY: HarperCollins.