Citation Context

...s students may lack the ability to evaluate each other. However, Elliot & Higgins (2005) in their study on group assessment found that generally students view peer assessment as a fair way of distributing marks. Nordberg (2006) noted that groupwork can have an effect on both weak and strong students. He suggests that while weak students can have a free ride in group projects, strong students can be held back from achieving higher marks as the work of individuals is subsumed in the group output. Peer assessment may therefore provide a useful mechanism for differentiation of marks in groupwork. Kennedy (2005) also identified some issues with peer assessment, including: • the reluctance of students to judge others • the propensity by students to (significantly) mark down those who had not done a fair share • lack of consistency in judgement between students in a group • the potential for peer assessment to limit weaker students’ contribution to the project as they may be ignored or given less important tasks • the possibility of generating tension instead of true teamwork. While Kennedy (2005) acknowledges the possibility of inconsistencies in judgement, Baker (2008) suggests that students are in a...

Citation Context

...eas in groupwork assessment (Race, 2001). Peer assessment is seen as one of the methods to deal with these problems. It can generally involve students assessing each other’s level of contribution to the group’s output (Visram & Joy, 2003). This paper provides our reflection on the use of peer assessment on a student group project. Peer assessment Several authors have identified the advantages and disadvantages of peer assessment. The existence of passengers and freeloaders is widely acknowledged as a potential problem with groupwork (Parsons & Kassabova, 2002). Freeman & McKenzie (as cited by Elliot & Higgins, 2005) argue that students view groupwork assessment as unfair if there is equal reward for unequal contributions. Visram & Joy (2003) acknowledge that sometimes students may lack the ability to evaluate each other. However, Elliot & Higgins (2005) in their study on group assessment found that generally students view peer assessment as a fair way of distributing marks. Nordberg (2006) noted that groupwork can have an effect on both weak and strong students. He suggests that while weak students can have a free ride in group projects, strong students can be held back from achieving higher marks as the...

Citation Context

...iation of marks in groupwork. Kennedy (2005) also identified some issues with peer assessment, including: • the reluctance of students to judge others • the propensity by students to (significantly) mark down those who had not done a fair share • lack of consistency in judgement between students in a group • the potential for peer assessment to limit weaker students’ contribution to the project as they may be ignored or given less important tasks • the possibility of generating tension instead of true teamwork. While Kennedy (2005) acknowledges the possibility of inconsistencies in judgement, Baker (2008) suggests that students are in a better position to assess their peers and that the aggregate rating score increases reliability of the system. Despite the potential problems with peer assessment as cited above, it is generally agreed that it can bring potential benefits. Visram & Joy (2003) for example cited the following as advantages of peer assessment: • students actively participate and take responsibility for the assessment process • students can critically analyse work done by others rather than simply receiving a mark as feedback • the process can encourage students to be accountable t...

Citation Context

...ntages and disadvantages of peer assessment. The existence of passengers and freeloaders is widely acknowledged as a potential problem with groupwork (Parsons & Kassabova, 2002). Freeman & McKenzie (as cited by Elliot & Higgins, 2005) argue that students view groupwork assessment as unfair if there is equal reward for unequal contributions. Visram & Joy (2003) acknowledge that sometimes students may lack the ability to evaluate each other. However, Elliot & Higgins (2005) in their study on group assessment found that generally students view peer assessment as a fair way of distributing marks. Nordberg (2006) noted that groupwork can have an effect on both weak and strong students. He suggests that while weak students can have a free ride in group projects, strong students can be held back from achieving higher marks as the work of individuals is subsumed in the group output. Peer assessment may therefore provide a useful mechanism for differentiation of marks in groupwork. Kennedy (2005) also identified some issues with peer assessment, including: • the reluctance of students to judge others • the propensity by students to (significantly) mark down those who had not done a fair share • lack of co...

Citation Context

...sram & Joy, 2003; Elliot & Higgins, 2005; Kench et al, 2008). However, one of the problems with groupwork for both students and lecturers is how the work should be assessed (Parsons & Kassabova, 2002). The possibility of having ‘free-riders’ and the difficulty of fairly awarding marks to reflect the level of students’ contribution to a group output are some of the key problem areas in groupwork assessment (Race, 2001). Peer assessment is seen as one of the methods to deal with these problems. It can generally involve students assessing each other’s level of contribution to the group’s output (Visram & Joy, 2003). This paper provides our reflection on the use of peer assessment on a student group project. Peer assessment Several authors have identified the advantages and disadvantages of peer assessment. The existence of passengers and freeloaders is widely acknowledged as a potential problem with groupwork (Parsons & Kassabova, 2002). Freeman & McKenzie (as cited by Elliot & Higgins, 2005) argue that students view groupwork assessment as unfair if there is equal reward for unequal contributions. Visram & Joy (2003) acknowledge that sometimes students may lack the ability to evaluate each other. Howev...