Online-based Rubric for Peer Assessment: Effectiveness and Implications
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35307/saltel.v4i2.76Keywords:
peer assessment, online assessment, higher education, rubrics, public speakigAbstract
This study investigates using technology to promote authentic and meaningful learning in applying a peer assessment rubric for a public speaking assessment in a higher education institution in Brunei Darussalam. Three hundred six undergraduates from Universiti Teknologi Brunei's Schools of Business, Computing, and the Engineering Faculty conducted the assessments in real-time using online-based rubrics accessible via their smartphones or laptops. Comparisons were made between the lecturers' marks and students for each rubric criterion, and a set of questionnaires was distributed to investigate students' perceptions toward the peer assessment after the assessment. The results indicated a variable discrepancy between assessments by the lecturers and students for the rubric criteria. While in some disciplines, peer marking was found to overmark compared to the lecturer by more than 15%, in other cases, the marks were similar. Comparison between peer and lecturer assessment indicated that the level of agreement was sensitive to the lecturer, but less so between student cohort when assessed by the same lecturer. When differences were observed, there was no apparent discrepancy in an agreement between aspects of the rubric which evaluated content or delivery. Students’ feedback revealed a positive response towards peer assessment but highlighted issues surrounding the technological aspects of the implementation process.Downloads
References
Andrade, H. G. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational Leadership, 57 (5), 13–19.
Andrade, H. G., & Du, Y. (2005). Student perspectives on rubric-referenced assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10 (3), 1–11.
Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K., & Mylonas, A. (2002). Developing procedures for implementing peer assessment in large classes using an action research process. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27 (5), 427–441.
Campbell, A. (2005). Application of ICT and rubrics to the assessment process where professional judgment is involved: the features of an e‐marking tool. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30 (5), 529–537.
Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (2005). Peer assessment of language proficiency. Language Testing, 22 (1), 93–121.
Davey, K. R., & Palmer, E. (2012). Student Peer Assessment: A research study in a level III core course of the bachelor chemical engineering program. Education for Chemical Engineers, 7 (3), e85–e104.
Davies, P. (2000). Computerized Peer Assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 37 (4), 346–355.
Dunbar, N. E., Brooks, C. F., & Kubicka-Miller, T. (2006). Oral communication skills in higher education: Using a performance-based evaluation rubric to assess communication skills. Innovative Higher Education, 29 (4), 22–30.
Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student Peer Assessment in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Peer and Teacher Marks. Review of Educational Research, 70 (3), 287–322.
De Grez, L., Valcke, M., & Berings. (2010). Student response system and learning oral presentation skills. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2 (2), 1786–1789.
Hafner, J., & Hafner, P. (2003). Quantitative analysis of the rubric as an assessment tool: an empirical study of student peer‐group rating. International Journal of Science Education, 25 (12), 1509–1528.
Hassell, D. G., & Lee, K. Y. (2020). Evaluation of Multi Peer and Self-Assessment in Higher Education: A Brunei Case Study. International Journal of Innovative Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 1 (1), 37–53.
Henriksen, C. B., Bregnhøj, H., Rosthøj, S., Ceballos, A., Kaas, H., Harker-Schuch, I., Andersen, I., Larsen, S., & May, M. (2016). Technology enhanced peer learning and peer assessment. Tidsskriftet Læring Og Medier (LOM), 9 (16). https://doi.org/10.7146/lom.v9i16.24415
Kim, K. -J., & Bonk, C. J. (2006). The future of online teaching and learning in higher education. Educause Quarterly, 29 (4), 22–30.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology.
Montgomery, K. (2002). Authentic Tasks and Rubrics: Going Beyond Traditional Assessments in College Teaching. College Teaching, 50 (1), 34–40.
Mouza, C., & Lavigne, N. (2012), Emerging Technologies for the Classroom: A Learning Sciences Perspective. Springer Science & Business Media, New York.
Nilson, L. B. (2003). Improving student peer feedback. College Teaching, 5 (1), 34–38.
Powell, T. A. (2001). Improving Assessment and Evaluation Methods in Film and Television Production Courses. Capella University, Minneapolis.
Reddy, Y. M., & Andrade, H. G. (2010). A review of rubric use in higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35 (4), 435–448.
Reitmeier, C. A., Svendsen, L. K., & Vrchota, D. A. (2004). Improving oral communication skills of students in food science courses. Journal of Food Science Education, 3 (2), 15–20.
De Silva, R. (2014). Rubrics for assessment: Their effects on ESL students’ authentic task performance. Center for English Language Communication 4th Symposium Proceedings.
Steffens, K. (2006). Self‐regulated learning in technology‐enhanced learning environments: Lessons of a European peer review. European Journal of Education, 41 (3–4), 353–379.
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68 (3), 249–276.
Weaver, R. L. & Cottrell, H. W. (1986). Peer evaluation: A case study. Innovative Higher Education, 11 (1), 25–39.
Wen, M. L., & Tsai, C. -C. (2006). University students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward (online) peer assessment. Higher Education, 51 (1), 27–44.
White, E. (2009). Student perspectives of peer assessment for learning in a public speaking course. Asian EFL Journal, 33 (1), 1–36.
Zar, J. H. (1984), Biostatistical Analysis (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., Eaglewood Cliffs.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Kok Yueh Lee, David Hassell, Shana Mat Salleh, Thulasimani Munohsamy
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
