Student peer assessment: research findings from a case study in a master of chemical engineering coursework-program
Date
2011
Authors
Davey, K.
Editors
Advisors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Type:
Journal article
Citation
Education for Chemical Engineers, 2011; 6(4):e122-e131
Statement of Responsibility
K.R. Davey
Conference Name
Abstract
Results from a case study of student peer assessment, as an alternate learning activity to traditional lecturer- and tutor-assessments, in a two-year, Master of Chemical Engineering Coursework-program show that, overall, whilst students gave higher marks than the lecturer in summative grading (Student:Lecturer S/L ∼1.2), there was no correlation between student Assessors who gave high marks and Assessees who received high marks, or, between Assessors who gave low marks and Assessees who received low marks. Each of 14 students (4 female and 10 male) enrolled in a one-semester, introductory course in Pinch Analysis were required to anonymously mark the solutions of a randomly selected class colleague to each of nine assigned problems using, as a guide, idealized solutions provided by the lecturer. The assigned problems involved four-descriptive and five-numeric types. None of the students had taken part in peer assessment beforehand. Student Assessors generally gave higher marks for descriptive questions than the lecturer (S/L ∼1.4). However, both students and lecturer marked the numeric questions equally on average. Assessee expectations that class-peers would mark harder than the lecturer were therefore not borne out. An independent and unique Student Experience of Learning & Teaching (SELT) survey revealed broad student agreement that peer assessment was an effective way to learn (13/13) and that it stimulated interest in the course material (13/13). Students (12/13) stated that idealized solutions of the lecturer were essential for successful peer assessment outcomes. Research results show therefore that these students highly valued this complementary and self-reflective learning experience. © 2011 The Institution of Chemical Engineers.
School/Discipline
Dissertation Note
Provenance
Description
Access Status
Rights
© 2011 The Institution of Chemical Engineers. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.