DEEPER LEARNING
[Name]
[Date]
To What Extent Does Peer Evaluation Encourage Deeper Learning?
There is a growing literature of practical and pedagogical arguments that has been put forward to support peer assessment both in schools and workplaces (Fineman 1981; Falchikov 1995; Topping 2009; Gottesman 2009). Research into the subject has concluded that peer assessments help students or colleagues in workplaces develop softer skills like constructive criticism, learn from each other, natural comparison among peers, encourage engagement with the marking or appraisal criteria, promote deeper learning (commonly through evaluation) and encourage more timely and efficient feedback for large groups (Boud, Cohen, and Sampson 1999). In that regard, being able to effectively evaluate another person’s ideas and provide appropriate feedback is touted as a useful graduate skill (Boud and Falchikov 1989). That as it may be the case, it is important to understand the extent that peer evaluation encourage deeper learning.
Students Approach to Learning
According to Entwistle theory, there are three different approaches to learning: surface learning, strategic learning and deep learning (Entwistle, 1987; Marton, Hounsell, and Entwistle, 1997). Students will not automatically fall in one of these approaches, but it is likely each student will portray more characteristics of one approach than the other or may change from one approach to the other depending with the circumstances at hand.
Student who take surface approach to learning are not interested in understanding the subject; they are only interested in getting what is enough for them to pass exams or get the necessary qualification (Gottesman, 2009). According to Entwistle, most teachers dislike this approach but regret that majority of their student approach learning from this angle. Students who take a surface approach to learning tend to confine their reading only to the course requirements, are motivated by the fear of failure than to understand the subject, try to memorise what they have learnt, they narrow their view and concentrate on details, and repeat what they have learnt several times (Entwistle, 2000).
Strategic learning can also be described as achieving approach. Students who adopt this approach are very strategic in their learning. Like the surface approach, students who adopt strategic approach are interested in the positive outcome of their reading, probably by obtaining higher marks and getting the right qualification (Hanrahan and Isaacs, 2001). Such kind of students are likely to be seen with previous exam papers predicting the question that are likely to recur, are keen with the contents of the marking scheme, assemble the necessary conditions and materials for learning and organise and distribute their time for the purpose of striking the desired positive outcome.
Students who adopt deep approach to learning are more interested with their personal development than mere good grades. These are the students who are excited by their learning and want to share more ideas. According to Entwistle (2000), students who practice deep approach to learning are characterised by intention to understand the underlying meaning, intense probing, relating ideas to previous knowledge and experience, relating the evidence with conclusions, looking for patterns and underlying principles, examining logic and argument cautiously and critically (Marton, Hounsell, and Entwistle, 1997). Such kinds of students are often questioning and critical. They make extra efforts to ensure that what they learn make sense and relate with their past experiences. As a result, besides performing well in their units, such kind of students, emerge as all rounded human beings. They understand their subjects broadly.
Peer Evaluation
Although Entwistle does not directly state the best approach to learning, it is clear from the qualities of each that deep learning is the most preferred. As a result, when asked, most teachers prefer that their students adopt the deeper approach to learning, but the reality is not the case. According to research, majority of students adopt surface or strategic approach to learning (Turner 2008). Such approach is partly to blame for the poor quality of education in the contemporary society. To address the problem, researchers have explored various teaching and learning strategies that are likely to encourage deeper approach to learning. Among these strategies is assessment. Researchers have come to the conclusion that the type of assessment that the teacher use may determine which approach students adopts (Falchikov, 1995; Race 2001). If the teacher, for example, uses an assessment criteria that encourages rote learning and memorising, that is what the students will exactly do. Similarly, if the teacher adopts an assessment strategy that encourages critical thinking, questioning and probing, students will follow suit. This explains why in higher education, institutions have developed a considerable interest in both self and peer assessment. The interest is partly driven by the changing conceptions of teaching and learning. As Spiller has noted, contemporary approaches emphasise active engagement of students in their own learning, metacognitive skills, learner responsibility and a dialogical, collaborative model of teaching and learning (Spiller 2012, p.2). Assessment approaches in which the teacher or the instructor owns the power and the tools of assessments limit the achievement of all these aspects.
In that respect, assessment strategies that apply peer evaluation are considered to be closer to the modern ideals of teaching and learning. As Race argues, “the act of applying assessment criteria to evidence such as essays, reports, presentations, and so on is a much deeper learning experience in itself than just reading or observing the assessment artefacts” (2001, p.21). As such, Boud and Falchikov (1989) concluded that the ability to evaluate one’s own work and the work of others is the top skills required by graduates. In peer assessment it is clear that before students are able to properly assess the work of their peers, they must first of all understand the assessment criteria and the job in hand. In addition, students will also have to develop the ability to give constructive feedback on the assessed work. All these are aspect that promotes deeper learning.
In each module or assignment, teachers give out assessment criteria that are to be used to gauge a student’s work. These are often the learning outcomes, standards or goals that a certain unit is expected to achieve. As such, assessment criteria elaborate the factors that are going to be used to judge a student work. Beside clearly stated the expected learning outcome of a unit, an assessment criterion will also makes clear all the other factors that are going to be considered in awarding marks or qualification. Such factors that regularly appear in assessment criteria include the level of accuracy, legibility, impact, succinctness, originality, relevance and currency. The criteria will indicate that a student work that meets certain standard will be judged as either, excellent, good, fair or poor. Such criteria will assign grade for each. For student to be able to judge the work of their peers correctly, they will have to understand all these factors. They will have to internalise the learning outcome of a unit, its goal and objective as well as understand which standard qualify as excellent, good, fair or poor. Understanding these factors becomes the foundation for deep learning.
It is also clear that the assessor will have to clearly understand the task or the subject of examination. If the subject of examination concerns a particular topic, the peer assessor will have to internalise the content of the topic. This is very important if students are going to give constructive criticism of their peer’s work. In the process of assessing students are encouraged to learn deeper. They are encouraged to research the topic deeply so that they can be able to properly assess their peer’s work. In the process, students are compelled to clarify, review and edit their ideas.
The benefit of peer feedback cannot be underestimated. Peer feedback does not only heighten the capacity of the assessor to make informed judgement and intellectual choices, it also helped the assessed to view the subject from different angles. In the process, the assessed gain new ideas, and through constructive criticism, they are projected to a path of personal development and improvement. In other words, peer evaluation helps both the assessor and the assessed to broaden their view on the topic. In that regard, students who are involved in peer evaluation encourage students to strive for a more advanced and deeper understanding of the subject matter, skills and processes (Brutus, Donia and Ronen, 2013). This is unlike other assessment strategies that tend to reward memorising and rote learning. Multiple-choice tests, for instance, although they might be the most appropriate tests in some instances, they are not the best to encourage probing, questioning or development of cognitive abilities. Such test only encourage, as Entwistle et al say, “memorising facts and carrying out procedures routinely” (Marton, Hounsell, and Entwistle, 1997, p. 43).
Peer feedback also encourages collaborative learning as students raise the bar of what is expected of good work (Spiller 2012). After assessment of peer work, students come to the conclusion of what constitute a good work. In the process students horn each other’s skills and uplift their peers understanding of the subject. This is why Boud, Cohen and Sampson, in recognising the importance of peer evaluation lamented that “if students are expected to put more effort into a course through their engagement in peer learning activities, then it may be necessary to have this effort recognised through commensurate shift in assessment focus” (Boud, Cohen and Simpson 1999, p.416).
The autonomy that is associated with peer evaluation is a critical factor in encouraging deeper learning (Biggs, 1987). When the power to award grades and participate in the assessment criteria is removed from the hold of the teachers, students own the process. They seize to see examination or assignments only from the perspective of getting good grades, marks or qualification but internalise the broader goals of a course or a unit. In that regard, peer evaluation makes students more responsible in the learning process. According to Spiller (2012) peer evaluation reduces the power imbalance between teachers and students and enhances student status in the learning process. In the words of Frederiksen (1984), peer assessment eliminates “test behaviour” that Entwistle theory associates with surface approach to learning.
If assessment strategies were to be considered in the light of the two conception of teaching – teacher focused content oriented and student focused learning oriented- peer evaluation could fall in the latter. As Entwistle notes, teacher focused content oriented conception of teaching is aimed at imparting information and transmitting structured knowledge (Entwistle 2000). In contrast, student focused learning oriented facilitates understanding and encourages conceptual change. Peer evaluation as an assessment strategy falls in this category. A teacher focused content oriented shapes students towards surface approach to learning. This is against student focused learning oriented approach which is transformative and deep.
Despite the benefits of peer assessment, especially encouraging deeper learning, implementing the strategy is fraught with challenges (Fineman, 1981). Most of these challenges are borne in its implementation and scepticisms that the students may have towards it. If for instance, the peer assessment does not contribute to the summative grade, student may think that it is not important and fail to engage seriously with it. As Race (2001), Falchikov (2007), and Topping (2009) have rightly observed, peer assessment may lead to social tension among students and stir the issues of loyalty. In worst cases, students might be reluctant to criticise their peers, or those who are assessed might consider peer assessment to be subjective. Assessment might also be a challenging process for those students who have not mastered confidence to believe that they have the required expertise to judge the work of their peers. Nonetheless, research done on peer assessment indicates that students tend to be fairly objective, though they award higher marks than their teachers, but slightly less than external examiners (Race 2001; Spiller 2012). In fact, Falchikov discovered that there are many examples where “mean peer assessments resembled lecturer assessments” thus concluding that “peer assessment is a useful, reliable and valid exercise” (Falchikov 1995, p.175). These challenges, however, do not pre-empt the contribution that peer assessment makes towards deeper learning. With the right implementation strategy, most research has shown that self and peer assessment are the most influential strategies in encouraging deeper learning.
Even though peer evaluation has not realised its full potential, it is a common feature in modern classrooms. With the current technology, higher institutions of learning have discussion boards. Here, students are expected to post their arguments on particular topic and receive feedbacks or reactions from their peers. In different institutions, a discussion board may be known by other names such as discussion forum, discussion group, online forum or message board, by its sole purpose is the same: to allow students exchange ideas, offer constructive criticism for peers work and probe particular issues in their respective unit of study.
In traditional sense of peer assessment, students may be encouraged to exchange lecture notes or mark each other draft paper. In some instance for instance, lecturers encourage student to exchange their draft papers before they submit their final work. Once students exchange drafts, they are expected to probe each others argument and offer constructive criticism. Such feedback helps the assessed students improve on their work and the assessor learn new ideas that might have escaped them. By the time lecturers receive final copies, they expect that students will have refined, reviewed and edited their ideas. While students assess each other work, they are expected to check if it meets the criteria prescribed by the course unit and if it meets the expected standards. In that regard, they give feedbacks that are necessary to stir improvement.
As it is in the academia, peer review is also a common and cherished practice in the workplaces (Kvale, 2006). In a scale of 10 for instance, employers may be required to evaluate their peers in several factors that are important to execute the task at hand. For example, employees may be asked to rate their peers in terms of teamwork, problem solving skills, decision making skills, communication skills and creativity. Such peers rating are important and encouraged for personal development and improvements.
Conclusion
It is clear that peer evaluation is an important transferable graduate skill. Once students develop the ability to evaluate their peers work, they transfer these skills to workplace where they are expected to review their peers output. The underlying benefit of peer evaluation is that before students or colleagues in workplaces can be able to evaluate their peers output, they must first of all understand what is expected of the job at hand as well as be informed of the recommended assessment criteria. This assessment approach encourages students to be engaged in the learning process. It also compels student to reflect on their capacity building and skills development. These are the elements that encourage deeper learning in higher education.
List of References
Biggs, JB (1987) Students Approaches to Learning and studying. Melbourne: Australian Council of Educational Research
Boud, D & Falchikov, N (1989) Quantitative studies of student self-assessment in higher education: A Critical analysis of Findings. Higher Education Vol. 18, pp. 529-549
Boud, D, Cohen, R and Sampson, J (1999) Peer learning and Assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education Vol. 24 (40, pp.413-426
Brutus, S, Donia, M & Ronen, S (2013) Can Business Students Learn to Evaluate Better? Evidence from Repeated Exposure to a Peer Evaluation System. Academy of Management Learning & Education Vol. 12(1), pp. 18-31
Entwistle, N (1987) Understanding Classroom Learning. London: Hodder and Stoughton
Entwistle, NJ (2000) Promoting Deep Learning through Teaching and Assessment: Conceptual Framework and Educational Context. TLRP Conference: Leicester
Falchikov, N (1995) Peer Feedback Marking: Developing Peer Assessment. Innovations in Education & Training International Vol.32 (2): 175-187
Fineman, S (1981) Reflections on Peer Teaching-and Peer Assessment: An Undergraduate Experience. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education Vol. 1(1), pp. 82-93
Frederiksen, N (1984) The real test bias: Influences on teaching and learning. American Psychologist Vol. 3, pp. 193-202
Gottesman, BL (2009) Peer Coaching in Higher Education. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Education
Hanrahan, S and Isaacs, G (2001) Assessing Self-and peer assessment: The Students views. Higher Education Research and Development Vol. 20 (1), pp.53-70
Kvale, S (2006) A Workplace Perspective on Schools Assessment. San Francisco: American Educational Research Association
Langan, M & Wheater, P (2003) Can Students assess students effectively? Some insights into peer-assessment. Learning & Teaching in Action Vol. 2(1)
Marton, F, Hounsell, D, & Entwistle, N (1997) The Experiences of Learning. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press
Race, P (2001) The Lecturer’s Toolkit. London: Kogan Page
Spiller, D (2012) Assessment Matters: Self-Assessment and Peer Assessment. Hamilton: University of Waikato
Topping KJ (2009) Peer Assessment. Theory into Practice Vol. 48, pp. 20-27
Turner, R (2008) Academic Literacy: Preparing all students for success in college and beyond. Portland: Stenhouse Publishers
