Abstracts
Abstract
With the advancement of information and communication technologies, technology-supported peer assessment has been increasingly adopted in education recently. This study systematically reviewed 134 technology-supported peer assessment studies published between 2006 and 2017 using a developed analysis framework based on activity theory. The results found that most peer assessment activities were implemented in social science and higher education in the past 12 years. Acting assignments such as performance, oral presentations, or speaking were the least common type of assignments assessed across the studies reviewed. In addition, most studies conducted peer assessment anonymously and assessors and assessees were randomly assigned. However, most studies implemented only one round of peer assessment and did not provide rewards for assessors. Across studies, it was more often the case that students received unstructured feedback from their peers than structured feedback. Noticeably, collaborative peer assessment did not receive enough attention in the past 12 years. Regarding the peer assessment tools, there were more studies that adopted general learning management systems for peer assessment than studies that used dedicated peer assessment tools. However, most tools used within these studies only provide basic functionalities without scaffolding. Furthermore, the results of cross analysis reveal that there are significant relationships between learning domains and anonymity as well as learning domains and assessment durations. Significant relationships also exist between assignment types and learning domains as well as assignment types and assessment durations.
Keywords:
- systematic review,
- activity theory,
- collaborative learning,
- peer assessment
Download the article in PDF to read it.
Download
Appendices
Bibliography
- Adachi, C., Tai, J., & Dawson, P. (2018). A framework for designing, implementing, communicating, and researching peer assessment. Higher Education Research & Development, 37(3), 453-467. doi: 10.1080/07294360.2017.1405913
- Bearman, M., Dawson, P., Boud, D., Bennett, S., Hall, M., & Molloy, E. (2016). Support for assessment practice: Developing the assessment design decisions framework. Teaching in Higher Education, 21(5), 545-556. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2016.1160217
- Chang, Y. H. (2016). Two decades of research in L2 peer review. Journal of Writing Research, 8(1), 81-117. doi: 10.17239/jowr-2016.08.01.03
- Cheng, K. H., Hou, H. T., & Wu, S. Y. (2014). Exploring students’ emotional responses and participation in an online peer assessment activity: A case study. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(3), 271-287. doi: 10.1080/10494820.2011.649766
- Cheng, K. H., Liang, J. C., & Tsai, C. C. (2015). Examining the role of feedback messages in undergraduate students’ writing performance during an online peer assessment activity. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 78-84. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2015.02.001
- Ching, Y. H., & Hsu, Y. C. (2016). Learners’ interpersonal beliefs and generated feedback in an online role-playing peer-feedback activity: An exploratory study. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 17(2), 105-122. doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v17i2.2221
- Chung, C. J., Hwang, G. J., & Lai, C. L. (2019). A review of experimental mobile learning research in 2010-2016 based on the activity theory framework. Computers & Education, 129, 1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.010
- Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory (pp. 19-38). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
- Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive learning at work: Toward an activity-theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), 133-156. doi: 10.1080/13639080020028747
- Formanek, M., Wenger, M. C., Buxner, S. R., Impey, C. D., & Sonam, T. (2017). Insights about large-scale online peer assessment from an analysis of an astronomy MOOC. Computers & Education, 113, 243-262. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.05.019
- Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015). Scripting the role of assessor and assessee in peer assessment in a Wiki environment: Impact on peer feedback quality and product improvement. Computers & Education, 88, 370-386. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.012
- Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Onghena, P. (2011). An inventory of peer assessment diversity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(2), 137-155. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.012
- Hsia, L. H., Huang, I., & Hwang, G. J. (2016). Effects of different online peer-feedback approaches on students’ performance skills, motivation, and self-efficacy in a dance course. Computers & Education, 96, 55-71. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.004
- Hsu, T. C. (2016). Effects of a peer assessment system based on a grid-based knowledge classification approach on computer skills training. Educational Technology & Society, 19(4), 100-111. Retrieved from https://www.j-ets.net/ETS/journals/19_4/9.pdf
- Hwang, G. J., & Wu, P. H. (2014). Applications, impacts, and trends of mobile technology-enhanced learning: A review of 2008-2012 publications in selected SSCI journals. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 8(2), 83-95. doi: 10.1504/IJMLO.2014.062346
- Lai, C. L., & Hwang, G. J. (2015). An interactive peer-assessment criteria development approach to improving students’ art design performance using handheld devices. Computers & Education, 85, 149-159. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2015.02.011
- Li, H., Xiong, Y., Zang, X., Kornhaber, M. L., Lyu, Y., Chung, K. S., & Suen, H. K. (2016). Peer assessment in the digital age: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher ratings. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(2), 245-264. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2014.999746
- Lin, G. Y. (2016). Effects that facebook-based online peer assessment with micro-teaching videos can have on attitudes toward peer assessment and perceived learning from peer assessment. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science, & Technology Education, 12(9), 2295-2307. doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2016.1280a
- Magin, D. (2001). Reciprocity as a source of bias in multiple peer assessment of group work. Studies in Higher Education, 26(1), 53-63. doi: 10.1080/03075070123503
- Mostert, M., & Snowball, J. D. (2013). Where angels fear to tread: Online peer-assessment in a large first-year class. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(6), 674-686. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2012.683770
- Panadero, E., & Brown, G. T. (2017). Teachers’ reasons for using peer assessment: Positive experience predicts use. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32(1), 133-156. doi: 10.1007/s10212-015-0282-5
- Park, Y., & Jo, I. H. (2017). Using log variables in a learning management system to evaluate learning activity using the lens of activity theory. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 42(4), 531-547. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2016.1158236
- Sadler, P. M., & Good, E. (2006). The impact of self-and peer-grading on student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 1-31. doi: 10.1207/s15326977ea1101_1
- Shih, R. C. (2011). Can Web 2.0 technology assist college students in learning English writing? Integrating Facebook and peer assessment with blended learning. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(5), 829-845. doi: 10.14742/ajet.934
- Speyer, R., Pilz, W., Van Der Kruis, J., & Brunings, J. W. (2011). Reliability and validity of student peer assessment in medical education: A systematic review. Medical Teacher, 33(11), 572-585. doi: 10.3109/0142159X.2011.610835
- Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276. doi: 10.2307/1170598
- Topping, K. (2017). Peer assessment: Learning by judging and discussing the work of other learners. Interdisciplinary Education and Psychology, 1(1), 1-17. doi: 10.31532/InterdiscipEducPsychol.1.1.007
- Tsai, C. C. (2009). Internet-based peer assessment in high school settings. In L. T. W. Hin & R. Subramaniam (Eds.), Handbook of research on new media literacy at the K-12 level: Issues and challenges (pp. 743-754). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference (IGI Global).
- Tsai, C. C., & Liang, J. C. (2009). The development of science activities via on-line peer assessment: The role of scientific epistemological views. Instructional Science, 37(3), 293-310. doi: 10.1007/s11251-007-9047-0
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
- Wulf, J., Blohm, I., Leimeister, J. M., & Brenner, W. (2014). Massive open online courses. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 6(2), 111-114. doi: 10.1007/s12599-014-0313-9
- Xiao, Y., & Lucking, R. (2008). The impact of two types of peer assessment on students’ performance and satisfaction within a Wiki environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(3-4), 186-193. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.005
- Yu, F. Y., & Wu, C. P. (2011). Different identity revelation modes in an online peer-assessment learning environment: Effects on perceptions toward assessors, classroom climate, and learning activities. Computers & Education, 57, 2167-2177. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.012
- Zheng, L., Chen, N-S., Li, X., & Huang, R. (2016). The impact of a two-round, mobile peer assessment on learning achievements, critical thinking skills, and meta-cognitive awareness. International Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation, 10(4), 292-306. doi: 10.1504/IJMLO.2016.079503
- Zheng, L., Huang, R., & Yu, J. (2014). Identifying computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) research in selected journals published from 2003 to 2012: A content analysis of research topics and issues. Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 335-351. Retrieved from https://www.j-ets.net/ETS/journals/17_4/23.pdf