Skip to main content
Log in

Does the use of summative peer assessment in collaborative group work inhibit good judgement?

  • Published:
Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The accuracy and consistency of peer marking, particularly when students have the power to reward (or penalise) during formative and summative assessment regimes, is largely unknown. The objective of this study is to evaluate students’ ability and behaviour in marking their peers’ teamwork performance in a collaborative group assessment context both when the mark is counted and not counted towards their final grade. Formative and summative assessment data were obtained from 98 participants in anonymous self and peer assessment of team members’ contributions to a group assessment in business courses. The findings indicate that students are capable of accurately and consistently judging their peers’ performance to a large extent, especially in the formative evaluation of the process component of group work. However, the findings suggest significant peer grading bias when peer marks contribute to final grades. Overall, findings suggest that students are reluctant to honestly assess their peers when they realise that their actions can penalise non-contributing students. This raises questions about the appropriateness of using peer marks for summative assessment purposes. To overcome the problems identified, this paper proposes a number of measures to guide educators in effectively embedding summative peer assessment in a group assessment context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andrade, H., & Du, Y. (2007). Student responses to criteria-referenced self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(2), 159–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloxham, S., Hudson, J. D., Outer, B., & Price, M. (2015). External peer review of assessment: An effective approach to verifying standards? Higher Education Research & Development, 34(6), 1069–1082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloxham, S., den-Outer, B., Hudson, J., & Price, M. (2016). Let’s stop the pretence of consistent marking: Exploring the multiple limitations of assessment criteria. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3), 466–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D. (1989). The role of self-assessment in student grading. Assessment in Higher Education, 14(1), 20–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (1989). Quantitative studies of student self-assessment in higher education: A critical analysis of findings. Higher Education, 18(5), 529–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (1999). Peer learning and assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(4), 413–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., Lawson, R., & Thompson, D. G. (2013). Does student engagement in self-assessment calibrate their judgement over time? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(8), 941–956.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brehm, J., & Festinger, L. (1957). Pressures toward uniformity of performance in groups. Human Relations, 10(1), 85–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brutus, S., Donia, M. B., & Ronen, S. (2013). Can business students learn to evaluate better? Evidence from repeated exposure to a peer-evaluation system. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(1), 18–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (2000). Making a difference: Using peers to assess individual students’ contributions to a group project. Teaching in Higher Education, 5(2), 244–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Wilson, R. W. (2006). Validity and reliability of scaffolded peer assessment of writing from instructor and student perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, W. M. (2009). Groupwork as a form of assessment: Common problems and recommended solutions. Higher Education, 58(4), 563–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deakin. (2014). Live the future: Agenda 2020. Geelong: Deakin University.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fellenz, M. R. (2006). Toward fairness in assessing student groupwork: A protocol for peer evaluation of individual contributions. Journal of Management Education, 30(4), 570–591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GCA. (2015). Graduate outlook 2014: Employers’ Perspectives on Graduate, Recruitment in Australia. Melbourne: Graduate Careers Australia Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2005). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences. in. Belmont: Thomson Learning Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes-Smith, P., Cunningham, E., & Coote, L. (2006). Structural equation Modelling: From the fundamentals to advanced topics. Melbourne: Sream and Statsline.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lejk, M., & Wyvill, M. (2001). The effect of the inclusion of selfassessment with peer assessment of contributions to a group project: A quantitative study of secret and agreed assessments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(6), 551–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loughry, M. L., Ohland, M. W., & Woehr, D. J. (2014). Assessing teamwork skills for assurance of learning using CATME team tools. Journal of Marketing Education, 36(1), 5–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014). Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), 102–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O'Donovan, B., Price, M., & Rust, C. (2004). Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), 325–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Planas Lladó, A., Soley, L. F., Fraguell Sansbelló, R. M., Pujolras, G. A., Planella, J. P., Roura-Pascual, N., Suñol Martínez, J. J., & Moreno, L. M. (2014). Student perceptions of peer assessment: An interdisciplinary study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(5), 592–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rust, C. (2002). The impact of assessment on student learning: How can the research literature practically help to inform the development of departmental assessment strategies and learner-centred assessment practices? Active Learning in Higher Education, 3(2), 145–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, D. R. (2010). Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sambell, K., McDowell, L., & Montgomery, C. (2013). Assessment for learning in higher education. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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), e572–ee85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sridharan, B., Muttakin M. B., & Mihret D. G. (2018). Students’ perceptions of peer assessment effectiveness: an explorative study. Accounting Education:1–27.

  • Steverding, D., Tyler, K. M., & Sexton, D. W. (2016). Evaluation of marking of peer marking in oral presentation. Perspectives on Medical Education, 5(2), 103–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sung-Seok, K. (2014). Peer assessment in group projects accounting for assessor reliability by an iterative method. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(3), 301–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S., & Osterlind, S. J. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Tai, J. H.-M., Canny, B. J., Haines, T. P., & Molloy, E. K. (2016). The role of peer-assisted learning in building evaluative judgement: Opportunities in clinical medical education. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 21(3), 659–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • To, J., & Carless, D. (2016). Making productive use of exemplars: Peer discussion and teacher guidance for positive transfer of strategies. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 40(6), 746–764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 20–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vickerman, P. (2009). Student perspectives on formative peer assessment: An attempt to deepen learning? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34(2), 221–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wen, M. L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2006). University students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward (online) peer assessment. Higher Education, 51(1), 27–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willey, K., & Gardner, A. (2009). SPARK plus: Self & peer assessment resource kit user manual revision 1.7. Sydney: University of Technology Sydney and University of Sydney.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willey, K., & Gardner, A. (2010). Investigating the capacity of self and peer assessment activities to engage students and promote learning. European Journal of Engineering Education, 35(4), 429–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yao-Ting, S., Kuo-En, C., Tzyy-Hua, C., & Wen-Cheng, Y. (2010). How many heads are better than one? The reliability and validity of teenagers’ self-and peer assessments. Journal of Adolescence, 33(1), 135–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by funding from the Centre for Research in Assessment and Digital Learning (CRADLE), Deakin University (grant number 2016/01). We would like to thank Jamie Mustard for his input and comments and Jade McKay for her research assistance in preparing this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bhavani Sridharan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sridharan, B., Tai, J. & Boud, D. Does the use of summative peer assessment in collaborative group work inhibit good judgement?. High Educ 77, 853–870 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0305-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-018-0305-7

Keywords

Navigation