Loading…
Formative Peer Assessment of Academic Writing Between Postgraduate Students
Reciprocal paired qualitative formative peer assessment of academic writing was undertaken by 12 postgraduate students of educational psychology. Overall, staff and peer assessments showed a very similar balance between positive and negative statements, but this varied according to assessment criter...
Saved in:
Published in: | Assessment and evaluation in higher education 2000-06, Vol.25 (2), p.149-169 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c275t-db662513eff44434192104fe2dc458236e952427fb09da885787abac1a95afed3 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c275t-db662513eff44434192104fe2dc458236e952427fb09da885787abac1a95afed3 |
container_end_page | 169 |
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 149 |
container_title | Assessment and evaluation in higher education |
container_volume | 25 |
creator | Topping, K. J. Smith, E. F. Swanson, I. Elliot, A. |
description | Reciprocal paired qualitative formative peer assessment of academic writing was undertaken by 12 postgraduate students of educational psychology. Overall, staff and peer assessments showed a very similar balance between positive and negative statements, but this varied according to assessment criterion. However, only half of all detailed formative assessment statements made showed some degree of correspondence between staff and peers. Nevertheless, there was very little evidence of conflict between the views of staff and peers-rather, they focused on different details. Subjective feedback from students indicated that most found the process time consuming, intellectually challenging and socially uncomfortable, but effective in improving the quality of their own subsequent written work and developing other transferable skills. The reliability and validity of this type of peer assessment thus appeared adequate, and the partiality of overlap in detail between staff and peer assessments suggested that the triangulation peer assessment offers is likely to add value. However, caution is indicated regarding the generalisation of this finding. Implications for action are outlined. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1080/713611428 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_713611428</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ611440</ericid><sourcerecordid>55159606</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c275t-db662513eff44434192104fe2dc458236e952427fb09da885787abac1a95afed3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkDtPAzEQhC0EEiFQ0FNYdBRH_LpXGaKEVyQiAYLu5NjryFHuLtg-Qv49Fx0KBQXVrjTfzK4GoXNKrinJyCClPKFUsOwA9ahI8ojl6fsh6hGWkHbn2TE68X5JCBGcxj30OKldKYP9BDwDcHjoPXhfQhVwbfBQSQ2lVfjN2WCrBb6BsAGo8Kz2YeGkbmQA_Bwa3Rr8KToycuXh7Gf20etk_DK6i6ZPt_ej4TRSLI1DpOdJwmLKwRghBBc0Z5QIA0wrEWeMJ5DHTLDUzEmuZZbFaZbKuVRU5rE0oHkfXXa5a1d_NOBDsawbV7UnC0Z4RggltIWuOki52nsHplg7W0q3LSgpdlUV-6pa9qJjwVm158YPO1mQVh50sq3Mrq1N7Va6CHK7qp1xslLW_4YV4Su0DvGvg__94xv3GYWj</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>203800101</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Formative Peer Assessment of Academic Writing Between Postgraduate Students</title><source>Education Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</source><source>Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</source><source>ProQuest One Literature</source><source>ERIC</source><source>Taylor and Francis Social Sciences and Humanities Collection</source><creator>Topping, K. J. ; Smith, E. F. ; Swanson, I. ; Elliot, A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Topping, K. J. ; Smith, E. F. ; Swanson, I. ; Elliot, A.</creatorcontrib><description>Reciprocal paired qualitative formative peer assessment of academic writing was undertaken by 12 postgraduate students of educational psychology. Overall, staff and peer assessments showed a very similar balance between positive and negative statements, but this varied according to assessment criterion. However, only half of all detailed formative assessment statements made showed some degree of correspondence between staff and peers. Nevertheless, there was very little evidence of conflict between the views of staff and peers-rather, they focused on different details. Subjective feedback from students indicated that most found the process time consuming, intellectually challenging and socially uncomfortable, but effective in improving the quality of their own subsequent written work and developing other transferable skills. The reliability and validity of this type of peer assessment thus appeared adequate, and the partiality of overlap in detail between staff and peer assessments suggested that the triangulation peer assessment offers is likely to add value. However, caution is indicated regarding the generalisation of this finding. Implications for action are outlined.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0260-2938</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1469-297X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/713611428</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AEHEED</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Abingdon: Taylor & Francis Group</publisher><subject>Academic Language ; Academic writing ; Cognitive Restructuring ; College Students ; Communication Skills ; Content Area Writing ; Course Objectives ; Educational evaluation ; Educational Psychology ; English (Second Language) ; Essays ; Failure ; Formative Evaluation ; Graduate Students ; Graduate studies ; Group Discussion ; Higher Education ; Holistic Evaluation ; Instructional Improvement ; Peer assessment ; Peer Evaluation ; Peer Groups ; Peer review ; Pretests Posttests ; Psychology ; Reliability ; Resistance (Psychology) ; Self Esteem ; Student Evaluation ; Teachers ; Time on Task ; Validity ; Verbal Communication ; Writing ; Writing Evaluation ; Writing Skills</subject><ispartof>Assessment and evaluation in higher education, 2000-06, Vol.25 (2), p.149-169</ispartof><rights>Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC 2000</rights><rights>Copyright Carfax Publishing Company Jun 2000</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c275t-db662513eff44434192104fe2dc458236e952427fb09da885787abac1a95afed3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c275t-db662513eff44434192104fe2dc458236e952427fb09da885787abac1a95afed3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/203800101/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/203800101?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21378,21394,27924,27925,33611,33877,43733,43880,62661,62662,62677,74196,74221,74397</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ611440$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Topping, K. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, E. F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Swanson, I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elliot, A.</creatorcontrib><title>Formative Peer Assessment of Academic Writing Between Postgraduate Students</title><title>Assessment and evaluation in higher education</title><description>Reciprocal paired qualitative formative peer assessment of academic writing was undertaken by 12 postgraduate students of educational psychology. Overall, staff and peer assessments showed a very similar balance between positive and negative statements, but this varied according to assessment criterion. However, only half of all detailed formative assessment statements made showed some degree of correspondence between staff and peers. Nevertheless, there was very little evidence of conflict between the views of staff and peers-rather, they focused on different details. Subjective feedback from students indicated that most found the process time consuming, intellectually challenging and socially uncomfortable, but effective in improving the quality of their own subsequent written work and developing other transferable skills. The reliability and validity of this type of peer assessment thus appeared adequate, and the partiality of overlap in detail between staff and peer assessments suggested that the triangulation peer assessment offers is likely to add value. However, caution is indicated regarding the generalisation of this finding. Implications for action are outlined.</description><subject>Academic Language</subject><subject>Academic writing</subject><subject>Cognitive Restructuring</subject><subject>College Students</subject><subject>Communication Skills</subject><subject>Content Area Writing</subject><subject>Course Objectives</subject><subject>Educational evaluation</subject><subject>Educational Psychology</subject><subject>English (Second Language)</subject><subject>Essays</subject><subject>Failure</subject><subject>Formative Evaluation</subject><subject>Graduate Students</subject><subject>Graduate studies</subject><subject>Group Discussion</subject><subject>Higher Education</subject><subject>Holistic Evaluation</subject><subject>Instructional Improvement</subject><subject>Peer assessment</subject><subject>Peer Evaluation</subject><subject>Peer Groups</subject><subject>Peer review</subject><subject>Pretests Posttests</subject><subject>Psychology</subject><subject>Reliability</subject><subject>Resistance (Psychology)</subject><subject>Self Esteem</subject><subject>Student Evaluation</subject><subject>Teachers</subject><subject>Time on Task</subject><subject>Validity</subject><subject>Verbal Communication</subject><subject>Writing</subject><subject>Writing Evaluation</subject><subject>Writing Skills</subject><issn>0260-2938</issn><issn>1469-297X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2000</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7SW</sourceid><sourceid>AIMQZ</sourceid><sourceid>ALSLI</sourceid><sourceid>CJNVE</sourceid><sourceid>M0P</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkDtPAzEQhC0EEiFQ0FNYdBRH_LpXGaKEVyQiAYLu5NjryFHuLtg-Qv49Fx0KBQXVrjTfzK4GoXNKrinJyCClPKFUsOwA9ahI8ojl6fsh6hGWkHbn2TE68X5JCBGcxj30OKldKYP9BDwDcHjoPXhfQhVwbfBQSQ2lVfjN2WCrBb6BsAGo8Kz2YeGkbmQA_Bwa3Rr8KToycuXh7Gf20etk_DK6i6ZPt_ej4TRSLI1DpOdJwmLKwRghBBc0Z5QIA0wrEWeMJ5DHTLDUzEmuZZbFaZbKuVRU5rE0oHkfXXa5a1d_NOBDsawbV7UnC0Z4RggltIWuOki52nsHplg7W0q3LSgpdlUV-6pa9qJjwVm158YPO1mQVh50sq3Mrq1N7Va6CHK7qp1xslLW_4YV4Su0DvGvg__94xv3GYWj</recordid><startdate>20000601</startdate><enddate>20000601</enddate><creator>Topping, K. J.</creator><creator>Smith, E. F.</creator><creator>Swanson, I.</creator><creator>Elliot, A.</creator><general>Taylor & Francis Group</general><general>Taylor & Francis Ltd</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AIMQZ</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>LIQON</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20000601</creationdate><title>Formative Peer Assessment of Academic Writing Between Postgraduate Students</title><author>Topping, K. J. ; Smith, E. F. ; Swanson, I. ; Elliot, A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c275t-db662513eff44434192104fe2dc458236e952427fb09da885787abac1a95afed3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2000</creationdate><topic>Academic Language</topic><topic>Academic writing</topic><topic>Cognitive Restructuring</topic><topic>College Students</topic><topic>Communication Skills</topic><topic>Content Area Writing</topic><topic>Course Objectives</topic><topic>Educational evaluation</topic><topic>Educational Psychology</topic><topic>English (Second Language)</topic><topic>Essays</topic><topic>Failure</topic><topic>Formative Evaluation</topic><topic>Graduate Students</topic><topic>Graduate studies</topic><topic>Group Discussion</topic><topic>Higher Education</topic><topic>Holistic Evaluation</topic><topic>Instructional Improvement</topic><topic>Peer assessment</topic><topic>Peer Evaluation</topic><topic>Peer Groups</topic><topic>Peer review</topic><topic>Pretests Posttests</topic><topic>Psychology</topic><topic>Reliability</topic><topic>Resistance (Psychology)</topic><topic>Self Esteem</topic><topic>Student Evaluation</topic><topic>Teachers</topic><topic>Time on Task</topic><topic>Validity</topic><topic>Verbal Communication</topic><topic>Writing</topic><topic>Writing Evaluation</topic><topic>Writing Skills</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Topping, K. J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smith, E. F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Swanson, I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Elliot, A.</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Assessment and evaluation in higher education</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Topping, K. J.</au><au>Smith, E. F.</au><au>Swanson, I.</au><au>Elliot, A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ611440</ericid><atitle>Formative Peer Assessment of Academic Writing Between Postgraduate Students</atitle><jtitle>Assessment and evaluation in higher education</jtitle><date>2000-06-01</date><risdate>2000</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>149</spage><epage>169</epage><pages>149-169</pages><issn>0260-2938</issn><eissn>1469-297X</eissn><coden>AEHEED</coden><abstract>Reciprocal paired qualitative formative peer assessment of academic writing was undertaken by 12 postgraduate students of educational psychology. Overall, staff and peer assessments showed a very similar balance between positive and negative statements, but this varied according to assessment criterion. However, only half of all detailed formative assessment statements made showed some degree of correspondence between staff and peers. Nevertheless, there was very little evidence of conflict between the views of staff and peers-rather, they focused on different details. Subjective feedback from students indicated that most found the process time consuming, intellectually challenging and socially uncomfortable, but effective in improving the quality of their own subsequent written work and developing other transferable skills. The reliability and validity of this type of peer assessment thus appeared adequate, and the partiality of overlap in detail between staff and peer assessments suggested that the triangulation peer assessment offers is likely to add value. However, caution is indicated regarding the generalisation of this finding. Implications for action are outlined.</abstract><cop>Abingdon</cop><pub>Taylor & Francis Group</pub><doi>10.1080/713611428</doi><tpages>21</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0260-2938 |
ispartof | Assessment and evaluation in higher education, 2000-06, Vol.25 (2), p.149-169 |
issn | 0260-2938 1469-297X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_1080_713611428 |
source | Education Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3); Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3); ProQuest One Literature; ERIC; Taylor and Francis Social Sciences and Humanities Collection |
subjects | Academic Language Academic writing Cognitive Restructuring College Students Communication Skills Content Area Writing Course Objectives Educational evaluation Educational Psychology English (Second Language) Essays Failure Formative Evaluation Graduate Students Graduate studies Group Discussion Higher Education Holistic Evaluation Instructional Improvement Peer assessment Peer Evaluation Peer Groups Peer review Pretests Posttests Psychology Reliability Resistance (Psychology) Self Esteem Student Evaluation Teachers Time on Task Validity Verbal Communication Writing Writing Evaluation Writing Skills |
title | Formative Peer Assessment of Academic Writing Between Postgraduate Students |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T22%3A16%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Formative%20Peer%20Assessment%20of%20Academic%20Writing%20Between%20Postgraduate%20Students&rft.jtitle=Assessment%20and%20evaluation%20in%20higher%20education&rft.au=Topping,%20K.%20J.&rft.date=2000-06-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=149&rft.epage=169&rft.pages=149-169&rft.issn=0260-2938&rft.eissn=1469-297X&rft.coden=AEHEED&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/713611428&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E55159606%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c275t-db662513eff44434192104fe2dc458236e952427fb09da885787abac1a95afed3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=203800101&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ611440&rfr_iscdi=true |