The implementation and evaluation of a mobile self- and peer-assessment system

Recently, more and more researchers have been exploring uses of mobile technology that support new instructional strategies. Based on research findings related to peer and self assessment, this study developed a Mobile Assessment Participation System (MAPS) using Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) as the platform. In addition, the study proposes an implementation model of the MAPS that should facilitate the effectiveness of self- and peer-assessment in classrooms. The researcher argues that teachers and students can benefit from MAPS in various regards including more flexible assessment arrangement, more efficient use of time, and more opportunities for student reflection on learning and assessment. Thirty-seven students taking teacher-education courses with the researcher participated in this study, and these students employed the MAPS to conduct two-round assessment activities that would help these students assess both their own and one another's final projects. Both the students' valid responses in a survey herein and scores obtained from the assessment activities confirmed the benefits of the MAPS and its implementation model. Yet, the students voiced such concerns as the objectivity of peer-assessment and the difficulty of providing constructive feedback, and the correlation analysis indicated a lack of consistency between teacher-grading and student-grading.

[1]  S. Davis Observations in classrooms using a network of handheld devices , 2003, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[2]  Shyan-Ming Yuan,et al.  Developing science activities through a networked peer assessment system , 2002, Comput. Educ..

[3]  Graham Gibbs How assessment frames student learning , 2006 .

[4]  Aliisa Mylonas,et al.  Developing Procedures for Implementing Peer Assessment in Large Classes Using an Action Research Process , 2002 .

[5]  K. Topping,et al.  Transferable skills for online peer learning , 2004 .

[6]  Helen C. Purchase,et al.  Learning about Interface Design through Peer Assessment , 2000 .

[7]  C. Bryan,et al.  Innovative Assessment in Higher Education , 2006 .

[8]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. , 1999 .

[9]  Lorrie A. Shepard,et al.  The Role of Classroom Assessment in Teaching and Learning. CSE Technical Report. , 2000 .

[10]  P. Miller,et al.  The Effect of Scoring Criteria Specificity on Peer and Self-assessment , 2003 .

[11]  William R. Penuel,et al.  Designing Handheld Software to Support Classroom Assessment: An Analysis of Conditions for Teacher Adoption , 2005 .

[12]  Ole Smørdal,et al.  Personal Digital Assistants in medical education and practice , 2003, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[13]  F. Prins,et al.  Formative peer assessment in a CSCL environment: a case study , 2005 .

[14]  J. Mintzes,et al.  Assessing science understanding : a human constructivist view , 2005 .

[15]  Phil Davies,et al.  Computerized Peer Assessment , 2000 .

[16]  Yao-Ting Sung,et al.  Evaluating Proposals for Experiments: An Application of Web-Based Self-Assessment and Peer-Assessment , 2003 .

[17]  D. Nicol,et al.  Rethinking technology-supported assessment practices in relation to the seven principles of good feedback practice. , 2006 .

[18]  Margaret I. Brown,et al.  Increasing interactivity in lectures using an electronic voting system , 2004, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[19]  Stephen J. H. Yang,et al.  A Framework of Three Learning Activity Levels for Enhancing the Usability and Feasibility of Wireless Learning Environments , 2004 .

[20]  Sue Bloxham *,et al.  Understanding the rules of the game: marking peer assessment as a medium for developing students' conceptions of assessment , 2004 .

[21]  J. Bransford How people learn , 2000 .

[22]  Charles M. Reigeluth,et al.  Instructional-Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory , 1999 .

[23]  K. Topping,et al.  Formative Peer Assessment of Academic Writing Between Postgraduate Students , 2000 .

[24]  M. Wittrock Handbook of research on teaching , 1986 .

[25]  P. Ashworth,et al.  Guilty in whose eyes? University students' perceptions of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and assessment , 1997 .

[26]  D. J. Magin,et al.  A Novel Technique for Comparing the Reliability of Multiple Peer Assessments with that of Single Teacher Assessments of Group Process Work , 2001 .

[27]  Martin Mauve,et al.  Ubiquitous Computing in Education , 2002 .

[28]  K. Topping Peer Assessment Between Students in Colleges and Universities , 1998 .

[29]  N. Falchikov,et al.  Student Peer Assessment in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Peer and Teacher Marks , 2000 .

[30]  P. Orsmond,et al.  The Use of Student Derived Marking Criteria in Peer and Self-assessment , 2000 .

[31]  Eric Zhi-Feng Liu,et al.  Web-based peer assessment: feedback for students with various thinking-styles , 2001, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[32]  James H. Wandersee,et al.  Learning, teaching, and assessment: A human constructivist perspective , 2005 .

[33]  Yao-Ting Sung,et al.  The design and application of a web-based self- and peer-assessment system , 2005, Comput. Educ..