Implementation of a formative assessment model incorporating peer and self‐assessment

This paper reports a study designed to enhance students' ability to implement assessment marking criteria and to develop the role of dialogue in student learning. Pairs or trios of undergraduate biology students were asked to complete a poster on the theme of histology using student/tutor‐constructed marking criteria. The study showed: (1) students can effectively implement a variety of marking criteria after formative discussion with tutors and peers; (2) there is a distinction between students being able to implement marking criteria and being able to transfer that understanding of marking criteria to written comments; and (3) formative assessment models allow discussion to focus on student learning and for feedback to be given within the same or different modules or courses. The study supports previous work which showed peer and self‐assessment are extremely useful in helping students reach their learning goals.

[1]  D. Sluijsmans,et al.  The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review , 1999 .

[2]  J. Balla,et al.  Assessment of Student Performance: a framework for improving practice , 1994 .

[3]  M. James,et al.  Assessment and Learning: differences and relationships between formative and summative assessment , 1997 .

[4]  D. Sadler.  Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems , 1989 .

[5]  Chris Rust,et al.  The Student Experience of Criterion-Referenced Assessment (Through the Introduction of a Common Criteria Assessment Grid) , 2001 .

[6]  P. Orsmond,et al.  The Importance of Marking Criteria in the Use of Peer Assessment , 1996 .

[7]  P. Black,et al.  Meanings and Consequences: a basis for distinguishing formative and summative functions of assessment? , 1996 .

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

[9]  Beverley Bell,et al.  A Model of Formative Assessment , 2001 .

[10]  Hugh Somervell,et al.  Issues in Assessment, Enterprise and Higher Education: the case for self‐peer and collaborative assessment , 1993 .

[11]  Stephen Merry,et al.  A Study in Self‐assessment: tutor and students’ perceptions of performance criteria , 1997 .

[12]  J. Biggs.  Assessment and Classroom Learning: a role for summative assessment? , 1998 .

[13]  T. Postelnicu,et al.  Sokal, R. R., and I. J. Rohlf: Biometry. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco 1969, XXI + 776 S., 89 Abb., 56 Tab., Preis 126/— , 1970 .

[14]  Kathryn Ecclestone,et al.  Empowerng or Ensnaring?: The Implications of Outcome‐based Assessment in Higher Education , 1999 .

[15]  Mantz Yorke,et al.  Mark Distributions and Marking Practices in UK Higher Education , 2000 .

[16]  Bronwen Cowie,et al.  A Model of Formative Assessment in Science Education , 1999 .

[17]  Alan Skelton,et al.  Getting the Message Across: The problem of communicating assessment feedback , 2001 .

[18]  Arkalgud Ramaprasad,et al.  On the definition of feedback , 1983 .

[19]  N. Cooper,et al.  Facilitating Learning from Formative Feedback in Level 3 Assessment , 2000 .

[20]  P. Black,et al.  Assessment and Classroom Learning , 1998 .

[21]  D. Sadler,et al.  Formative Assessment: revisiting the territory , 1998 .

[22]  S. Fallows,et al.  Multiple Approaches to Assessment: Reflections on use of tutor, peer and self-assessment , 2001 .

[23]  Stephen Merry,et al.  The Use of Exemplars and Formative Feedback when Using Student Derived Marking Criteria in Peer and Self-assessment , 2002 .