Comparing Peer, Self and Tutor Assessment in a course for
University Teaching staff
Steve Wilson, London Metropolitan University
Paper presented at the Learning Communities and Assessment Cultures Conference
organised by the EARLI Special Interest Group on Assessment and Evaluation, University of
Northumbria, 28-30 August 2002
Abstract
In a University programme concerned with learning and teaching in higher education, one assessment
component on one of the modules is in the form of a group presentation. The presentation is self, peer and tutor
assessed using criteria devised by the presenting group and agreed by the principal module tutor (module
convenor). In written feedback given to the presenting group, participants are required to comment on the match
with the assessment criteria and the learning outcomes for the module (as identified by the presenting group) as
well as providing other more holistic comments. Through an investigation of the last two cohorts of participants,
this research considers the outcomes from using this assessment method and the impact it has had on the
participants’ thinking and practice.
Initially, the study compares the assessments made by the various constituent groups (self, peer and tutor) in
terms of both the formative feedback and the grade recommended. It was found that self-assessment grades are
sometimes noticeably higher than the peer and tutors grades, which themselves demonstrate a greater degree of
convergence. A comparison of the formative comments made by the different constituent groups also explores
what was seen as relevant in determining the overall recommended mark and, especially, how participants make
the connection between the assessment criteria, the use of learning outcomes in the assessment and feedback
process. The prevailing wisdom is that having explicit criteria is good for both students (knowing expectations)
and to staff (clarity and consistency in marking etc.). However, there can be a wide latitude in the interpretation
of such criteria for markers. A key issue is thus ensuring an understanding of agreed criteria before marking
commences.
Through follow-up questions and interviews with participating University staff, views are sought on the impact of
the process on their educational thinking and own practice. A key question is how self and peer assessment
contributes to an understanding of the assumed connectivity between the learning outcomes and the assessment
criteria agreed, and the demands of the assessment itself. Also investigated is how the negotiation and
agreement on such criteria and outcomes assist both the presenting group and the recipients (acting as peer
assessors) in making their judgements.
The study postulates that staff new to teaching, and therefore assessment, in a University context require
opportunities to “try on” assessment methods in order that their significance and potential may be realised. It
also explores the value of direct experience in the use of assessment criteria and of matching assessment with
learning outcomes. Indications are that engagement with the issues within an environment that “matters”, i.e.
one that is linked to their success on the award, provides useful insights for new lecturers, which may be
transferred into their own assessment of students.
Introduction
Much recent literature on assessment in higher education (HE) gives strong support to the
use of both peer and self-assessment (Boud 1995, Brown and Knight 1994, Gibbs 2001,
Brown Bull & Pendlebury 1997, Brown and Glasner 1998, Brown & Dove 1990). For Boud,
self-assessment is a transferable skill and is a principal part of the student learning
experience.
“Students will be expected to practice self evaluation in every area of their lives on graduation and it is
a good exercise in self-development to ensure that their abilities are extended.” (Brown and Knight
1994)
Peer assessment is the assessment of the work of others with equal status and usually has
an element of mutuality. Underpinning a peer-assessment process is giving and receiving
feedback from which continued reflection and perhaps dialogue may continue. Brown, Bull
& Pendlebury (1997) draw a distinction between ‘peer assessment’ and ‘peer marking’, the
later being the process by which someone makes an estimate of another’s work, and also of
‘peer feedback marking’ which involves students deriving criteria, developing a peer
assessment form, providing anonymous feedback and assigning a global mark. In the
Comparing Peer, Self and Tutor Assessment in a course for University Teaching staff
Steve Wilson, London Metropolitan University
1
context of this study, the term “peer-assessment” is more closely allied to Brown et al’s
definition of “peer feedback marking”.
The use of peer and self-assessment carries a number of perceived advantages:
 Students have more ownership of the assessment process (i.e. it is not just being “done”
to them);
 It can involve students in devising and understanding assessment criteria and in making
judgements;
 It encourages formative assessment – learning through feedback;
 It encourages the reflective student (autonomous learner);
 It has validity - it measures what it is supposed to measure;
 It can emphasise the process not just the product;
 It is expected in working situations;
 It encourages intrinsic rather than extrinsic motivation;
 It challenges the role of the tutor as the sole arbiter of assessment.
Toohey (1996) argues that self (and peer) assessment by students is generally trustworthy
provided that the criteria have been made explicit, students have had the opportunity to
practice assessment skills, the rating instruments are simple and a second marker is used to
moderate the assessment. In essence, if a student understands the learning requirement,
the process is managed appropriately with opportunities for giving and receiving feedback,
then it is likely to be a positive and constructive process for all concerned.
The purpose of this study is to involve the students (called “participants” on this programme)
in the assessment process using parallel processes of self and peer-assessment and to
support them in understanding what is involved and involving them in the determination of
the criteria by which their work will be assessed.
Background
The University operates a postgraduate course in learning and teaching for its teaching staff.
For staff with limited experience of teaching in a higher education environment, participation
on the programme may be a condition of their probation. Experienced staff also voluntarily
participate in the programme for professional development purposes, as may other
professionals teaching in a higher education environment. The Postgraduate Certificate,
which is part of a full Masters scheme and is accredited by the Institute for Learning and
Teaching (ILT), contains three modules; one centred on teaching and facilitating learning,
one on assessment, the third focused on curriculum evaluation and development. One of
the programme aims is for participants to experience and examine a variety teaching,
learning and assessment methods.
The module entitled ‘Managing the Assessment Process’ focuses on the role that
assessment plays within the overall learning process by examining assessment purposes
and practices within generic and subject disciplines and evaluating them in terms of
supporting and enhancing the learning experience of students. Of its two assessment
components, one is in the form of a group presentation. This assessment contains a
number of features:
i) The group is required to identify the assessment criteria by which the presentation will
be assessed.
ii) The module has six learning outcomes. The group must identify which of the learning
outcomes are applicable to their presentation.
iii) The 15-minute presentation (with 5 minutes for questions) is tutor, peer and selfassessed using the assessment criteria set by the group and against the identified
learning outcomes.
Comparing Peer, Self and Tutor Assessment in a course for University Teaching staff
Steve Wilson, London Metropolitan University
2
iv) Assessors (tutor, peer and self) recommend an overall mark (percentage) using the
grade descriptors provided in the scheme.
v) Assessors provide written feedback to the presenting group in which comments refer to
the match with the assessment criteria and learning outcomes, as well as providing
general remarks relating to the presentation.
vi) The final percentage is the average of all the recommended marks unless the overall
average is sufficiently different to the average of the tutor marks i.e. falls into a different
grade category. If this is the case, a further moderation by tutors will determine the final
mark. Given that the majority of assessors will be peer participants, this variation occurs
only when there is a significant difference between the tutor and peer averages.
The purposes underpinning what may seem like a fairly complex and elaborate process are
specific. Accepting that “assessment is at the heart of students’ experience” (Brown and
Knight, 1995) and “If you want to change student learning, then change the method of
assessment.” (Brown, Bull & Pendlebury, 1997:7), creating greater student involvement and
ownership of the assessment process is intended to sharpen their awareness of the key
issues, particularly as participants are involved in assessment design themselves. Allied to
this is the importance of learning outcomes and assessment criteria. In recent years, the
use of ‘learning outcomes’ have replaced ‘objectives’ as the means of identifying the learning
that needs to be demonstrated for credit to be awarded. At the same time, if appropriate
judgements are to be made, then the criteria by which this occurs need to be “explicit,
available, open to interrogation and shared” (Brown & Glasner 1999:11). Involving
participants using the mechanisms described above seeks to provide insights in how the
assessment process works (most important on a programme which is preparing them to
manage assessment processes themselves) and also to provide a process that has a
measure of reliability, validity and is transparent.
Organisation of the Presenting Groups
Each of the two cohorts had twenty-five participants, the majority of whom have little (<3
years) teaching experience in an HE context. Presenting groups were self-selecting (group
size varied from 2 to 5, most commonly 4) and were formed around a declaration of interest
in specific topic areas associated with assessment. Participants were encouraged to form
groups, which crossed subject disciplines although this was not a requirement. Guidance to
assist presentation preparation was provided, in particular, in devising appropriate
assessment criteria and the selection of learning outcomes. Presenting groups were
required to submit presentation outlines early in the module as well as producing final drafts
which identified the topic, a brief description, the assessment criteria (with weightings, if
deemed applicable), and the appropriate learning outcomes. The first cohort contained six
groups, which presented over two sessions (one group was unable to present on the
predetermined day). The second cohort had seven groups, which presented over one
session.
Research Methodology
The process for collecting and analysing data in the study was undertaken in two parts:
1. A comparison of the marks and written feedback produced by each assessing group
(tutors, peers, self). Each assessor had anonymously completed a feedback form, which
outlined the project title, assessment criteria and learning outcomes for the presentation.
2. A follow-up questionnaire sent to all participants four months later to determine:
 how the presenting group negotiated and agreed the assessment criteria;
 how appropriate learning outcomes were identified;
 the ease (or otherwise) of undertaking the self-assessment using the assessment
criteria and learning outcomes agreed by the group;
Comparing Peer, Self and Tutor Assessment in a course for University Teaching staff
Steve Wilson, London Metropolitan University
3




the ease (or otherwise) of assessing other groups and using their assessment criteria
and match to the identified learning outcomes;
the ease (or otherwise) of deciding on an appropriate mark for a presentation,
whether their own or others;
the usefulness of the written feedback received from all assessing groups;
the impact that undertaking the process has had on their own thinking and
subsequent practice;
Comparing Peer, Self and Tutor Assessment in a course for University Teaching staff
Steve Wilson, London Metropolitan University
4

Their current thinking on the value of:
- self-assessment
- peer assessment
- the use of assessment criteria, learning outcomes and their relationship to the
assessment process.
Analysis of the Marks awarded
Tables 1 & 2 show the award of marks by each assessing group in each of the two cohorts.
Group
Tutor
marks
Peer
marks
Selfassessments
Averages
(all marks)
1
Average: 58%
No:
2
Min/Max: 55-60
Range:
15
Average: 49%
No:
3
Min/Max: 46-50
Range:
Average: 68%
No:
3
Min/Max: 62-75
Range:
Average: 48%
No:
2
Min/Max: 47-48
Range:
1
Average: 61%
No:
4
Min/Max: 55-66
Range:
11
Average: 72%
No:
2
Min/Max: 72-72
Range:
0
7.3
Average: 61%
No:
18
Min/Max:: 55-80
Range:
25
Average: 59%
No:
3
Min/Max: 58-60
Range:
2
Average: 55%
No:
17
Min/Max: 48-70
Range:
12
Average: 56%
No:
17
Min/Max: 44-64
Range:
20
Average: 68%
No:
4
Min/Max: 65-70
Range:
15
Average: 71%
No:
19
Min/Max: 55-83
Range:
28
18.7
Average: 65%
No:
4
Min/Max: 60-70
Range:
10
Average: 60%
No:
4
Min/Max: 55-65
Range:
10
Average: 54%
No:
4
Min/Max: 47-60
Range:
13
Average: 56%
No:
5
Min/Max: 51-64
Range:
13
Average: 65%
No:
3
Min/Max: 64-66
Range:
2
With peer marks
64%
Percentage
awarded (postmoderation)
64%
56%
53%
57%
62%
55%
52%
64%
64%
71%
71%
2
3
4
5
6
Mean range
9.6
Table 1:Cohort 2000-01
Group
Tutor marks
Peer marks
1
Average: 55%
No:
4
Min/Max: 45-65
Range:
20
Average: 53%
No:
4
Min/Max: 42-58
Range:
16
Average: 62%
No:
4
Min/Max: 57-71
Range:
14
Average: 69%
No:
4
Min/Max: 60-81
Range:
21
Average: 72%
No:
4
Min/Max: 64-85
Range:
21
Average: 63%
No:
4
Min/Max: 60-66
Range:
6
Average: 71%
No:
4
Min/Max: 65-75
Range:
10
15.4
Average: 57%
No:
19
Min/Max: 50-65
Range:
15
Average: 58%
No:
19
Min/Max: 45-66
Range:
21
Average: 59%
No:
19
Min/Max: 38-72
Range:
34
Average: 65%
No:
19
Min/Max: 58-91
Range:
33
Average: 71%
No:
19
Min/Max: 58-85
Range:
25
Average: 64%
No:
19
Min/Max: 50-87
Range:
37
Average: 71%
No:
19
Min/Max: 58-100
Range:
42
29.9
2
3
4
5
6
7
Mean range
Selfassessments
Average: 75%
No:
3
Min/Max: 70-79
Range:
9
Average: 65%
No:
3
Min/Max: 65-65
Range:
0
Average: 85%
No:
4
Min/Max: 78-94
Range:
16
Average: 67%
No:
4
Min/Max: 65-70
Range:
5
Average: 70%
No:
2
Min/Max: 70-70
Range:
0
Average: 61%
No:
4
Min/Max: 57-65
Range:
8
Average: 65%
No:
3
Min/Max: 60-70
Range:
10
6.9
Averages
(all marks)
59%
Percentage
awarded (post
moderation)
59%
57%
57%
63%
63%
66%
66%
71%
71%
64%
64%
71%
71%
Table 2:Cohort 2001-02
Comparing Peer, Self and Tutor Assessment in a course for University Teaching staff
Steve Wilson, London Metropolitan University
5
Tutor averages differ from the overall average mark more noticeably in cohort 1. In this
cohort, tutors more often scored lower than peers and self-assessments (except for one
noticeable exception where the average tutor mark was much higher). At that time, the
results had led to a review amongst tutors as to how they had arrived at their marks and to a
revision for the next cohort. In the second cohort, no average tutor marks much differed
from the overall average mark so none were altered at moderation. However, tutor marks
for cohort 2 display a significantly greater range of marks. This is in some part due to the
addition of two new programme tutors who had not previously undertaken assessment on
the programme.
Differences between tutor and peer assessment is again more evident in the first cohort with
tutors marking lower than peers in all but one case (see table 3).
Tutor, Peer & Self Marks - Cohort 1
100
90
Percentage
80
70
Max
Mean
Min
60
50
40
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Self
Tutor
Self
Peer
Tutor
Peer
Self
Tutor
Self
Peer
Tutor
Self
Peer
Tutor
Self
Peer
Tutor
30
Group 5
Group 6
Table 3
Comparisons in cohort 2 show an equal number of tutor averages higher than peer averages
as the other way round (see table 4). It is interesting that where the average tutor mark has
the greatest difference compared with the average peer mark, it contain s a high tutor score.
The reverse is also the case when the tutor score is low.
Tutor, Peer & Self Marks - Cohort 2
100
90
Percentage
80
70
Max
Mean
Min
60
50
40
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Group 5
Group 6
Self
Tutor
Peer
Peer
Self
Tutor
Peer
Self
Tutor
Self
Peer
Tutor
Self
Peer
Tutor
Self
Peer
Tutor
Self
Peer
Tutor
30
Group 7
Table 4
Comparing Peer, Self and Tutor Assessment in a course for University Teaching staff
Steve Wilson, London Metropolitan University
6
The peer averages may well reflect a regression to the mean that can occur in a larger group
size. However, closer scrutiny of the range of marks demonstrates a significantly increased
range in the recommended marks awarded by peers. It is greater than the average range
for either tutors or in self-assessment. Furthermore, the overall mean range increases in
cohort 2 from 18.7 to 29.9 (see tables 1 & 2). Participants were not asked to justify their
marks at the time as this would have been inappropriate and possible detrimental to a
legitimate peer-assessment process. However, the preparation of cohort 2 included greater
attention to the grade descriptors for the scheme. Although few peer marks fall below the
pass mark (40%), peer-assessors seemed more comfortable in using the full marking range.
It is perhaps understandable that the range of marks from self-assessors is less. Logically,
the number of assessors undertaking self-assessment in any one presentation was only a
small subset of all assessors. However, questionnaire and interview responses also
indicated that the process of self-assessment was less problematic than peer-assessment.
Self-assessors often commented on how they had “run out of time” or not presented points
clearly or explicitly enough. But because considerable time and thought had been invested
in the preparation of presentations, the presenting group already had an “inner feeling” of the
worth of the presentation. It was just a matter of delivering the material and “releasing the
potential”. This may provide an indication why average self-assessment marks were
consistently higher than average tutor marks, and often the average peer mark, particularly
when the tutor or peer marks were in the lower bands (40s & 50s). The presenting group
knew what they wanted to say, whereas others just received what was delivered. Apart from
one group, the difference between the tutor and self-assessment in cohort 2 is significantly
less. Again, additional attention to grade criteria that occurred with this cohort may be a
factor.
As is demonstrated in table 3, comparison of the average peer and self-assessment marks
reveals some unanimity in cohort 1. However, there are noticeable differences in cohort 2
(see table 4) where the self-assessment marks are higher. Responses in questionnaires and
interviews highlighted the challenge that peer assessments had to be undertaken “at short
notice” and using assessment criteria derived by the presenting group. Interpreting them
within the time-pressured context of the presentation was problematic, a comment also
made by tutors. Some presenting groups decided to provide a weighting for each of the
assessment criteria, which proved helpful for some peer assessors. However, it also proved
to be a double-edged sword when criteria given a high weighting were less fulfilled in the
presentation or others weighted lower which were strongly evident and could not be given
any more credit.
Analysis of responses from the questionnaires and interviews
In order to elicit feedback to determine impact on thinking and practice, a questionnaire was
sent to all participants on the two cohorts. The questionnaires were anonymous but where
respondents had given their names, they could be further interviewed if necessary.
Responses were received from 30% of participants and in one third of these further issues
were discussed in short interviews. Analysis of the responses revealed the following:
i)
Negotiating and agreeing assessment criteria
Responses from both cohorts referred to the increased appreciation of the importance of the
role and use of assessment criteria during the assessment. Some responses commented
that deriving criteria was crucial to their project. Initially, it had seemed an unnecessary
chore, but grew in importance both during preparation as well as in determining how the
presentation would be assessed. Identifying priority and weighting was deemed important to
some groups, and less so for others.
Assessment criteria were deemed crucial for assessing presentations objectively and fairly.
Setting one’s own criteria, with guidance and tutor approval, did increase a sense of validity.
Comparing Peer, Self and Tutor Assessment in a course for University Teaching staff
Steve Wilson, London Metropolitan University
7
“With hindsight, this task was very helpful in that it made us realise that we needed to think
through clearly the objectives of our presentation as the assessment criteria would reflect
these objectives.” (Cohort 1 participant)
“…It was also a useful way of ensuring that we focussed on what we were trying to do. I don’t
think we would have done it if we had not had to be specific about the assessment criteria.”
(Cohort 2 participant)
Assuring reliability was more problematic with some participants. Interpreting the
assessment criteria, making judgements using the grade criteria (used throughout the
programme), doing so “on the spot” and to “co-colleagues” were factors identified. However,
reliability was also felt to be assured in many responses through use of the guidance
provided within the module and in the requirement for tutor ratification prior to the group
presentation. This supports arguments made by Toohey (1996) as outlined earlier.
Some responses referred to difficulties experienced in using assessment criteria, particularly
when weightings were employed. They gave an additional specificity, which may help the
presenter(s) and assist with inter-marker reliability; however, they also were felt to be
somewhat confining. However, as is testified below, this can have a beneficial effect on
educational practice.
“In marking, they were useful but perhaps rather limiting. The marks on each criterion did not
necessarily seem to add up to the overall mark which a presentation deserved. I have since
prepared a marking sheet and found that it took a great deal of thought to produce a weighting
of criteria which was appropriate. Even then, the overall mark in a few cases was different to
that which I would have given without marking so carefully against the criteria and their
individual weightings. The process has therefore brought home to me the amount of effort and
thought needed to weight criteria appropriately, which certainly ensured that I was aware of
the pitfalls when preparing mark scheme and I believe that the scheme was much better and
more carefully considered than it would have been had I not had the relevant experience in
MAP.” (Cohort 2 participant)
ii)
Identifying different learning outcomes
Responses indicate that the determination of appropriate learning outcomes was undertaken
in group discussions, making use of tutor and written guidance available. However, debates
in the groups often centred on issues of coverage and sufficiency. Because the learning
outcomes are pre-determined by the module, group discussions often focused, not on
whether they were addressed in the presentation, but whether they were addressed
sufficiently. Consequently, the presenting group omitted some learning outcomes because
they were deemed to only be addressed tangentially. However, evidence also indicates that
presentations were further modified to with the intention of better matching the learning
outcomes. It may be argued that attention to learning outcomes at this juncture had a
beneficial effect on the planning and delivery of the presentation. This is borne out in
questionnaire and interview feedback. Many respondents noted how, in hindsight, it had
helped them to focus on what was key about the module.
“I found this to be valuable in that assessing other groups and our own group in the extent to
which they/we met the learning outcomes provided me with a greater awareness and
understanding of the learning outcomes. In turn this helped our group to focus more on trying
to meet the learning outcomes when doing our group presentation.” (Cohort 1 participant)
Matching the presentation to the learning outcomes did cause some difficulties. For some
participants, learning outcomes were too vague and required greater clarity before they
could be effectively matched. This provides a timely reminder to ensure that learning
outcomes are produced with the intended students in mind rather than other readers e.g.
QAA, programme approval boards etc.
iii) Usefulness of feedback
In conventional tutor-led assessment, feedback, however comprehensive, mostly is in the
hands of one or two people. This tutor, peer and self-assessment process provided in
excess of twenty five sets of feedback. Given that assessors are asked to provide separate
comments which relate to the match with assessment criteria, learning outcomes and other
Comparing Peer, Self and Tutor Assessment in a course for University Teaching staff
Steve Wilson, London Metropolitan University
8
more holistic remarks (as well as giving a recommended mark), each presenting group may
receive over a hundred pieces of feedback. The sheer volume of response is considerably
more than a student might normally expect to receive. Furthermore, comments reflect the
range of recommended marks submitted by the various assessors. Questionnaire and
interview respondents were overwhelmingly struck by the range of feedback received and of
the informative opportunities it provided. Only one participant felt the self-assessment
comments to be of little use. For a few, the discrepancy and apparent contradictions in
some feedback made it difficult to determine what was appropriate. However, for the majority
this variation, combining a mix of summative comment and formative advice, was welcomed.
“I found the feedback from each of the tutors, peers and self-assessments very useful and
informative. Whilst I have been used to getting tutor feedback in assessments I have done
before, this was the first assessment I had undertaken where there was peer and selfassessment feedback as well. It was interesting to compare the feedback from each of the
three groups and there appeared to be a great deal of similarity in the feedback which I felt
increased my confidence in the use of self and peer assessment.” (Cohort 1 participant)
“Overall, the feedback was very useful, and the range of comments interesting. It provided as
much insight into different approaches to the marking process, and different perceptions of the
same work, as it did into the strengths and weaknesses of the presentation itself. I was
particularly interested to note the different approaches taken to the various criteria – from
using them as a checklist, with comments doing no more than ‘ticking the boxes’, through to
being virtually disregarded in the comments, or used more as a touchstone for assessment
than a strict marking guide. (I suspect that the latter is closer to how most of us generally mark
work!) (Cohort 2 participant)
iv) Continuing views on peer and self-assessment
It is evident that peer and self-assessment are two assessment sources that, hitherto, had
been little used by most participants and certainly in the formal assessment of their own
work. Creating an opportunity to “try on” these ideas in an arena “that counts” has, for many,
provided a genuine reflective opportunity for their own understanding and to apply it in their
own teaching. The following participant comments exemplify this:
“In the past I had not really recognised the value of self-assessment and I had thought that
self assessment would be biased resulting in students awarding the maximum marks possible
in their own assessment. However my experience of self-assessment has helped me
appreciate its value”. (Cohort 1 participant)
“There is a lot a value in self-assessment. Initially, it is a sort of introverted experience but
becomes one where you start to see yourself as others might see you. …….Self-assessment
teaches one to be more critical of oneself.” (Cohort 2 participant)
“I have particularly found peer assessment very valuable. I have now implemented peer
assessment (moderated by tutor assessment) in one of the modules I teach on and have
found that peer assessment certainly enhances student learning in module. By having peer
assessment, students seem clearer and more focused on understanding the assessment
criteria in the module. In turn this helps them to try and focus on meeting the assessment
criteria when they themselves are being assessed.” (Cohort 1 participant)
The last of these adds further evidence to the view that modelling practice can influence
understanding and practice in transferable contexts. It provides the opportunity to
experience what is really involved and to appreciate the considerations that need to be taken
into account.
At the same time, some concerns were also expressed. The preparation time required to
induct and prepare participants was noted. Other research (Brown & Knight 1994, Jordan
1999, Roach 1999) also comment on this. However, quantity of time needed should not be
confused with the quality of the experience. If students (participants) are to engage in the
process of peer & self-assessment and to fully appreciate the interrelationship of
assessment criteria and learning outcomes in the assessment process, then adequate time
and preparation is needed for what should be highly transferable learning.
Participant concerns also focused on any potential bias or lack of objectivity that may occur
through a peer or self-assessment process. Similar arguments have been made in other
Comparing Peer, Self and Tutor Assessment in a course for University Teaching staff
Steve Wilson, London Metropolitan University
9
research (Brown. Bull and Pendlebury 1997, Falchikov 1986, 1996, Boud et al 1997). It is
acknowledged that these participant groups were mostly co-colleagues working in a
supportive environment. Questionnaire responses referred to “giving the benefit of the
doubt”. Other commented on being influenced more by the quality of the presentation rather
than by its content. As has previously been mentioned, peer and self-assessment were
overall higher than the tutor averages. However, there were some notable exceptions and
overall differences were not always significant. Students can be highly critical of themselves
and their peers and this was reflected in some quite frank feedback (both positive and
negative) in written feedback.
Drawing some conclusions
Much is postulated about the advantages and disadvantages of using self and peerassessment either instead of or as an adjunct to tutor assessment. For Race (2001:5):

Students are already self-assessing and peer-assessing quite naturally;

Tutor assessment is not sufficiently valid, reliable or transparent;

Peer and self-assessment lets students into the assessment culture;

The process deepens students’ learning experiences;

Students gain much more feedback than would otherwise be possible;

It helps students become autonomous learners.
Outcomes from this study lend support to many of these claims. Participants initially entered
into the assessment process because it was required of them. Experiencing different
assessment mechanisms was an intended part of the programme design. Attention to the
match with the learning outcomes was an intentional feature to highlight their role in
curriculum design and delivery. Requiring groups to devise their own assessment criteria
sought to raise their profile and also to explore their role within the assessment process.
Analysis of results and feedback from questionnaires and interviews supports the view that
these experiences has provided much “food for thought” and is having an impact which
extends past the module and into continued thinking and practice. Many participants refer to
“a useful learning exercise”, “a positive exercise”, “providing valuable insights” etc. More
specific benefits identified include:

becoming more aware of the value of using marking criteria;

the crucial role of assessment criteria, not just in guiding peer and self-assessment,
but also for inter-marker reliability amongst tutors;

harnessing peer feedback to augment that offered by tutors;

the value of receiving feedback from a range of legitimate sources (including more
than one tutor);

an increased understanding of the dynamic interface of assessment criteria and
learning outcomes in the assessment process.
Other more cautionary points were also identified.

The pressure placed on presenting groups to negotiate and agree, not only the
presentation content, but also the other requirements e.g. setting assessment
criteria, identifying appropriate learning outcomes. Evidence suggests that
engagement with them enhances the experiences; however it has to be factored into
the whole process.

The ability for assessors (in particular peer assessors) to be able interpret, at short
notice, the criteria selected by a group and be able to relate it to the presentation.
The range of marks awarded and comments received from participants indicate that
the process of bringing all the necessary considerations together is a complex one
requiring careful preparation.
Comparing Peer, Self and Tutor Assessment in a course for University Teaching staff
Steve Wilson, London Metropolitan University
10

The legitimacy of peer feedback particularly when it contradicts comments received
from other peers, or differs from that of the tutors. For some, the variation is clearly
deemed beneficial. However, for others is serves to confuse or even question the
reliability of the process, particularly when tutor comments may be seen to conflict.

The importance of clearly understanding learning outcomes, particularly when placed
alongside the particular focus of the presentation. Learning outcomes are seen as
means of making visible what needs to be demonstrated for a ‘pass’ to be awarded.
Sometimes, the language used or lack of specificity in their construction is too
inaccessible.

The sheer time required to undertake all that is required.
However, findings to date support the view that engagement with these issues in an
environment that “matters”, i.e. one that is linked to their success on the award, provides
useful insights for new lecturers, which may be transferred into their own assessment of
students. This may best be summarised in the following comments from programme
participants:
“The process was very useful. It made me focus on what I was doing and make sure it was
applicable to the university setting. I would have been less rigorous in my thinking without this.”
(Cohort 2 participant)
“My positive experience of peer assessment and self-assessment in the MAP module has
encouraged me to experiment with the use peer assessment in my own teaching. I have
implemented peer assessment as part of the assessment process in a third year undergraduate
module I teach. Student feedback suggests that students, in the majority, have also found this to
be a positive and valuable experience in enhancing their own learning.” (Cohort 1 participant)
“It has provided an opportunity to “feel” an important learning process before introducing it into
ones teaching.” (Cohort 2 participant)
Bibliography
Biggs, J. (1999) Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham: Open University
Press/SRHE.
Boud, D. (1995) Enhancing Learning through Self- Assessment. London: Kogan Page.
Boud D, Anderson G, Cohen R, and Sampson J (1997) Developing Assessment for Peer Learning,
Research and Development on Higher Education, 20, p. 117-125
Brew A (1999) Towards Autonomous Assessment: Using Self-Assessment and Peer Assessment, in
Brown, S. and Glasner, A. (eds.) (1999) Assessment Matters in Higher Education - Choosing and
Using Diverse Approaches. Buckingham: OUP.
Brown, G., Bull, J. and Pendlebury, M. (1997) Assessing Student Learning in Higher Education.
London: Routledge.
Brown, S and Dove, P (Ed) (1990) Self- and Peer-Assessment SCED
Brown, S and Knight P (1994) Assessing Learners in Higher Education Kogan Page
Brown, S. and Glasner, A. (eds.) (1999) Assessment Matters in Higher Education - Choosing and
Using Diverse Approaches. Buckingham: OUP.
Brown, S., Rust, C. and Gibbs, G. (1994) Strategies for Diversifying Assessment in Higher Education.
Oxford Brookes University: Oxford Centre for Staff Development.
Falchikov, N (1996) Involving Students in Feedback and Assessment in Hounsell D (ed) (1996)
Rethinking Assessment, Kogan Page.
Falchikov, N (1986) Product comparisons and process benefits of collaborative peer group and self
assessments, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education Vol 11 No 1, p146-165
Fry, H., Ketteridge, S. and Marshall, S. (1999) A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education - Enhancing Academic Practice. London: Kogan Page.
Comparing Peer, Self and Tutor Assessment in a course for University Teaching staff
Steve Wilson, London Metropolitan University
11
Gibbs, G. (1992) Assessing more students. Oxford Brookes University: Oxford Centre for Staff
Development.
Gibbs, G. (1999) Using assessment strategically to change the way students learn. In: S. Brown and
A. Glasner (eds.) Assessment matters in higher education-choosing and using diverse approaches.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Heywood (2000), Assessment in Higher Education: Student Learning, Teaching, Programmes and
Institutions, Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London
Jordan, S (1999), Self-Assessment and Peer Assessment, in Brown, S. & Glasner, A. (eds.)
Assessment Matters in Higher Education - Choosing and Using Diverse Approaches, Buckingham:
OUP
Miller A, Imrie, B & Cox K, (1998), Student Assessment in Higher Education, A Handbook for
Assessing Performance, Kogan Page
Race, P (2001) LTSN Assessment Series No 9: A Briefing on Self, Peer and Group Assessment,
LTSN Generic Centre
Roach, P (1999), Using Peer assessment and Self-Assessment for the First Time, in Brown, S. &
Glasner, A. (eds.) Assessment Matters in Higher Education - Choosing and Using Diverse
Approaches, Buckingham: OUP
Comparing Peer, Self and Tutor Assessment in a course for University Teaching staff
Steve Wilson, London Metropolitan University
12