Every Student a Teacher: Peer Assessment
by Audrey Conant, MEMA Information Skills Chair
When four red fox researchers in Sangerville's elementary school had become "experts" at using an online encyclopedia, we were ready to experiment with peer teaching. We asked one expert to observe another teaching a classmate the ropes, and to take notes on what makes a good computer instructor. We watched all three. The classmate was so eager to learn that he accepted any instructions, including the expert taking over the computer keys. The observor caught that right away, which primed the pump for a series of notes. After two sessions, the four experts discussed the notes. They easily solved the takeover compulsion. Instructors could control that impulse by holding their hands behind their backs. (And it worked!) Their other criticisms were of negative comments, such as "that's not right," "wrong again," and recordings of lots of "don'ts." They quickly decided to switch from criticising mistakes to praising success. What was really hard was how to handle mistakes. Painstakingly they came up with substituting suggestions for criticisms. Eventually model suggestions included "see if you can.....," "if you want to.....then you....." and "I think you should....." They wanted a small chart by the computer to help them remember. The next two sessions the experts were observed explaining instead of taking over, and being supportive instead of being negative. Note: This came about because we educators had failed to explore the class's background in peer teaching. When we realized the students lacked these skills, we hit upon the combined peer teaching/peer assessment activities, which were quite successsful. The students were so proud to be computer teachers that the incentive was high to do a good job. (Another setting might not have produced such positive results.)

To teach is to learn twice
old saying

The point here is that neither peer tutoring nor peer assessment skills may be assumed. (The same is true of self-assessment - note the many first step activities in that chapter.) When students are well-schooled for peer appraisal, the following benefits accrue:

Younger students sharing and assessing each other's research process tend to be blandly positive; they need help in zeroing in on effectivess and comprehension. Also, if pairs are not self-selected by students, beware of fireworks. If chosen by students, beware of mere cheerleading. Classroom teachers, with their extensive experience with and understanding of a group, can provide valuable suggestions here.

Older students seem more comfortable in small supportive response groups and tend to give positive criticism in that setting.

Peer Assessment During the Research Process

Peer assessment is especially useful in monitoring in-process activities. The student who is sharing and being appraised benefits from:
The following activity appears in Maine Sampler IV after a group has created a glossary database for the novel Grace.

Write an "instruction manual" explaining how to create a database. Include graphics and helpful hints. Have your classmates evaluate the database using the criteria below:

Peer Evaluation of Database Manual
 1. Are the directions easy to follow? If not, what sections of the manual need clarification or revision?

2. Are all of the necessary steps in the process included? If not, what is left out?

3. To what extent do the graphics help the reader understand the steps in the process? (Are the graphics appropriate? Do they help clarify information from the written text? What improvements could be made in the graphics?)

Use the information from the evaluations to make revisions in your manual. Then use a desktop publishing program to "publish" your manual. Keep copies near the classroom and library computers. Also ask your librarian to place a copy in the vertical file.

Peer Assessment of Products

Peer assessment of products is an excellent way to assess a sense of audience as well as effectiveness of product. User feedback of a web page, for instance:

Fourth graders at Asa Adams school designed reader response cards in their science hypercard stacks and scripted in a new response card to appear at the end of a stack.

A suggestion from Lucy Calkins of Columbia University: blend peer and self-assessment together. First, have students react to their own projects in writing, paying attention to a few specific aspects. The teacher and librarian and two or more other students go over copies of the project and react with stick-it notes. The researcher then takes these comments and finds ways to incorporate them into his original self-evaluation. Since the researcher also spent time reacting to other students' work, he can include in his final self-evaluation how that influenced his feelings about his own work. This procedure could also be done mid-process, and instead of incorporating peer reactions into a final self-evaluation, the researcher could look for ways to refine the remainder of the project or modify the first part.

Group Assessment Design

One way to communicate the concept that quality is de riguer is to have students create a description of a criterion that exceeds the highest rubric level for that criterion. The highest rubric level is traditionally the standard. Achieving above the standard gives the 'A' student an incentive to go farther than the standard level, which may not be very challenging for her. It may also make the standard level seem not so hard to reach for others, as they can see a challenge beyond. (This is also a Means to 'localize' a state or district assessment so that students feel it is in-house and personalized. Also, the fact that there is a step higher than the standard, created by students, infers that these students have high capabilities and high expectations - another plus.)

The following is a condensation of several class criteria development activities, described by Chris Gustafson in "Lesson from Stacey," Educational Leadership, pp22-23, October 1994. First, the class developed criteria and grading for a project along with the teacher. The teacher used this opportunity to model how to curb responses that were too ambitious for any level. On another project, after choosing among general research topics, same-topic sixth-graders grouped to write their own grading standards. The teacher had already given them a clear and concise description of a 'C' on their project sheet. Their job was to modify the basic 'C' definition as they defined grades above and below the 'C'. They used copies of the resulting assessment instrument as they worked on their projects, and the teacher used a copy when grading. On smaller activities, students sometimes generated criteria and self-graded before the teacher graded. For a biography project, students included five blank sets of criteria. Peers graded four of these, the teacher the fifth. Not only did this result in high quality student work, but teacher grading proved easier.

Peer Evaluation of Collaboration
When peers evaluate their fellow team workers they discover some group dynamics: it's not necessary or even usual for individuals to make like contributions to a team. Wide ranges of talents or a cluster of narrow specialty talents can benefit different kinds of research projects. Peers can see that each student is unique in strengths and weaknesses, and that building a good team requires planning potential contributions.

Also, all students need to perceive that they are learning skills beyond the content of any specific research project. With these objectives in mind, Linda Culp and Virginia Malone divided these skills into four categories:

From "Peer Scores for Group Work." Science Scope, March 1992, pp35-6, 59.

They created a grid format - students down and categories across. Peers estimated the percentage each member of their team had contributed to each category. The team total for each category had to equal 100%. (These percentages could be converted if so desired to a numeric or letter grade by designating a span of percentage to each grade.) This assessment was separate from grading the content of the project.

When teachers and peers agreed on a student's group participation over time, it was hard to argue with the 'realities,' and a strong indication of skills he might choose to strengthen. Collated peer assessments also helped students learn even more about themselves, such as their relationships within a group, and if and how their roles in a group were growing or changing. Peer assessment sheets helped group members to verbalize problems and recommend changes. Students who rejected the fairness or objectivity of the grids were interviewed, usually providing insights to student and educator alike.

One weakness in this procedure might involve the 100% for each category, which seems to assume that some assortment of team effort will fulfill the needs of the project in that category. If the ideas and planning of a research project were strong but the follow-up research and data collection were superficial, student contributions in each would still add up to 100%. Or vice versa.

The strength of the procedure is the visibility of individual student proclivities in a series of collaborative settings, whether due to group dynamics, leadership qualities, or developing skills.

Peer Assessment in Maine Samplers III & IV
A rich assortment of peer support, inspection, and aid is detailed in the following examples. When judiciously administered, educators are able to extend individual attention and personalized checking.

III: Children of the Dustbowl (5); The Moon and I (2) [includes TOOLS]; Morning Girl (5); What Hearts (3) [includes TOOL]; When the Road Ends (1,5).

IV: Ancient Cliff Dwellers of Mesa Verde (13): Indian Winter (1,7); Atlantic Salmon (5); Emmy (9).

October 1997
Maine Educational Media Associaton

Previous Section . . . . SPRINGBOARD's Table of Contents. . . . Next Section
Comments? Send an e-mail