INTERNATIONALISATION OF PEDAGOGY AND CURRICULUM IN HIGHER EDUCATION CONFERENCE

INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS’ PERCEPTIONS, PRACTICES AND IDENTITIES OF PEER ASSESSMENT IN THE BRITISH UNIVERSITY: A CASE STUDY

Meng Fan

meng.fan@ncl.ac.uk

Newcastle University

17th June 2011

OUTLINE

Introduction

Innovation

Methodology

Initial results

Limitations

1 INTRODUCTION (1)

Definitions of PA (peer assessment) Peer assessment is a process in which

students evaluate performance or achievement of their peers (Topping et al. 2000)

Benefits of PA e.g. enhance learning outcomes/improve

responsibility/promote cognition/develop transferable skills (Li & Steckelberg, 2005; Falchikov, 1986; Topping, 1998)

1 INTRODUCTION (2)

Critiques of PA: e.g. conditions of effectiveness

Research purposes: Developing understanding of tertiary

international students’ perceptions of peer assessment

1 INTRODUCTION (3) The central research question: What are positive and problematic aspects of peer

assessment that international students have with in the British university?

The sub-questions : What are the views and opinions of international

students in relation to their experiences of peer assessment?

What are learner identities of international students in the process of peer assessment?

To what extent do international students’ (new) identities forged through the peer assessment process influence them in their future learning/work?

2 INNOVATION (1)

New requirements to assessment in HE multiplicities of purposes: employability for

lifelong learners, professional development, specialized knowledge creation and global competitiveness

Learning and identity understanding students’ learning as entailing

an engagement with identity has considerable implications for assessment.

2 INNOVATION (2)

Bernstein’s theory (1996) Recognition rules & realization rules

Peer assessment from a social perspective Interpersonal variables in the process of peer assessment have hardly been studied (Van Gennip et al., 2009)

3 METHODOLOGY

Mixed methods: Both qualitative & quantitative approaches

Case study: why is the best choice?

Recognizing the importance of context

SAMPLE (1)

Educational context: a British cosmopolitan university

3 modules across different disciplines:

E-business: 25 postgraduates

Computer sciences: 30 undergraduates

Education: 8 postgraduates

SAMPLE (2)

Nationality South East Asia: China 12, Thailand 2,

South Korea 1, Hong Kong 4, Malaysia 3, India 4, Sri Lanka 2

Middle east: Saudi Arabic 3, Omen 1 Africa: Angola 1, South Africa 1, Nigeria 2 UK: 16 East EU: Russia 1, Kazakhstan 3, Azerbaijan

1, Lithuania 2, Bulgaria 1 South EU: Cyprus 1, Greece 2

DATA COLLECTION

Questionnaire: pre- & post-questionnaires

Observation: observed teaching sessions

Documents: school/university assessment policy; feedback from peers

Interviews: so far 11 attended individual interviews & 4 focus groups

INITIAL INFLUENTIAL FACTORS OF ANALYSIS

Biographic factors: Clear criteria, recognition rules & realization rules,

styles of peer assessment, anonymity

Focus factors: Numbers of home students VS international students,

times of using peer assessment, previous experiences, cultural background

Normal factors: Age, gender, disciplinary differences

INITIAL QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS

Positive aspects—Q1,Q2,Q3,Q4

Negative aspects—Q6,Q7,Q11,Q14,Q15

INITIAL QUALITATIVE DATA ANALYSIS

NVIVO analyzes open answers in question-naires, interviews, observation, & documents.

Early stage codes Unfair mark Feedback Anonymity Cultural background Language Communication Evaluation

4 INITIAL RESULTS (1)

Quantitative result of perceptions of the relationship between PA & cultural background

4 INITIAL RESULTS (2)

Significant findings from qualitative data

Unfair mark

Feedback

Anonymity

Cultural background

5 LIMITATIONS

The context

Weak framework

Shortage of time

Practice research design

Small sample, pilot study,& analyzing quantitative data

REFERNCES Bernstein,B.(1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: theory, research,

critique. London, Taylor and Francis.

Falchikov, N. (1986). Product comparisons and process benefits of collaborative peer group and self assessments. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 11, 146–166.

Li, L. & Steckelberg, A. L. (2005). Impact of technology-mediated peer assessment on student project quality. Paper presented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Orlando, FL.

Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 3, 249–276.

Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I. & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate Students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25, 2, 149–169.

Van Gennip, N., Segers, M. & Tillema, H. (2009). Peer assessment for learning from a social perspective: The influence of interpersonal variables and structural features. Educational Research Review, 4, 41–54.