Peer-Marking

Assessment for Learning (AfL) is a collective term for a number of formative assessment activities, which are an ‘important aspect of teaching and learning’ (NFER, 2010). AfL should allow both teachers and pupils to be able to determine the level which the pupil is working at in their learning and what they need to do to achieve their targets (ARG, 2002). I have investigated peer-marking.

My high-ability Year 8 class were set two pieces of homework. I marked the first and the second was peer-assessed in class. The first piece of work was to complete a graph and conclusion for a practical investigation they had carried out in class. I left feedback and asked pupils to act on this feedback. I initially planned to allow pupils some lesson time to act on feedback, however my mentor said that ‘this was a waste of lesson time and should be done at home’. Unfortunately, pupils are less likely to do this activity at home, on top of their normal homework. It was also noted in the 8 Schools Project that ‘having provided written feedback, teachers neglected to provide time for pupils to respond to it and improve their work’. (DfE, 2007). I have found that in Science there is limited time to complete the curriculum and it appears that responding to feedback comes second to continuing with new learning. However, the majority of pupils acted on my feedback, by re-doing incorrect graphs or adding scientific explanations to their conclusion.

Appendix 1 shows a pupil’s initial work, annotated with my comments, which highlight where information is missing from the graph and offers advice about how to draw the graph correctly. Appendix 2 shows the graph after it has been re-done. There are now no faults to be found with the graph, as the pupil has acting on all the feedback given to him/her. This activity ‘enabled the pupil to engage in self-reflection’ (ARG, 2002) and allowed the pupil to understand how to reach the higher levels of achievement.

Appendix 3 shows another example of pupils acting on written feedback from the teacher. The pupil had given a description of her results, but no scientific explanation. My feedback was in the form of a question, which the pupil duly answered. This allows me, as the teacher, to see that the pupil understands the scientific concepts behind the practical investigation and also teaches the pupil that a conclusion needs to have explanation, in addition to description. For similar future work, I would ask pupils to look back at their feedback from their practical write-up to encourage them to learn from their mistakes.

Pupils were then set another piece of work, which was peer-assessed as a class. I discovered a number of problems with this activity. Firstly, pupils concentrated more on how their peer was marking their work and less on the work that was in front of them. With regard to my developing practice, I have learnt that the next time I do extensive peer-assessment I will ensure that a pupil’s own work is at the other side of the classroom and therefore is less of a distraction.

Whilst doing the peer-marking I was verbally reading out the marks for the questions. This worked well for this activity, as it was Year 8 work where each question was worth no more than 2 marks. However, if I was doing this with a GCSE or A-Level class, then I would need to allow pupils to visualise the markscheme; either by putting it on display on the whiteboard or giving pupils a hard copy to look at.

I found that peer-marking was ineffective at generating feedback for pupils. Appendix 4 shows one of the peer-assessed question papers. The pupil marking this paper has merely ticked or crossed the work, but has not corrected any incorrect work or left any feedback for their peer, as instructed. Appendix 5 shows another piece of poorly marked work, where no feedback has been given. In this example, the pupil completing the work has left blank spaces where they did not know the answers, yet the pupil marking it has not filled in the correct answer. The pupils receiving this work back will have very little feedback on their performance and no guidance for improvement.

Appendix 6 and Appendix 7 both show examples of work where an incorrect answer has been marked correct by another pupil. This is more concerning than a lack of feedback, as marking incorrect work correct is further embedding misunderstandings. In Appendix 7 a simple definition has been incorrectly marked by another pupil, which shows that the pupil marking this work was not concentrating on the task at all and probably was looking at his/her own paper to check that it was being marked correctly.

Another problem with peer-assessment is that pupils do not correct one another’s spelling or grammar mistakes. Appendix 8 shows a piece of work with the keyword ‘dissolve’ misspelled. The pupil marking this work has either not noticed this mistake or has chosen to ignore it. Either way, it does not help to instil the importance of good spelling in the pupils. In contrast, Appendix 9 shows a piece of teacher marked work where incorrect spellings were highlighted to the pupil. The pupil has then looked up and written down the correct spelling of the word. The Teachers’ Standards (Department for Education, 2013) state that a teacher should be ‘promoting high standards of literacy’. This objective is not achieved during peer-assessment. Spelling is an area which pupils of all abilities struggle with, especially in Science where there are a lot of new, complex keywords for pupils to learn to spell. I already incorporate spelling tests into my lessons, however the importance of correct spelling in Science could be further developed in my lessons by providing pupils with a Science spelling log book, in which they record Science keywords which they misspell. This would make it easier for pupils to focus on and practice spelling a small number of words each week.

After re-marking the peer-assessed work by my Year 8 class, I compared my mark with the mark given by peers and found that 73% of papers were marked incorrectly by pupils. Of these papers, 79% were marked too generously. Nuthall (2007) also found problems with peer-assessment. He stated that in primary schools ‘80% of student-student feedback is incorrect’. It can be expected, then, that Year 8 pupils will also be giving incorrect feedback, although to a lesser extent. Black and Wiliam (1998) stated argued that ‘self-assessment by pupils is an essential component of formative assessment’. In my opinion, peer- and self-assessment are very similar activities, however I am not convinced that this activity was beneficial to pupils or enhanced their learning. As nearly three-quarters of pupils marked their peer’s work incorrectly, I fail to see how the majority of pupils learnt from this activity.

I gave pupils a questionnaire (Appendix 10) to complete about their opinions regarding teacher assessed work and peer-assessed work. When asked if pupils act on feedback about their work given to them by the teacher 90% of pupils said that they always or sometimes acted on feedback. However when asked if they acted on feedback given to them by their peers only 45% responded in the same way. This clearly shows that feedback from the teacher is more likely to result in pupil development and improvement. When asked if pupils enjoy peer-marking only 52% of pupils said they did. This correlates with the poor quality of

peer-assessment produced by the pupils. As a large proportion of pupils do not enjoy the activity, they are reluctant to engage fully with it, thus resulting in incorrect marking and a lack of feedback provided for their peers.

Only a small number of pupils left comments about their opinions on teacher marking and peer-assessment, but they confirm the results of this AfL trial. The comments included: “I find peer-marking less informative than teacher marking” and “I don’t like peer-marking because I don’t receive feedback”. I believe that pupils feel this way about peer-marking because peer-assessment is ‘more often a device to save the teachers time than a way of engaging pupils in their own learning’ (ARG, 2002) and thus is not carried out effectively.

Although this trial highlighted a number of problems regarding peer-assessment, I do still believe that is a useful method of AfL and should be used. For Key Stage 3 pupils it is probably more effective when used for work where there will not be a wide range of answers or a lot of continuous prose. For example, with younger pupils peer-assessment would work well with simple matching activities and multiple choice questions. I believe that pupils need to be trained to mark effectively. Using acronyms such as WWW (what went well) and EBI (even better if) will help to scaffold the provision of feedback by pupils and constant reminders to correct incorrect answers will help to train pupils to always do this.

When pupils reach Key Stage 4 it is increasingly important for them to be able to mark their own work. Studying examination markschemes is a useful way of helping to prepare pupils for GCSE examinations, by allowing pupils to identify success criteria and understand how marks are allocated. Through doing this, pupils will be able to see what level they are currently working at and what they need to do to achieve their targets.

In conclusion, I believe that peer-assessment can be a useful technique to help pupils develop and improve upon their current level of achievement. However, I feel that the teacher should carefully choose what work should be peer-assessed, dependant on the age and ability of the class. In addition to that, in order to make the activity beneficial, feedback must be given and pupils should be allowed time to act on that feedback.

References

Assessment Reform Group, ARG (2002) Assessment for Learning: 10 principles. Research-based principles to guide classroom practice. Available at http://www.aaia.org.uk/afl/assessment-reform-group/ (Accessed: 12 November 2014)

Black & Wiliam (October 1998) Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment. Available at http://academic.sun.ac.za/mathed/174/formassess.pdf (Accessed: 12 November 2014)

Butler (1988) Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivation: The effects of task-involving and ego-involving evaluation on interest and performance. British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol 58, p1-14

Department for Education (2007). Assessment for Learning: 8 Schools Project Report. Available at http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/7600/1/1f1ab286369a7ee24df53c863a72da97-1.pdf (Accessed: 14 November 2014)

Department for Education (June 2013) Teachers’ Standards. Available athttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/teachers-standards (Accessed: 14 November 2014)

Fuchs, Fuchs, Karns, Hamlett, Katzaroff & Dutka (1997) Effects of Task Focused Goals on Low Achieving Students With and Without Learning Disabilities. Published in the American Educational Research Journal, Vol 34(3) p515-543

Gadsby (2012) Perfect Assessment for Learning. Wales: Independent Thinking Press

Gershon (2009) Assessment for Learning Tools. Available at http://www.slideshare.net/ash77/assessment-for-learning-activities1 (Accessed: 13 November 2014)

Harlen (2006) Teachers’ and Childrens’ Questioning. Published in the ASE Guide to Primary Science, Hatfield: Association for Science Education

Hattie (2009) Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement

National Foundation for Educational Research, NFER (2010) Assessment for learning in primary science: Practices and benefits. Available at http://www.nfer.ac.uk/nfer/publications/aas02/aas02.pdf (Accessed: 12 June 2014)

Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick (2006) Formative Assessment and Self-Regulated Learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Published in Studies in Higher Education (2006), Vol 32(2), p199-218

Nuthall, G (2007). The Hidden Lives of Learners. Wellington: NZCER

OFSTED (1996) Subjects and Standards. Issues for school development arising from OFSTED inspection findings 1994-5. Key stages 3 & 4 and post-16. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office

OFSTED (1998) Secondary Education: AReview of Secondary Schools in England 1993-1997. Available at http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/resources/secondary-education-review-of-secondary-schools-england-1993-97 (Accessed: 13 November 2014)

Sadler (1989) Formative Assessment and the Design of Instructional Systems. Instructional Science, Vol 18, p119-144

Sadler (1998) Formative assessment: revisiting the territory. Assessment in Education, 5(1), p77-84

Tunstall & Gipps (1996) Teacher Feedback to Young Children in Formative Assessment: A Typology. Published in the British Educational Research Journal, Vol 22, No 4, p389

Appendices

Appendix 1:

Appendix 2

:

Appendix 3:

Appendix 4:

Appendix 5:

Appendix 6:

Appendix 7:

Appendix 8:

Appendix 9:

Appendix 10:

Teacher Marking versus Peer-Marking

8X1Tuesday 11th November 2014

‘Assessment for Learning’ is a method of formative assessment. Assessment is required in order for the teacher to gauge a pupil’s level of understanding of a topic or concept. The pupils in Class 8XI at St. Augustine’s RC High School, Lancashire, have undertaken two pieces of work independently, which have both been formatively assessed; the first by the teacher and the second by their peers. This paper serves to investigate the effectiveness of peer-marking and examine the views of pupils regarding receiving feedback from the teacher or their peers.

Name: Form:_________________________ __________________

1. When you receive a piece of work back, do you focus more on the mark or the comments?

Mark Comments

2. If you receive feedback from the teacher about a piece of work (for example: comments or questions), how likely are you to act on that feedback?

I always act on feedback

I sometimes act on feedback

I rarely act on feedback

I never act on feedback

3. How useful do you find receiving comments from the teacher about your work?

Always useful Occasionally useful Rarely useful Never useful

4. Do you enjoy peer-marking?

Yes No

5. Do you find peer-marking useful?

Always useful Occasionally useful Rarely useful Never useful

6. If you receive feedback from your peers about a piece of work, how likely are you to act on this feedback?

I always act on feedback from peers

I sometimes act on feedback from peers

I rarely act on feedback from peers

I never act on feedback from peers

7. Please add any further comments you have regarding your opinions on teacher-marking or peer-marking.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

Thank you very much for taking the time to complete this survey.Your feedback is valued and very much appreciated!

Appendix 11: Literature Review (Formative)

In order for a teacher to gauge a pupil’s level of understanding of a topic or concept, assessment is vital. Historically, assessment of learning has been the key method to check whether a pupil has a good grasp of the subject. In 1998, a paper called ‘Inside the Black Box’ (Black and Wiliam, 1998) was published, which tackled the problems with summative assessment alone and introduced ‘Assessment for Learning’ (AfL), where the purpose of assessment shifted to ‘improving standards and not merely measuring them’ (OFSTED, 1998).

AfL is a method of formative assessment, whereby the teacher uses the information received from the activity as ‘feedback to modify future activities’ (Black and Wiliam, 1998). NFER (2010) stated that AfL is an assessment event which results in a learning experience. There is a stark difference between summative and formative assessment; ‘summative assessment fails to be give a helpful diagnosis’ (Black and Wiliam, 2001), whereas formative assessment ‘is intended to generate feedback’ (Sadler, 1998). For AfL to work, this feedback should be ‘descriptive, not evaluative’ (Tunstall and Gipps, 1996) and should allow the pupil to be able to ‘assess themselves and understand how to improve’ (ARG, 2002).

There are three key elements to AfL and delivering effective feedback:1. Pupils must have an understanding of the desired goal and what they are aiming to achieve2. Feedback should be given to the pupil to ensure that he/she understands clearly about ‘their

present position in relation to that goal’ (Sadler, 1989)3. The teacher should deliver guidance to the pupil to enable them to ‘close the gap between the two’

(Sadler, 1989)

The teacher must deliver ‘specific targets and assessment criteria’ (Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006) to the pupil. This gives the pupil an understanding of how they can achieve that goal. Once a piece of work has been completed, feedback is delivered. ‘Feedback is information about how the student’s present state of learning and performance relates to these goals and standards’ (Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006). Finally, guidance is given to the pupil in order for them to improve their performance. This guidance should be in the form of comments. Teachers should ‘pinpoint learner’s strengths and advise how to develop them and be clear and constructive about any weaknesses and how they might be addressed’ (ARG, 2002). The teacher should then provide an opportunity for the pupil to improve their work using their improvement comments, such as allowing a piece of extended writing to be re-drafted.

When done correctly, AfL will increase the overall attainment of pupils. It has been shown that ‘strengthening the practice of formative assessment produces significant, and often substantial, learning gains.’ (Black and Wiliam, 1998). All pupils benefit from AfL, however AfL ‘helps low attainers more than the rest’ (Black and Wiliam, 1998) and it also ‘helps those with learning disabilities’ (Fuchs et al, 1997). In addition to increasing attainment, AfL may, through giving pupils constructive feedback and opportunity to improve, reduce ‘misbehaviour and truancy’ (Black & Wiliam, 1998). This shows that AfL is one of the ‘most important purposes of assessment (ARG, 2002), as ‘real AfL is about learning to learn’ (Gadsby, 2012: 4).

A key element of AfL is the increased responsibility of the pupil for their own learning. ‘Successful learning occurs when learners have ownership of their learning’ (ARG, 2002) and are ‘actively involved’ (Black and Wiliam, 1998). Although John Hattie (2009) claimed that ‘the most influential factor is the pupil’, the role of the teacher is also crucial in ensuring that AfL actually takes place. AfL is ‘not something that is added to

teaching, but is integral to it’ (Harlen, 2006). The teacher, therefore, should be planning AfL into each lesson, to ensure that continual feedback is being delivered to the pupil. A large proportion of the feedback will come from the teacher, but some ‘will be through their direct involvement in assessing their own work (ARG, 2002). Teaching pupils to self-assess and reflect upon their work, equips them for future and enables them to be ‘life-long learners’ (NFER, 2010).

AfL does not solely focus on written work. Self- and peer-assessment have previously been used as a ‘device to save the teacher’s time, rather than a way of engaging pupils in their own learning’ (ARG, 2002). When used correctly, self- and peer-assessment allow pupils to apply the success criteria to another’s work; looking for positives and improvements. In order to ensure effective feedback is given, pupils should use the ‘feedback sandwich framework’ (Gershon, 2009) or highlight two successes and one area where some improvement is necessary. Self-assessment is now considered, when done correctly, to be ‘an essential component of formative assessment’ (Black and Wiliam, 1998).

In addition to written assessment, questioning is a very effective method of AfL. Unfortunately, if appropriate questioning technique is not used, pupils responses are limited and the teacher ‘fails to register how far pupils have understood the objectives of the work’ (ARG, 2002). In order for AfL to work during questioning pupils could be given more thinking time or could work in pairs or small groups to discuss answers. This gives every pupil the opportunity to consider their answer and pupils can learn from one another.

Formative testing is another method of assessing pupil’s understanding. According to Black and Wiliam (1998), shorter and less frequent tests yield better results than long and frequent tests. Questions should be of good quality and carefully planned. Feedback must be effective; ensuring the pupil knows where they performed well, what their weak areas are and what they need to do to improve.

The giving of marks, levels or grades is counter-intuitive in formative assessment. Ofsted reported that ‘marking reinforces under-achievement’ (OFSTED, 1996) and research by Ruth Butler (1988) has shown that when pupils were given just marks on a test, they made no educational progress. Similarly, when pupils were given marks and comments together, no progress was made. However when pupils were given just comments they scored on average 30% higher. Therefore in formative assessment, to maximise pupil learning and improvement, comment-only marking should be used.

In conclusion, for pupils to reach their potential and continually improve teachers should ensure AfL is an intrinsic part of their lessons. The key elements of AfL revolve around ensuring pupils receive feedback and understand how to reach the desired goal. There are a number of different ways of integrating this into lessons. I, personally, am most interested in investigating the idea of peer-marking.