1

THE STUDENT EXPERIENCE OF PEER- AND SELF ASSESSMENT

AS A SOCIAL RELATION

Ray Meldrum

UNITEC Applied Technology Institute

Private Bag 90025

Auckland

New Zealand

Phone 64-9-8154321 / 8482

Fax 64-9-8152907

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

The literature on assessment is largely preoccupied with technique and efficiency of assessment by teachers. This paper focuses instead on peer- and self-assessment, and it considers assessment as a social encounter rather than as a set of tools. The research is organised as a case study that involved classroom observations and interviews with twelve students taking a first year paper in a bachelor degree. While many of the students felt empowered through the assessment process, they also told stories about oppression and raised serious issues about trust. The evidence supports Shor’s (1996) argument that ‘power is a learning problem and learning is a power problem’.

INTRODUCTION

The literature

Ramsden (1992) argues that ‘the assessment of students is a serious and often tragic enterprise’ (p.181). He explains that ‘assessment methods that are perceived to test the ability to reproduce accurately large quantities of information presented in class, or to manipulate procedures unthinkingly, tell students that our fine aims for conceptual understanding are but a veneer on the solid material of recalling facts’ (p.72). Indeed, Ramsden begins his book with a quotation from Rowntree (1987): ‘If we wish to know the truth about an educational system, we must look no further than into its assessment procedures’ (p.1).

Rowntree (1987) notes that ‘despite abundant new activity in the field of assessment (since the book was first published in 1977), there are no new fundamental issues involved’ (p.x). He goes on to explain that for the most part, the literature takes for granted the present nature of assessment and seeks improvement through increasing its efficiency, and it addresses itself chiefly to the question “how?” rather than the question “why?” Instead of asking ‘how shall we assess them?’ Rowntree’s title asks ‘How shall we know them?’ Clearly, then, Rowntree’s ‘how?’ question is not about the mechanics of assessment but is rather about knowledge within a social relation.

Broadfoot (1996) also observes that by far the greatest volume of assessment literature is concerned with assessment techniques, and she suggests that ‘… the focus … is overwhelmingly on reviewing current practice and on working out how it may be changed to become more efficient and thus, ostensibly, more just’ (p.14). She argues that ‘… if only efficiency … is questioned - and not their purposes and effects - the debate, such as it is, will continue to centre on means rather than ends’ (p.14).

Case study

The interest in this paper is both means and ends. The investigation is organised as a case study of twelve students taking one first year course in a bachelor degree programme for budding social practitioners. This was the first course in which the students experienced summative peer- and self-assessment.

There were 56 students in the class and 29 volunteered for the study. Twelve were selected on the basis of diversity in relation to six factors: age, gender, cultural background, previous educational achievement, previous employment, and community group participation. Seven were female and five male, and the ages ranged from 25 to 52. The students named their ethnic identities as: New Zealand European (4); Maori (2); Maori/Pakeha (1); Cook Islands Maori/New Zealand European (1); Dutch New Zealander (1); Fijian Indian (1); Samoan/German (1); Somalian (1).

The twelve students are Awhina, Chuckie, Hartley, Jason, Kate, Lata, Lucy, Mary, Steph, Steven, Tony and Yolanda. Their names have been changed and they have been detached from any detail that might enable recognition. They were interviewed before the course began, and again towards or at the end. Classroom observations were also included in the data gathering.

Freire and Shor

Just as the literature on assessment seems light on social relations, so too do writers whose interest is relations of power, liberatory pedagogies and reinvention give little regard to assessment. For example, Paulo Freire and Ira Shor offer exciting possibilities for curriculum renewal but have little to say about assessment that is explicit and helpful. It is possible, nonetheless, to extrapolate from these two writers a case for assessment to be authentic, disciplined and ethical; to recognise that all aspects of reality are in motion and acknowledge that nothing can ever be known absolutely; to be embedded within learning, involve problem-posing and combine reflection and action; to promote meta-awareness; to be based on and foster mutual trust; to be teacher led but also collaborative and dialogical; to be formative; to recognise the different backgrounds of students; and to uphold humanisation as the standard to be achieved and to be a humanising process. It is also possible to argue that peer- and self-assessment are useful tools for empowering the student to become ‘the subject and maker of history and not simply passive, disconnected object’ (Freire, 1998, p.55).

The paper now proceeds to introduce the course and the experiences of the twelve students, and to interpret their explanations in relation to the writings of Freire and Shor.

THE CONTEXT

The course

Before the course began, the students were provided with various materials to read. The course introduction stated:

This course offers a framework for competent practice and introduces basic theoretical perspectives in social work, counselling and community work, and it focuses on practical applications of these ideas. The emphasis is on integration of theory, practice and experience, and students’ active involvement is expected throughout the course. Attendance is compulsory and students are invited to actively participate in discussions.

Praxis and dialogue are major themes here: theory and practice are integrated in the content of the course, and the learning process combines action and shared reflection. As well as focusing on the professional development of the social practitioner, there is an accent on the becoming of the person through integrating the students’ own experiences into the content of the learning.

Each student was asked to negotiate a learning contract in which the prescribed learning outcomes of the course were to be tailored to suit individual interests and needs. Two pieces of work were to be submitted: one during the course and the other at the end. These could be a learning journal or ‘some unique creative way of covering learning outcomes relevant to your learning style, interests and motivation’. Each assignment was to be submitted with a self-assessment, and an assessment by a peer could be included. The teacher was also to assess the work. Each assessment was to be descriptive and would also include a percentage mark.

A formula was provided for calculating the final course grade. Each assignment was worth 50% of the final grade. The mark for each assignment was to be calculated as EITHER 25% self-assessment plus 75% teacher-assessment OR 20% self-assessment plus 20% peer-assessment plus 60% teacher assessment. While the learning outcomes were clearly defined, the meaning and value of percentage marks was not explained.

Nonetheless, this appeared to be a course led by a problem-posing teacher who sought to diversify subject matter through including the students’ own language and experience as the basis for developing critical understanding of their own interests and of existing knowledge of social practice.

The self-assessment was to involve praxis in that the students were asked to reflect on the actions they had undertaken in the production of their work; it recognised their being was in motion and invited them to make a formative assessment of what comes next; and it was authentic in the way it liberated the student to see her/himself as a subject of change rather than as an object of examination. Students were being supported to develop meta-awareness based on a dialectical approach to working through contradictions in society and in their own learning and achievements.

Classroom observations

One day one, Karen, the course lecturer, introduced the content and learning process of the course. There was an emphasis on group work. This suited the students as early in the year they had organised themselves into study groups to provide mutual support. These groups networked through the whole first year programme rather than individual courses, and group membership could change at the students’ discretion.

Karen emphasised self-assessment right from the start: ‘self-evaluation is important in supervision and learning’. During the class discussion on assessment, the students’ questions indicated there was considerable anxiety. Many seemed overwhelmed by the flexibility that was available. On day two there was a discussion about self-assessment and one student exclaimed ‘I don’t know what I don’t know!’ Karen responded that ‘our thoughts always colour our experiences’ and this was discussed further. She also explained that the self-assessment offered an opportunity to see what the assignment lacked and to then provide this in the self-assessment.

The course proceeded as planned until mid-way through the semester when a major incident occurred. One afternoon, a page of seriously sexist jokes was being passed around the class. One of the women, Glynnis, suddenly stood waving the paper and screaming ‘whose is this?’ A number of male students were accused as the line of readers was traced back to the source. The male originator, Giles, said it was ‘only a joke’ and disclaimed any serious intent. A series of outbursts by various students followed, with most supporting either Glynnis or Giles. On both sides there was indignation and anger. A third group then emerged: many students were incredulous at the polarisation that was rapidly developing.

Over the following two days there was intensive discussion in and out of class about the incident, with complaints and counter-complaints being made. Karen endeavoured to turn the incident into a learning experience, but with limited success. Indeed, the incident was a wound that never healed. Glynnis and her core supporters refused to move on and Giles was dauntless. The whole class suffered a resulting tension for the remainder of the course. Nonetheless, in the institutional evaluations undertaken at the end of the semester, nearly all students rated both the course and lecturer exceptionally highly.

EMPOWERMENT AND BECOMING

One of the students said in his first interview with me that he thought some students would take to peer- and self-assessment like ‘fish to water’. In the event, the twelve students fell into three groups: five were indeed natural swimmers, three moved with the tide but still needed to work on their strokes, and four were floundering. In the following discussion, Chuckie belongs to the first group, Tony and Awhina to the second, and Kate to the third.

Chuckie

In his first interview, Chuckie said he could see the possibility that through peer- and self-assessment, students would communicate and help each other, and that because ‘they would be working together’, this ‘may create a sort of binding’. He thereby saw in these forms of assessment a potentially humanising process that involves praxis, dialogue and trust. He also foresaw an opportunity to ‘take responsibility’ rather than passively ‘look up to the teacher and listen’.

In the event Chuckie’s expectations were met by the course. In the second interview he said he felt empowered by Karen who provided a structure for his learning and enabled him to ‘expand’ and speak his mind. He said that through sharing his experiences and knowledge with others, he gained strength to look at himself and his work, and to identify his achievements and ‘feel your self-worth’. He saw this as formative in that the confidence and self-esteem he achieved would enable him and others in his group ‘to deal with a situation, to understand and respect who we are’. Chuckie constantly switched between ‘I’ and ‘we’: he recognised he was empowered by other students and that they were reciprocally empowered by him. In his study group, therefore, meta-awareness and unity were based on trust, problem-sharing, and collaborative reflection and action.

Chuckie also told me that one day he ‘politely’ approached Glynnis regarding the on-going ‘roasting’ of Giles: she ‘looked me straight in the face’ and said ‘look, if I want to speak, I speak to someone with a brain’. He said ‘I gave Glynnis something’ but ‘I felt she took something from me’. He went on to add that ‘when she said “you’re not worth speaking to on this level”, I actually looked at myself and then I thought about it and I went “no”.’ As Freire (1998) notes: ‘The subjectivity with which I dialectically relate to the world … is not restricted to a process of only observing what happens but it also involves my intervention as a subject of what happens in the world’ (Freire, 1998, pp.72-73).

Tony

In contrast, Tony’s story was more individualistic than Chuckie’s.

In his first interview, Tony lamented that programme assessments had been more about the head than the heart. He was looking forward with considerable excitement to peer- and self-assessment on the coming course: ‘let’s open a few doors’ he said so that ‘people can say their stuff’. Tony’s perception of a tension between the head and the heart is interesting because peer- and self-assessment is not about how students feel but rather what they think. Conscientisation is indeed a disciplined cognitive process that is based on dialogue that is in turn predicated on positive feelings of mutual trust, but these feelings are part of a whole rather than sufficient on their own. Indeed, meta-awareness is a cognitive state that is both based on and leads to trust.