44

Peer Assessment in the Classroom

Jette G. Hansen Edwards
Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

Introduction

Traditionally, teacher assessment has been the main form of assessment of

students’ language skills in second language (L2) classrooms; but, due to the
increasing interest in interactive, cooperative, and self-directed learning, the use
of alternative methods such as peer assessment has become more widespread.
Peer assessment can be defined as “an arrangement of peers to consider the level,
value, worth, quality, or successfulness of the products or outcomes of learning
of others of similar status” (Topping, Smith, Swanson, & Elliot, 2000, p. 150). Peer
assessment can encompass both oral and written language skills and can be done
individually, in pairs, or in groups. It can be conducted on a variety of tasks such
as writing assignments, portfolios, projects, oral presentations, quizzes, and tests.
The outcome of a peer assessment task can be feedback, grading, or both. In the
L2 classroom, it has been conducted most commonly on writing skills, in which
capacity it is often referred to as peer response, peer editing, or peer review.
However, as shown in first language (L1) classrooms and, on a smaller scale, in
L2 classrooms, peer assessment is also a useful tool for the assessment of oral
language skills.
This chapter focuses on the use of peer assessment in rating both oral and
written language skills. It begins by providing an overview of peer assessment,
specifically addressing how this phenomenon has been theorized and what its
benefits and drawbacks are. The use of peer assessment in language classrooms
will then be discussed, with a focus on modes (face to face, online, paper and
pencil), together with various forms of the assessment task itself (rubrics, open-
ended questions, etc.). This examination will be followed by a discussion of the
reliability and validity of peer assessment. The chapter will conclude with sug-
gestions for successful peer assessment, particularly focusing on training for it.

The Companion to Language Assessment, First Edition. Edited by Antony John Kunnan.
© 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2014 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118411360.wbcla002
2 Assessment and Learning

An Overview of Peer Assessment

Theoretical Support for Peer Assessment

A number of theoretical frameworks have been cited in support of peer assess-
ment. These include theories of language development and acquisition such as
Vygotsky’s (1978) scaffolding and zone of proximal development (ZPD) theory;
interactionist theories of second language acquisition (SLA) (Long, 1985); and
theories of writing (e.g., a process approach to writing) and assessment (e.g.,
alternative assessment). Each of these will be briefly outlined below.
Because peer assessment typically involves peer interaction and feedback
regardless of whether it is done face to face (in groups or pairs) or through written
communication (online or on paper), social constructivist theories such as Vygot-
sky’s (1978) zone of proximal development and interactionist theories of second
language acquisition such as Long’s (1985) are often cited to support its use.
Among these theoretical perspectives, Vygotsky’s has been the one most often
cited; this is due to the belief that the collaborative nature of peer assessment
activities provides opportunities for learners to be “scaffolded” in learning through
interaction with more knowledgeable peers. Vygotsky (1978, p. 86) defines the
ZPD as “the distance between the actual developmental level determined by
independent problem solving and the higher level of potential development deter-
mined through problem solving in collaboration with more capable peers or
seniors.” Peer assessment activities are seen to provide opportunities for learners
to give each other extended knowledge—whether content knowledge, rhetorical
knowledge, or linguistic knowledge—and hence to create opportunities for scaf-
folding to take place. A number of studies (e.g., Donato, 1994; Villamil & Guerrero,
1998) support this framework, as they have found that collective scaffolding does
take place during group work and that peers take turns guiding and supporting
each other (or one another) both in terms of linguistic knowledge and in terms of
content knowledge.
Interactionist theories of SLA (Long, 1985) have also been cited to support peer
assessment (henceforth PA). Like Vygotsky, the proponents of interactionism focus
on the communicative nature of group work and on the opportunities of peers to
negotiate meaning, which is believed to foster comprehension and therefore acqui-
sition. A number of PA studies focusing on the interaction that takes place during
PA activities have found that students are able to negotiate meaning, to ask for
clarification, to give suggestions, and overall to practice a wide range of language
skills, all of which are hypothesized to support SLA (Mendonça & Johnson, 1994;
DiGiovanni & Nagaswami, 2001).
In L2 writing classrooms, PA (also known as peer response, peer review, or peer
feedback) is viewed as an integral component of the process approach to writing
(Elbow, 1973). The process approach to writing instruction, which emerged in the
1960s and 1970s in L1 writing, focuses on the process of writing rather than on
the end product; it regards writing as a recursive, dynamic activity that involves
several stages, including multiple drafting. PA is an important component of
the drafting process as students are encouraged to give and receive multiple
types of feedback (teacher, peer, or self) at various stages of the writing process.
 Peer Assessment in the Classroom 3

Proponents of the use of peer feedback argue that it helps writers build audience
awareness and make reading–writing connections; it also enables them to receive
a different—and larger—amount of feedback than if it only came from the teacher
(Leki, 1990; Mangelsdorf & Schlumberger, 1992).
Finally, PA receives support from the change to an “assessment culture” that
aims at “assessing the acquisition of higher order thinking processes and
competencies instead of factual knowledge and low-level cognitive skills”
(Lindblom-Ylänne, Pihlajamäki, & Kotkas, 2006, p. 51). As a result of this change,
alternative assessment practices such as portfolio assessment and self-assessment
are more commonly used in language classrooms. PA is one of the most commonly
used means of alternative assessment and has gained popularity in language
classrooms on account of its focus on authentic language tasks and communica-
tion, as well as thanks to the opportunities it provides for learner involvement in
the development of assessment criteria. PA is often used as a kind of formative
assessment that “aims to improve learning while it is happening” (Topping, 1998,
p. 249), in contrast to summative assessments, which aim to assess the learning
outcomes of a particular task. For this reason PA is considered a “learning tool”
and, as Lindblom-Ylänne and colleagues state, “it is claimed that it is beneficial
for students’ learning to be involved in giving and receiving feedback because it
enhances the development of skills required for proficiency” (Lindblom-Ylänne
et al., 2006, p. 52).
Yet, as Topping (1998, p. 254) notes, despite all of this theoretical support,
“establishing a single overarching theory or model of the process seems likely
to be difficult” because of the “many different types” of PA and the great vari-
ation in how the expression is used. Research findings may also be conflicting
due to the great variation in foci, tasks, and modes of PA employed in various
studies. Nonetheless, a number of consistent findings can result from the
research; these findings form the basis of the discussion in the remainder of this
chapter.

Benefits and Drawbacks of Using Peer Assessment

A number of benefits and weaknesses of using PA have been identified by research-
ers, teachers, and peers themselves (see Topping, 1998; Liu & Hansen, 2002; Peng,
2009). These benefits and weaknesses are presented in Table 44.1 below. They
cover a variety of domains, such as meta-cognition and cognition, time, affect,
feedback, social interaction, and linguistic development. Each of these domains
will be discussed below. Suggestions for fostering the benefits and minimizing the
drawbacks will be made in the final section of this chapter.
As Table 44.1 indicates, there are many benefits to using PA. It encourages
reflexive learning and fosters a deeper understanding of the nature of writing
and of oral presentation, depending on the foci of the language task, especially
if students themselves create the assessment criteria. Creating their own assess-
ment criteria can also help them understand what high quality work means, as
it fosters higher order thinking processes when they review, reflect upon, and
comment on their peers’ work. PA may also help learners develop autonomy
4 Assessment and Learning

and independent problem-solving skills. More time on the task, which PA fosters,
can encourage deeper learning. Socially PA can encourage responsibility as well
as learner independence (or autonomy) and active participation in one’s own
learning processes. It creates opportunities for students to develop negotiation
and collaboration skills, along with an awareness of their audience. One draw-
back is that students may not always be on task or participate actively in the PA
process, and therefore they may need to be monitored during the assessment
activity. In terms of timing, the use of PA takes class time, both for creating
grading rubrics and for training students to use the rubrics and to give feedback;
however, if used in place of teacher assessment, PA can save time for the teacher.
Sufficient time should be allotted for the task in order for students to perform
the assessment effectively. Affectively there are both drawbacks and benefits. A
few benefits are the following: PA can motivate students as it empowers them
through the assessment process; it enables them to take ownership of both learn-
ing and assessment; and in their own texts (oral or written), they, as students,
are likely to be more willing to reject other students’ comments instead of taking
them onboard unquestioningly, as often happens with feedback coming from
the teacher. However, students may feel unwilling and unable to assess their
peers critically, especially if these peers are friends. Cultural issues also some-
times affect students’ willingness to engage in PA activities: thus students may
perceive that the teacher is the authority and therefore the one to assess
and to give feedback; or they may feel that they do not have enough content,
rhetorical, or linguistic knowledge to assess their peers or to provide feedback
for them.
In terms of the feedback itself, as has already been pointed out, some of the
many benefits of PA are that students may receive a greater quantity of it than
through teacher assessment alone; and, depending on the mode of PA, this feed-
back could come faster, too. PA also triangulates self-feedback and teacher
feedback, if those are also used on the same task; if similar feedback is given, this
may help reinforce the comments. If different feedback is given, then the learner
may receive a greater variety of feedback. However, students may not be as
willing to accept their peers’ feedback as accurate; in that case they would hesitate
to adopt it. As noted previously, students may feel that they do not have the lin-
guistic skills to provide specific feedback. They may, on the whole, prefer teacher
feedback to peer feedback.
Socially PA can help students improve their collaboration as well as their
negotiation skills and increase their audience awareness. It can promote active
learner roles, although the teacher has to ensure that students are on task during
the activity. Finally, it can foster language development, as it aids learners to
improve their linguistic self-assessment abilities and it gives them more oppor-
tunities for language use, both quantitatively and qualitatively, and for negotia-
tion of meaning.
In sum, there are many advantages to using PA as an alternative assessment
method. As with any task, there are also drawbacks; however, these can be mini-
mized through careful planning, as well as by training students to do PA—as will
be discussed in the final section of this chapter.
Table 44.1 Benefits and drawbacks of peer assessment

Areas Potential benefits Potential drawbacks

Metacognitive/ • Reflexive
Cognitive • More time on the task
• More time on thinking,
reviewing, summarizing
• Greater understanding of what
high quality work is
• Higher order thinking processes
• Greater understanding of the
nature of writing
• Greater understanding of the
nature and process of
assessment
• Audience awareness
• Development of autonomy
• Development of problem-
solving skills
Time • Saves teacher’s commenting • Takes too much class time
time • Does not leave enough
time to read/watch texts
and respond
• Requires time for training
students
Affect • Increases motivation • There can be unwillingness
• Develops student’s ownership to assess peers, especially
of the assessment process if friends
• Makes it easier for the student • It may be culturally
to reject/interact with feedback inappropriate to criticize
comments peers
• Students may not have
enough confidence in their
own language skills to give
feedback
• The teacher may be
perceived to be the one
responsible for giving
feedback (the teacher is the
authority, not one’s peers)
Feedback • Greater quantity of feedback • Peer assessment may not
• Faster feedback be accepted as accurate,
• Possibly more specific feedback reliable, and professional
• Triangulation of ratings/ • One may hesitate to adopt
feedback if self- and/or teacher feedback from one’s peer
assessment is also used • It may be difficult to give
specific feedback
• Students may question the
accuracy of grading as well
as linguistic, rhetorical, and
content feedback coming
from their peers

(Continued)
6 Assessment and Learning

Table 44.1 (Continued)

Areas Potential benefits Potential drawbacks

• There may be a preference

for feedback coming from
the teacher
Social • Increased negotiation skills • Students may not always
interaction • Responsibility for one’s own be on task during the PA
learning activity or actively
• Independence from teacher involved in it (they may be
• Audience awareness chatting about something
• Collaboration skills else, checking their phones,
• Active learner roles etc.)
Linguistic • Development of verbal • Student may not have
development communication skills linguistic knowledge to
• More opportunities for L2 use comment on grammar, etc.
• Language development via • Student may not know
linguistic assessment skill how to express feedback
development linguistically

Peer Assessment in the Language Classroom

There is a great deal of variation in how PA has been used in language classrooms.
PA can be used for feedback only, for grading, or for both. It is often employed to
assess written language skills but can also be used to assess oral language skills.
Various means of assessment, from rubrics to open-ended questionnaires, can be
employed for feedback, for grading, or for both. PA can be conducted in class,
either individually or in face-to-face pairs or groups; or it can be conducted online,
during or after class time. It may involve one or more modes of feedback or
grading. A discussion of key issues related to the use of peer assessment in the
classroom is given below.

Modes of Peer Assessment

Peer assessment can be conducted face to face, through oral interaction in pairs
or groups; through individual written assessment, either by using paper and
pencil or the computer; or through computer-mediated communication (CMC)
modes for commenting and discussion. CMC is the use of computer networks to
provide opportunities for students to interact either in a delayed time frame (i.e.,
in an asynchronous communication)—via listservs, e-mails, bulletin boards, blogs,
and software programs such as CommonSpace—or in a real-time discussion (i.e.,
in a synchronous communication)—via chatrooms, instant messaging, MOOs
(multi-user domains object-oriented), and computer programs such as Daedalus
Interchange. Any of these modes may be mixed as well; for example, there may
be use of face-to-face discussion after individual written assessment, or face-to-
face discussion after asynchronous CMC. Table 44.2 presents some of the benefits
and drawbacks of the various modes of PA on the basis of a number of studies
(see Liu & Hansen, 2002; Liu and Sadler, 2003; Wen & Tsai, 2006).
 Peer Assessment in the Classroom 7

Table 44.2 Benefits and drawbacks of various modes of peer assessment

Format Face to face Pen to paper Asynchronous Synchronous

verbal written CMC CMC

Timing +Instant –Too little class +More time to +Instant

feedback time to read and read and reflect feedback
respond outside class –Enough time?
–Delayed
feedback
Social +Active +Active
interaction participation participation
+CMC may
increase
collaboration
Affect –Uncomfortable +Computer- +Computer-
giving criticism based mode based mode
face to face more motivating more motivating
+Less anxiety as +Less anxiety as
not face to face not face to face
Feedback +Opportunities +Written record +Written record +Written record
to clarify of feedback of feedback of feedback
meaning –No opportunity –No opportunity +Opportunity to
to clarify to clarify clarify meaning
meaning meaning
Language +Can use L1 to +Supports
clarify meaning interaction
+Verbal skills
developed
+Supports
interaction

One benefit of a written paper and pencil mode is that it allows peers to give
concrete feedback, and in the case of PA of written tasks it allows them to
give feedback on the written language task itself. However, there may not be
any opportunities to clarify the meaning of the feedback or comments unless an
oral discussion follows. If the PA is done in class, students may not feel they
have enough time to read and assess/provide comments on their peers’ papers,
thus ensuring that peers have sufficient time for the PA task is critical to the
success of this activity. Written PA is often followed by an oral discussion, which
addresses the problem of students not being able to clarify or negotiate the
meaning of the comments they receive. Oral discussion also helps to support
oral communication skill development, as well as providing instant feedback and
fostering active participation. One drawback of this method, however, is that
students may feel uncomfortable providing feedback face to face, especially if it
is critical.
8 Assessment and Learning

CMC modes may in part help resolve some of these concerns. Asynchronous
CMC is often used in place of written paper and pencil assessment, as it allows
students to do the assessment outside of class, enabling them to spend more time
on the task. However, this does mean that the feedback is delayed, which may be
seen as a negative feature by some students. Additionally, while asynchronous
CMC does provide a written record of the assessment, it does not allow students to
follow up on the comments in order to negotiate and clarify meaning. For this
reason it may be beneficial to follow the CMC session with an oral face-to-face dis-
cussion of the comments, as the written record can easily be printed out for discus-
sion. Another commonly used CMC mode is the synchronous one, which provides
a forum for real-time feedback and commenting. One benefit of both modes of CMC
is that they are more motivating, since students may enjoy using the computer to
assess and give feedback; both modes may also facilitate PA, as there is less anxiety,
given that the mode is not face to face. A synchronous CMC may also support inter-
action, collaboration, and participation. As with the traditional modes, in order for
synchronous CMC to be successful, students need to be allotted enough class time
for the activity. Whatever mode(s) is (are) chosen for PA, teachers and peers will
need to decide what to assess and how to assess it. This will be discussed below.

Foci and Outcomes of Peer Assessment

One of the most commonly identified benefits of PA is the fact that students are
actively involved in the assessment process; in order to foster this involvement as
well as to promote the metacognitive and cognitive benefits associated with PA,
such as the development of higher order thinking processes and greater under-
standing of the nature and process of assessment, it is important that students are
involved in the discussion and creation of assessment criteria and forms or rubrics.
As Peng (2009) notes, PA requires at least three levels of student involvement. At
the lowest level, students check their peers’ work against a number of criteria set
by the teacher. At the middle level, they are engaged in developing assessment
criteria and in constructing answers to the teacher’s or their own developed cri-
teria. At the highest level, they are empowered to critically discuss and analyze
the assessment criteria and reflect on the experience. The higher-level involvement
will also help ensure that students understand the what, how, and why of assess-
ment. In a peer assessment task, students typically employ a written assessment
guide; this is typically in the form of a rubric or open-ended questionnaire, which
can be tailored to give feedback or grading across any number of criteria. These
can then be used for a written assessment task (a paper and pencil or an online
one), for discussion (synchronously or verbally, face to face), or for both.
Regardless of task or mode, it is important that teachers start the assessment
task with a clear understanding of, and a discussion with students about, the
purpose and the foci of the assessment task. Romeo suggests that teachers start any
assessment activity by answering three questions, which can help them develop
an assessment plan:

1 For whom is the assessment being done (students, parents, administrators,

ourselves)?
 Peer Assessment in the Classroom 9

2 What is the purpose of the assessment (document progress, set a goal, monitor
instruction)?
3 What type of information is needed (oral or written feedback, work samples,
surveys)? (Romeo, 2008, p. 28)

Romeo offers an illustration of how this might be operationalized by proposing a

scenario of a second grade teacher who came up with the following assessment
plan by answering the three questions:

1 The students will edit their stories for capitalization and punctuation. This
will be assessed by using a five-point rubric constructed collaboratively with
the students.
2 The students will use adjectives to describe the characters in their story. This
will be assessed during observations and via the use of a checklist.
3 The students will choose to write for real audiences. This will be assessed
through observations and goal-setting instructions. (Romeo, 2008, p. 29)

In fact a number of key questions need to be addressed, in particular in terms

of whether the PA task is to be used for feedback, grading, or both. Regardless of
the expected outcome of the PA task—grading or feedback or both—it is important
to create clear criteria for it, which can be easily translated into an open-ended
question on a questionnaire-based form, or into a criterion on a rubric. These can
encompass a wide array of elements, from ones that focus on content, rhetoric/
discourse, and language use (including grammar), to ones that focus on delivery
(e.g., eye contact, confidence) in the case of oral tasks. It is important for the ques-
tions and rubric criterion to be specific and clear, particularly if the students do
not have an opportunity to discuss the feedback/grading, either together, as a
group, or with the assessed after the assessment.
The expected outcomes of the PA task will dictate not only the content but also
the form of the written assessment tool, if one is used. It may be easier to use a
rubric if grades are to be assigned and an open-ended questionnaire if feedback
is to be given, or a combination of both if both feedback and grading are the
expected outcome. Another major issue related to the use of peer assessment is
the result of the assessment—specifically, what will the feedback and/or grades
be used for? Central to this issue is the role of the teacher in the assessment
process. A number of scenarios are possible. For example, the assessment can be
100% peer-based, with the grades and feedbacks only given by peers. Alterna-
tively, the teacher can also provide feedback or grades or both, as can the students
themselves, on their own work. If there is more than one source of grades or
feedback, the role of each needs to be clarified. If the peer grades or feedback are
viewed as conditional to the teacher’s in that the teacher is the final arbiter of the
grade and feedback, students may not feel empowered or interested in the PA
activity. However, if the PA is validated as important either by being the only
feedback or grading source or by being triangulated with the teacher’s assess-
ment, the self-assessment, or both—while the grades from each source are perhaps
averaged to create one final score, the feedback is synthesized to create a greater
quantity and quality, and all kinds are being viewed as important—the students
10 Assessment and Learning

may feel more invested in the PA activity, particularly if they have helped the
teacher to create, or they alone created, the assessment criteria. Finally, if feedback
is to be given, there should be clear expectations about what students need to
do with the feedback. If students are expected to make revisions based on the
feedback, they need to know to what extent they are expected to incorporate
the comments (e.g., can they ignore some, and, if so, do they need to write a jus-
tification for ignoring them?).
A few examples of grading rubrics and questionnaires are given below. Tables
44.3, 44.4, and 44.5 show different ways of assessing written language tasks;
Tables 44.3 and 44.4 both focus on a problem solution paper, while Table 44.3 shows
an open-ended questionnaire format and Table 44.4 a rubric format. Table 44.5
shows a slightly simpler rubric than the one presented in Table 44.4. Tables 44.6,
44.7, and 44.8 present various assessment foci for oral language tasks; Tables 44.6
and 44.7 show two rubric formats, the rubric in Table 44.6 being more complex than
the one in Table 44.7; and Table 44.8 shows an open-ended questionnaire format.
Rubrics can easily be used to create an overall score and are therefore useful if
the foci of the task are grading, as the assessment is already numerical. However,
rubrics do not actually provide the assessed with specific feedback or examples
of why s/he received a certain score. For example, if, on using Table 44.4, for
example, an assessor gives the writer a 2 or 3 for “Thorough development of
thesis,” the writer will not necessarily understand why s/he received a mid-range
score rather than a higher one. Even if the assessment is meant to provide a grade
only, with no expectation of feedback or revision, it is important for a student to
understand why s/he earned a specific score. Therefore, if rubrics are used, there
should be sufficient space for the assessor to jot down a few notes and examples
(or to use the actual paper itself, if the task is a written one, or PowerPoint print-
outs, if it is an oral presentation). In terms of using open-ended questionnaires, it
is important to give sufficient space for each question, as students may write only
as many comments as the space provided permits. In other words, students may
judge how much to write on the basis of how much space there is. Open-ended

Table 44.3 Open-ended questionnaire for peer assessment of a problem solution

paper. Adapted from Liu and Hansen, 2002, p. 135. © The University of Michigan
Press. Reprinted with permission
1. What is the thesis statement of the essay? Does it clearly state what this essay is
about? Why or why not?
2. Does the writer give enough background information to the problem in the
introduction? What else could s/he add?
3. What three (or more) solutions does the writer suggest? Are these solutions realistic?
Why or why not? Can you think of any other solutions the writer might add?
4. What examples does the writer use to describe each solution? Should more be
added? Why or why not?
5. How are the body paragraphs arranged? Is this organization pattern effective? Why
or why not?
6. What limitations are given to each solution?
7. How did the writer conclude the essay? Was it effective? Why or why not?
Table 44.4 Rubric for peer assessment of a problem solution paper. Hansen and Liu (2005). © Oxford University Press. Reprinted by
permission

Type Content Organization Grammar/

Wording

Score Thesis statement Solutions Conclusion Organization Transition words

4 Clearly indicates Three relevant Clearly restates Logical and Sufficient and Few, if any, minor
problems to be well-supported problem and effective appropriate errors that do not
addressed solutions effectively summarizes impede com-
solutions prehensibility
3 Needs to be more Three relevant Restates problem and Slight reorganiza- One or two more Some minor errors,
precise in indicating solutions but summarizes solutions tion required transition words which occasionally
problems to be requires some but could be more could be added/ impede com-
addressed additional support effective omitted prehension
2 Does not indicate Three solutions that Does not clearly Not logical or Insufficient and/or Some major errors,
problem to be may not be relevant restate problem and/ effective. Major inappropriate which often impede
addressed and/or may require or does not summarize changes need to comprehension
more support solutions be made
1 No clear thesis Fewer than three No clear conclusion Not clear, making Missing transition Major errors greatly
statement solutions are paper difficult to words impede
presented follow comprehension
Table 44.5 Grading rubric for peer assessment of an essay. Matsuno (2009). © SAGE. Reprinted by permission

Essay number

Evaluator’s name
average
Too many mistakes (Q 10–16) Very few mistakes
Ineffective Effective
Very poor Very good

1. Overall impression 1 2 3 4 5 6
Content
2. Amount 1 2 3 4 5 6
3. Thorough development of thesis 1 2 3 4 5 6
4. Relevance to an assigned topic 1 2 3 4 5 6
Organization
5. Introduction and thesis statement 1 2 3 4 5 6
6. Body and topic sentence 1 2 3 4 5 6
7. Conclusion 1 2 3 4 5 6
8. Logical sequencing 1 2 3 4 5 6
Vocabulary
9. Range 1 2 3 4 5 6
10. Word/idiom choice 1 2 3 4 5 6
11. Word form 1 2 3 4 5 6
Sentence structure / Grammar
12. Use of variety of sentence structures 1 2 3 4 5 6
13. Overall grammar 1 2 3 4 5 6
Mechanics
14. Spelling 1 2 3 4 5 6
15. Essay format 1 2 3 4 5 6
16. Punctuation/capitalization 1 2 3 4 5 6
Comments
Table 44.6 Rubric for peer assessment an oral presentation. Saito (2008). © SAGE. Reprinted by permission

Skill aspect items Superior (4) Adequate (3) Minimal (2) Needs work (1)

Visual skills Posture Back straightened Moderate posture Some problems with Sways or fidgets all
(physical) (standing with back Looks comfortable posture the time. Looks
straight and looking uncomfortable
relaxed)
Eye contact (looking Continuous eye Moderate eye contact. Limited eye contact. No eye contact
each audience member contact. Rarely refers Occasional reference to Frequent reference to
in the eye) to notes notes notes
Gesture Uses gestures and Occasional use of Ineffective. Distracting. Or no
(using some, well- expressions to hands and body Rarely used gestures
timed gestures, enhance the movement. Sometimes
nothing distracting) presentation. Natural effective
(visual) Visual aids (using Effective use of visual Effective to some Not so effective. Ineffective or no use
visual aids effectively) aids extent Rarely used
Verbal skills Introduction Main theme is clearly Main theme and Main theme and No introduction
(organization (introducing thesis delineated, and all the subtopics delineated subtopics delineated
and content) statement, sub-topics) subtopics are listed well to a certain degree insufficiently or briefly
Body Details are explained. Details are explained. Brief, insufficient Problems with
(presentation of details All the sub-topics are All the sub-topics are presentation of details content. No clear
of main themes and covered. The content covered to a certain main point. Not
subtopics with is attractive degree organized well
attractive content)
Conclusion Restatement of major Main topics Brief, insufficient No conclusion
(including restatement/ topics and concluding summarized. summary of major
summation and closing remarks provided Concluding remarks topics
statement) missed

(Continued)
Table 44.6 (Continued)

Skill aspect items Superior (4) Adequate (3) Minimal (2) Needs work (1)

(delivery) Pace (speaking at a Fluid, natural Adequate pace. A few Long pauses at several Halting, uneven pace.
good rate—not too fast, delivery. Appropriate longer pauses places. Some Distracting
not too slow—with pauses unevenness of pace
appropriate pauses)
Intonation (speaking Adequate intonation Mostly adequate but Many inadequate Unnatural, strange
using proper pitch throughout some indication of intonations intonation throughout
patterns) unnaturalness
Diction (speaking Clear articulation all Adequate articulation. Some unclearness Mumbling. Unclear
clearly—no mumbling the time Mostly clear
or interfering accent)
(language) Language use (using Grammatical and A few local errors but Some global errors Numerous errors.
clear and correct fully comprehensible do not affect affect comprehen- Difficult to
sentence forms comprehension sibility comprehend
Vocabulary (using Use of adequate Used a few inadequate Some vocabulary Numerous instances
vocabulary appropriate vocabulary. Variety vocabulary terms inadequacy. Limited of inadequate
to the audience) vocabulary vocabulary use. Very
limited vocabulary
Table 44.7 Rubric for peer assessment of an oral presentation. Lim (2007). Reprinted
by permission

Rate your colleague by using the scale:

Poor Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Good Excellent
1 2 3 4 5
A. Introduction
1. Topic sentence—appropriate? 12345
2. Topic sentence—interesting? 12345
3. Opinion on the issue—clearly stated? 12345
B. Body
4. Details supporting main points—sufficient? 12345
5. Details supporting main points—relevant? 12345
C. Conclusion
6. The main points—summarized? 12345
D. Language use
7. Grammar—accurate? 1 2 3 4 5
8. Fluency 1 2 3 4 5
9. Pronunciation—words clearly pronounced? 1 2 3 4 5
10. Vocabulary—appropriate? 1 2 3 4 5
E. Manner
11. Confidence (depended very little on notes) 12345
12. Eye contact 12345
F. Interaction
13. Nonverbal interaction with the audience (facial expressions, gestures) 12345
14. Verbal interaction (involving the audience during the talk by asking 12345
questions and encouraging them to respond)

Table 44.8 Open-ended questionnaire for peer assessment of an oral presentation

1. How well did the speaker use visual aids? Were they clear and interesting? Any
suggestions for improvement?
2. Was there enough eye contact during the presentation? Did the speaker interact well
with the audience? Any suggestions for improvement?
3. How clear was the speaker’s speech? Was his/her voice loud and clear?
4. Were there any words that the presenter mispronounced? Please list them here.
5. Was there a good range of vocabulary in the presentation? Could the presenter have
used different words? If so, list the words here:
6. How well prepared did the speaker appear to be?
7. Did the presentation have a clear beginning, middle, and end? Could any parts of
the presentation have been rearranged? Or deleted? Please list:
8. What were the most interesting and/or creative elements of the presentation? How
can the presentation be made even more interesting/creative?
9. Any other suggestions?
16 Assessment and Learning

questionnaires can be used for giving both grades and feedback, though in the
case of grading the score would be an overall, holistic one, which may be more
difficult for students to give than a discrete-point score. It is, of course, not only
possible but also preferable to combine elements of both types of forms, especially
if the assessor is to both grade and give feedback. (For an example of how to
do this for a writing task, see http://www.nclrc.org/portfolio/formWritingRubric
Peer.html#. As this link demonstrates, it is also possible to place the grading or
assessment forms online rather than having them in a traditional paper and pencil
format. They can then be sent to the assessed and printed out for later online or
face-to-face discussion.)

Reliability and Validity of Peer Assessment

Regardless of modes, tasks, or formats of the peer assessment, one of the major
concerns that teachers, students, and researchers have is the extent to which peers
can assess and provide feedback among themselves. There are several different
foci in these types of studies. Some studies on the PA of writing (Mendonça &
Johnson, 1994; Villamil & Guerrero, 1998) examine the types of peer feedback and
the comments given in order to determine whether students can provide feedback
on global matters, of content and rhetoric, and not just on editing and on local
concerns such as grammar and spelling, usually in comparison to teachers’ and
self-feedback. Other studies that deal with writing, as well as most studies of oral
language tasks, examine peer ratings usually in comparison with teachers’ ratings
and self-ratings (see Miller & Ng, 1994; Patri, 2002; Saito, 2004; Matsuno, 2009).
For a number of reasons, the findings derived from a comparison of these
studies yield conflicting results. As Lindblom-Ylänne et al. (2006, p. 52) note:

When analyzing the accuracy of self- and peer-assessment (students’ own assess-
ments), teachers’ ratings are usually considered as the reference point . . . However,
there is evidence that teacher assessments vary considerably . . . and that comparison
between teachers’ and students’ marks can be misleading because of different under-
standings of assessment criteria.

Another problem with interpreting the research is that, while some studies state
that they are assessing validity, they actually assess reliability, as Topping (1998)
states. To measure validity, students’ marks need to be assessed against the marks
of their peers over a length of time; this is rarely done. Typically, peers’ marks are
assessed against the teachers’ or self-ratings, which is an assessment of reliability.
As Topping notes, “high reliability may not actually be necessary” (p. 257) due to
the typically different foci of teacher and peer assessment. As discussed above,
teachers (and students) need to determine whether PA is to be used in place of
teacher assessment or in addition to teacher assessment. If the PA is meant to tri-
angulate with teacher assessment and self-assessment, then having different
issues in focus may not be a problem, as PA and teacher assessment may have
complementary roles (Berg, 1999). If the PA replaces teacher assessment, then
peer involvement in the construction of the assessment task, as well as a clear
 Peer Assessment in the Classroom 17

understanding of the marking or feedback criteria, should enable students to give

specific feedback and valid marks.
Overall, it does appear that students are able to focus on all three main types
of issues—content, rhetorical, and grammatical—when they provide feedback on
writing tasks and that training is especially helpful in enabling them to focus
on more global concerns (Berg, 1999). Studies have also found that assessments
by teachers and students were similar, for both writing (Saito, 2004; Matsuno,
2009) and oral presentation skills (Miller & Ng, 1994; Patri, 2002; Peng, 2009).
As the research suggests, there are a number of ways in which the reliability
(and, in the long term, the validity) of PA can be increased. In a summary of
previous research, Peng (2009) notes several key points: (1) students need to be
trained to conduct PA, (2) they need to be involved in developing the assessment
criteria, (3) PA should be combined with another type of assessment such as
collaborative assessment or self-assessment, (4) peer feedback and discussion
should take place before the PA activity, (5) ratings should be clear and global
rather than too specific, (6) the PA activity should be carefully planned and
designed, and (7) PA should be conducted anonymously. Miller and Ng (1994)
also suggest that students should not only be involved in the development of
assessment criteria, but also choose the type of assessment to be administered
and administer the assessment themselves. Further suggestions for successful PA
are given below.

Suggestions for Successful Peer Assessment

One of the most consistent findings in research on PA is that training is a key factor
to the success of PA (Berg, 1999; Min, 2008; Saito, 2008). In terms of training
for the PA of writing skills, research indicates that instructing students in PA
improves the quality and quantity of peer interactions and comments during the
assessment activity and leads to better revisions, and therefore to higher-quality
writing (Berg, 1999; Liu & Hansen, 2002; Min, 2008). It also increases positive
attitudes toward PA. Training may help peers take on more useful stances during
PA group or pair discussions, as research by Min (2008) has found. For example,
in research on English as a foreign language (EFL) university students in Taiwan,
Min examined pre- and post-training stances of students during the oral discus-
sion of a written PA activity. Before training, the most common stance was pre-
scriptive; it was followed by collaborative stances, then by probing stances, and
finally by tutoring stances. After training, the stances became more facilitating in
relation to PA, the most common being the collaborative stance in the form of
suggestions; it was followed by problem identification (a prescriptive stance), then
by tutoring (an explaining stance) and by clarification (a probing stance).
Training is therefore considered to be the key factor in the success of PA. Train-
ing should encompass the entire PA process and be cyclical in nature, beginning
before the assessment starts and lasting throughout the actual assessment task
and after it, in preparation for the next PA cycle. Nor should it be limited to the
students; teachers themselves may benefit from training in PA. This will be dis-
cussed below.
18 Assessment and Learning

Training Students

Training before the PA task commences is probably the most important component
of the overall PA training cycle, though training during and after the PA should not
be neglected. Specifically, pretraining for the PA task should include training
toward developing reflexivity, asking intelligent questions, and “question[ing],
prompt[ing] and scaffold[ing]” (Topping, 1998, p. 255) in order to develop the cog-
nitive skills of the assessor. Pretraining should contain a discussion of the reason
and purpose of the PA, as well as a clear overview of the task itself and of the
expectations of the teachers in terms of how students should complete the task.
Teacher modeling of the PA task, using authentic student writing or speech samples;
videos of oral presentations and PA discussions; and CMC transcripts may be used
in order to show students the “best” and the “worst” elements and practices. As
noted previously, the PA may be especially effective if students help set and
develop the criteria; and, if these criteria are holistic rather than discrete, students
also need to be given directions and examples of how to interpret or how to create
the marking and feedback criteria—or both. It may also be good to conduct a dis-
cussion of students’ concerns and issues; such a discussion should be based on
prior experiences of PA and should be designed to examine the various pros and
cons and to envisage solutions for any problems. It is also beneficial to have a dis-
cussion about, or a modeling of, the roles of the students during the PA activity, in
order to facilitate use of more successful stances, such as collaboration and facilita-
tion. If computer programs are to be used for the assessment task, training in how
to use these programs should be done even if students appear to be familiar with
them (such training should cover, e.g., how to use comments in Microsoft Word or
how to use blogs). The role of the teacher—and the expected outcome of the assess-
ment task—should also be discussed, together with the mode(s) to be used in the
PA (paper and pencil mode, oral discussion mode, computer mode); and the latter
should be done on the basis of an examination of the benefits (advantages) and
drawbacks (disadvantages) of each mode for the given assessment task. Students
should be given the opportunity to develop discussion and turntaking guidelines.
They should also choose whether to have anonymous PA rather than working with
known peers, in either a pair or group format. It would also be helpful to give them
linguistic resources (see Liu and Hansen, 2002), both for commenting and for
asking questions, in order to facilitate positive stances during the PA task. Practice
sessions could be conducted before the actual assessment task, and a mock PA
activity could be videotaped, so that students may be able to have a discussion of
pros and cons and to consider what to do differently in the actual assessment task.
During the PA task the teacher should discuss any concerns and issues arising
during the activity, observe students to ensure they are on task, and remind them
to use positive stances (collaborative) and to ask questions about comments and
responses from peers. Post-PA activities should (1) consist of a discussion of how
to use peers’ comments effectively for revision, if this is part of the assessment
task; (2) other students should be invited to evaluate the ratings and comments
made by their peers; (3) the video of the oral discussion should be viewed and
the transcripts from the CMC PA sessions should be read, in order to reiterate the
 Peer Assessment in the Classroom 19

use of positive stances and turntaking and to keep track of peer feedback and
ratings; and (4) there should be a small group or class discussion of problems,
solutions, and benefits that arose during the task. It is also important (5) to link
PA practices to other classroom language activities (Hansen and Liu, 2005) such
as language logs wherein students keep track of grammar and vocabulary issues
from self- and peer assessment; and (6) to regroup students in the PA group and
make them watch or read the revised product and discuss what comments or
feedback were used in revision and why or how these comments or feedback
changed the presentation or the written task.

Training Teachers
Training should not be limited to students; the teachers themselves may need to
be trained, especially in terms of their level of involvement in the PA process. It
may be very difficult for teachers to let go of their control over the assessment
process and empower the students during the peer task. For example, if students
are creating the assessment criteria, teachers need to allow them to take the lead
in asking the questions; teachers should also be open to students’ views as to what
is important to assess even when they have a different perspective. Teachers may
also need to be trained to minimize their level of interaction with the peer groups
or pairs during the actual activity; to take on a monitoring, supporting, and facili-
tating role; and to intervene only when disagreements arise that the students
themselves cannot resolve, or when a member is not engaged in the assessment
process. Finally the teacher has to respect the outcome of the assessment task and
validate the students’ marks and feedback either by giving her/his own in addi-
tion to that of the students (and making it clear that his/her mark or feedback
carries equal weight to the students’) or by not giving any mark or feedback at
all but using solely those of the students.

Conclusion

PA has been shown to be an effective, engaging, and learner-centered language

task for both oral and written language activities. It can promote not only the
development of language skills, but also higher order thinking and social skills
such as collaboration and negotiation. It can be used for a multitude of tasks and
across a variety of modes (oral mode, paper and pencil mode, CMC mode) and it
can be structured so as to focus on various aspects of content, discourse, and
grammar as well as on aspects of delivery and performance such as eye contact
and speech rate. There are several important elements that are integral to the
success of peer assessment—first, teachers and students need to have a clear
understanding of the focus and purpose of the assessment task; second, the role
of the teacher and that of peers during and after the task need to be clarified;
third, the role of the teacher as an assessor in the assessment task needs to be
specified, particularly with regard to whether and why the teacher will also assess
or provide feedback on the task. Fourth, the outcomes of the assessment—and of
any other assessments of the same task (e.g., self-assessment, or the teacher’s
20 Assessment and Learning

assessment)—need to be discussed, in particular if self-assessment or the teacher’s

assessment are also conducted on the same task. Fifth, students need to be involved
in the assessment process not only as assessors, but also as constructors of
the assessment task, in order to be motivated to get engaged and involved in the
process. Finally, training the students and the teacher to be a participant, an asses-
sor, and a facilitator of a PA is perhaps the most important element in ensuring
the success of this type of assessment task.

SEE ALSO: Chapter 9, Assessing Speaking; Chapter 12, Assessing Writing; Chapter
40, Portfolio Assessment in the Classroom; Chapter 43, Self-Assessment in the
Classroom; Chapter 87: Language Acquisition and Language Assessment

References

Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and
writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 215–41.
DiGiovanni, E., & Nagaswami, G. (2001). Online peer review: An alternative to face-to-face?
ELT Journal 55(3), 263–72.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second language learning. In J. P. Lantolf & G.
Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33–56). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Hansen, J. G., & Liu, J. (2005). Guiding principles for effective peer response. ELT Journal,
59(1), 31–8.
Leki, I. (1990). Coaching from the margins: Issues in written response. In B. Kroll (Ed.),
Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 57–68). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Lim, H. (2007). A study of self- and peer-assessment of learners’ oral proficiency. CamLing
2007: Proceedings of the fifth University of Cambridge Postgraduate Conference in Language
Research held on 20–21 March 2007 (pp. 169–76). Cambridge: Cambridge Institute of
Language Research.
Lindblom-Ylänne, S., Pihlajamäki, H., & Kotkas, T. (2006). Self-, peer- and teacher-assessment
of student essays. Active Learning in Higher Education, 7(1), 51–62.
Liu, J., & Hansen, J. G. (2002). Peer response in second language writing classrooms. Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan Press.
Liu, J., & Sadler, R. W. (2003). The effects and affect of peer review in electronic versus
traditional modes on L2 writing. English for Academic Purposes, 2, 193–227.
Long, M. H. (1985). Input and second language acquisition theory. In S. M. Gass & C. G.
Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 377–93). Cambridge, MA:
Newbury House.
Mangelsdorf, K., & Schlumberger, A. (1992). ESL student response stances in a peer review
task. Journal of Second Language Writing, 1(3), 235–54.
Matsuno, S. (2009). Self-, peer-, and teacher-assessments in Japanese university EFL writing
classrooms. Language Testing, 26(1), 75–100.
Mendonça, C. O., & Johnson, K. E. (1994). Peer review negotiations: Revision activities in
ESL writing instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4), 745–69.
Miller, L., & Ng, R. (1994). Peer assessment of oral language proficiency. Perspectives:
Working papers of the department of English, City Polytechnic of Hong Kong, 6, 41–56.
 Peer Assessment in the Classroom 21

Min, H.-T. (2008). Reviewer stances and writer perceptions in EFL peer review training.
English for Specific Purposes, 27(3), 285–305.
Patri, M. (2002). The influence of peer feedback on self- and peer-assessment of oral skills.
Language Testing, 19(2), 109–31.
Peng, J.-C. F. (2009). Peer assessment of oral presentation in an EFL context (Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation). Indiana University, Indiana.
Romeo, L. (2008). Informal writing assessment linked to instruction: A continuous process
for teachers, students, and parents. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 24(1), 25–51.
Saito, H. (2004). Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writing class-
rooms. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 31–54.
Saito, H. (2008). EFL classroom peer assessment: Training effects on rating and commenting.
Language Testing, 25(4), 553–81.
Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in college and university. Review
of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–76.
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, 26(6), 289–306.
Villamil, O. S., & de Guerrero, M. C. M. (1998). Assessing the impact of peer revision in L2
writing. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 491–514.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wen, M. L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2006). University students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward
(online) peer assessment. Higher Education, 51(1), 27–44.

Suggested Readings

Bloch, J., & Brutt-Griffler, J. (2001). Implementing CommonSpace in the ESL composition
classroom. In D. Belcher & A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading–
writing connections (pp. 309–33). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (1999). Peer and teacher assessment of the oral and written tasks
of a group project. Assessment and evaluation in higher education, 24(3), 301–14.
Dippold, D. (2009). Peer feedback through blogs: Student and teacher perceptions in an
advanced German class. ReCALL, 21(1), 18–36.
Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-
analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3),
287–322.
Ho, M.-C., & Savignon, S. J. (2007). Face-to-face and computer-mediated peer review in
EFL writing. CALICO Journal, 24(2), 269–90.
Kamimura, T. (2006). Effects of peer feedback on EFL student writers at different levels of
English proficiency: A Japanese context. TESL Canada Journal/Revue TESL du Canada,
23(2), 12–36.
Liang, M.-Y. (2010). Using synchronous online peer response groups in EFL writing:
Revision-related discourse. Language Learning and Technology, 14(1), 45–64.
Min, H.-T. (2008). Reviewer stances and writer perceptions in EFL peer review training.
English for Specific Purposes, 27(2), 285–305.
Saito, H., & Fujita, T. (2009). Peer-assessing peers’ contribution to EFL group presentations.
RELC (Regional Language Centre Journal), 40(2), 149–71.
Zhao, H. (2010). Investigating learners’ use and understanding of peer and teacher feed-
back on writing: A comparative study in a Chinese English writing classroom. Assess-
ing Writing, 15, 3–17.