PGCE (Secondary) English Research Project: "Peer Assessment: How effective is this?"

University of Chester Faculty of Education and Children's Services PGCE (Secondary) Research Project PR7102

“Peer Assessment: How effective is this for Year 8 pupils?”

Assessment Number: J34513 Tutor: Steven Tones Word Count: 4,864

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

Introduction Scope of Work This practitioner-based research aims to investigate the use of peer assessment with KS3, based within a Year 8 English classroom. I will then evaluate if this is a worthwhile method to use within my future teaching career. The research focuses particularly whether pupils can identify and respond with areas of good practice and achievement in their peers’ work, and improvements they can make (WWW/EBI). It will also identify if pupils mark too kindly or harshly depending on peer relations in the classroom. The research will hand out questionnaires (Figure 1 and 2) for the pupils to answer honestly and without any repercussion after the two sessions, asking them about their experiences with peer assessment within their KS3 classrooms. This will also gauge their responses to how assessment could improve in the classroom.

Research Project Question “Peer Assessment: How effective is this for Year 8 pupils?”

I aim to determine whether pupils can spot areas of attainment which hits success criteria targets and to add areas of development for their peers. The study will use the assessment for learning (AfL) section of two Year 8 lessons; lesson 1 using Placement 1 peer assessment techniques; lesson 2 using a peer assessment sticker within the pupils’ books, designed to make it easier to give feedback and ensure anonymity within responses.

Reasons for Work Undertaken From observations in Placement 1 and 2, I found peer assessment to be a prime classroom tool used by English teachers to help pupils visualise how their work can be improved upon, and to recognise attainment. This is commonly completed with a list of success criteria and WWW/EBI responses. I have implemented this into my lessons as pupils recognise this method of formative assessment. However, I am unsure about the effectiveness of peer assessment, as pupils may be quick to mark their peers’ work too kindly or harshly. The pupils in Placement 1 also tended to write no feedback for their partner (WWW/EBI) which resulted in slow pace of learning and disengagement from the subject content.

Implementation and Data Gathering The research focused on a small, lower-ability Year 8 class of 10 pupils to implement this intervention. This is a good sample size for this study, and it will allow for more qualitative

2

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

responses. Within Placement 1, this class was the least forthcoming with responses for their peers’ using the schools current peer assessment system.

The data collected from this research will be quantitative and qualitative, from the amount of success criteria and developments the pupils can successfully identify and to compare this with teacher marking, and from the Likert responses within the questionnaires (Figure 1 and 2). There will also be qualitative data gathered from the same questionnaires, filled-in by pupils after the different peer assessment sections of the lesson. This will ensure the research will have a high validity.

Figure 1 – Questionnaire 1 of 2.

The use of open-ended questions within the two questionnaires will allow for qualitative responses from the pupils. The Likert Scale will also allow for quantitative research.

Figure 2 – Questionnaire 2 of 2.

Coupling the research questions with the pupils’ responses to the intervention will allow me to gauge the improvement in their peer assessing and to further understand the opinions of the class.

3

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

Limitations A limitation of this practitioner research has been that it was completed within the confines of my usual classroom routine, and even though this has been relatively easy to implement, a wider-scale classroom intervention across the department would give a more fruitful response from the pupils and the staff. Moreover, I have limited this research to two sessions of peer assessment, one before the intervention and one after. More intervention sessions would have allowed for deeper research and therefore a higher validity of results.

Literature Review The topic of peer assessment carries a lot of opinion from learning researchers and those within the teaching profession. The National Foundation for Educational Research or NFER (2012) states peer assessment is useful as it allows for discussion and sharing of ideas within a secure environment. However, there need to be established rules within the classroom, e.g. “Respect the work of others, identify successful features, word suggestions positively.”

NFER (2012) asked teachers for the benefits of this type of feedback, one stated: “Pupils tend to be more critical of the work of their peers than teachers would be. Pupils find it very motivating as they have a larger audience for their work.” Moreover, NFER (2012) believes pupils act as “critical friends” within the classroom, but only where this has an ethos “where errors are valued as learning opportunities”. In the same way, rather than summative grading by the classroom teacher, Taras (2009) suggests feedback should be given using formative comments rather than grades. This also fits in with peer assessment comments. It allows the pupils to monitor their progress and gauge the progress of others within their peer group. This gives instant feedback to the pupil and feedback to the classroom teacher when marking books.

Wiliam (2011) believes there are three roles within learning: “teacher, learner and peer” suggesting peer learning and assessment is key within a pupils development. One of his five key strategies for formative assessment within the classroom also link to using peers as a way of building upon prior learning – “activating learners as instructional resources for one another”. He believes the teacher’s job is not to transmit knowledge, rather “engineer effective learning environments” that “create student engagement”.

4

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

Peer assessment links to student-centred learning, as this allows pupils to measure their progress from day-to-day, to reflect on their work and gauge how it can be improved. For work which isn’t being formally assessed and graded by the teacher, a student-centred approach (WWW/EBI) gives pupils a positive point and a point to reflect and work upon.

This links to inclusion of all children, as they are not worrying about not being good enough, adding unnecessary pressure to young minds. This is a clear advantage of peer assessment, however many pupils do not see the point of marking peers work in order to reflect and improve and this limits responses and a lack of effort; pupils would rather have work marked by their classroom teacher.

Swaffield (2008) believes that assessment “should be done by the community” of the school, and within the classroom there is a role for “teacher assessment, self-assessment and peer assessment”. Moreover, this should take place “alongside learning” rather than “after learning” to ensure it is focused and encouraging (Swaffield, 2008). This ensures it is continuous and beneficial to the pupils. Swaffield also argues that the more traditional view of “feedback being given by the teacher to the student” shouldn’t be the only form of assessment within the classroom and students should be involved too. She states: “Pupils can give feedback to each other, as in peer assessment” promotes discussion and dialogue which then “enables students to understand what they have learnt” and what their next steps are in their work and learning (Swaffield, 2008). Muijs and Reynolds (2007) also believe involving pupils in assessment has an impact on pupil achievement and their learning outcomes. This can be achieved by “developing pupils assessment skills” to the point where they become “self-regulated and effective learners”. They suggest when peer assessment is “effectively used within schools”, it allows pupils to close the gap between where they are and their targets, it gives them clear goal and knowing where they stand in relation to their target is beneficial (Muijs and Reynolds, 2007).

Cowley (2007) suggests peer assessment: “Is designed to inform the teacher about the child’s current level of progress, and where the teacher and student need to go next.”

However, Cowley also uses peer assessment or “swap and mark” as a way of best utilising teacher time: “The children swap their work with a partner and the teacher (or a child) reads out the answers as the students mark each other’s work.” This, then, saves time for

5

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

marking summative assessments and creating lesson plans (Cowley, 2007). This correlates with the ideas of the English department within Placement 1, simply to save time, rather than it being an educational tool. Stemming from this, Wragg (1997) believes a teacher can make a decision in relation to informal assessment “within one second” and teachers often “make frequent switches … in such a rapidly changing environment”, whereby the instruction and assessment choices are interlaced within the classroom environment and teachers simply don’t have the time to “reflect upon pedagogical choices”. As a consequence there are both strengths and weaknesses of split-second decision making within the classroom, such as informal assessment being continuous which Wragg (1997) views as a strength, rather than a formal ‘in-time’ mark, and the validity of informal marking which he views as a weakness. He added: “Teaching is a busy job, so informality can offer natural, unfussy and frequent ways of gauging progress” (Wragg, 1997), therefore a simple ‘swap and mark’ suggested by Cowley (1997) could be the solution to a simple way to check progress without taking up too much time.

Bandura (1977) stated that “Learning is a cognitive process which takes place in a social context and can occur through observation.” In relation to peer assessment, pupils will develop from observing and marking their peers work, and taking into account what other pupils achieve, stemming from effort or achievement. However, Wragg (1997) suggests peer assessment must be “carefully prepared” and that “it cannot be assumed that every pupil automatically knows how to make an appropriate and factually correct response in all circumstances.” This is another reason why I chose peer assessment as the topic of my practitioner enquiry. Pupils will need “structure and support” if they are to mark the work correctly and fairly. Such as a list of success criteria, much like my research will implement.

Furthermore, “there is no point in … having one ill-informed child pass on incorrect judgments to another”. Therefore Placement 1’s attitude of not second-marking peer assessment is wrong, even though Wragg (1997) suggests teachers have little time spare.

Moreover, if children are “in competition” with one another, “they may be harsh or unfair” to their competitors within the classroom. Many pupils, especially in top sets within both Placement 1 and Placement 2 are highly competitive within the classroom, aiming to be the first to finish or have the best homework etc. Wragg (1997) offers a suggestion from a study from 1991, where “teacher monitoring” the peer assessment and “intervention when

6

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

necessary” were an essential component. Therefore Cowley’s (1997) ‘swap and mark’ attitude isn’t successful for the pupils’ development.

James (1998) believes peer assessment shouldn’t be an “optional extra”, rather it “should be an essential part of any assessment that aspires to have a positive impact on learning.”

However, in order for this to happen pupils must have “an understanding of what would be regarded as mastery or desired performance” and that teachers must discuss this criteria and standards with the pupils before any peer assessment takes place. For this research, the pupils have a sticker within their book below the anonymous piece of work with a clear list of success criteria. This allows the pupils to “identify any gaps between actual and desired levels” and work out why they have occurred (James, 1998). Once this is done, this is process is then “internalised”, therefore they should remember this when writing or performing this type of task which they have peer marked.

Flutter and Rudduck (2004) believe that supporting peers within the classroom is “an important aspect of pupils’ experiences” and that “encouraging pupils to develop a sense of responsibility for their own learning” allows pupils to view themselves as “valued members of a learning community”. This also enhances their self-esteem and engages them with the learning (Flutter & Rudduck 2004). Rowntree (1989) suggests that students are more “realistic when they are asked to assign grades to one another” rather than self-assessing.

This involves peers “more actively in the learning process” by requiring them to “think critically about the … objectives their colleagues are achieving”. However, the “social climate” has to be right (Rowntree, 1989), therefore a negative environment e.g. behavioural issues within the classroom may not be the best place for active learning from peer assessment. To further this, Cowley (2007) states even though “assessment is always a helpful tool and informative tool within the classroom”, its two main problems are stress and demotivation, and “this is particularly true for assessments that make comparisons between children … It cannot ever be particularly pleasant to know that you are way behind your peers in the work that you do.” A suggestion Cowley (2007) gives is that all results are kept private, therefore using this research project’s method of anonymous work to peer assess may be beneficial and reduce stress within pupils.

7

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

From literature on the topic, peer assessment is seen as a community approach to feedback to assess learning which should take place alongside teacher feedback and self-assessment (Swaffield, 2008), and it is an integral part of learning, rather than an optional extra (James, 1998). It is an important aspect of pupil experience which can enhance self-esteem (Flutter and Ruddock, 2004) and it is a tool used primarily as a way of assessing pupils without taking up too much time (Cowley, 2007). However, warnings from Rowntree (1989) suggest it should only be used within a positive working environment, and Wragg (1997) believes peer assessment must be carefully planned, and this needs teacher monitoring and intervention when necessary to ensure it is fair and constructive. Moreover, there must be success criteria for what pupils are marking (Wragg, 1997; James, 1998) to ensure they understand and can consolidate this knowledge for their future learning.

Methodology and Findings The research was conducted over two lessons within a weeks’ period with a low-set Year 8 group within Placement 1. This class was chosen as their responses to the usual method of peer assessment (WWW/EBI) were the least successful and many wrote no feedback for their peer, or had no clue to what the success criteria was. The method within the English department of Placement 1 was to not second-mark peer assessment too, therefore misconceptions may have arisen as a result of this, and within a low-set these are frequent. The first lesson used the department’s own peer assessment ‘swap and mark’ method, which is fitting with Cowley’s

8

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

(2007) tips on how to save time and Wragg’s (1997) belief that the teacher makes split second decisions for AfL. The pupils have a partner on their table who they always swap their books with, and they were assumed to have knowledge of the success criteria of the lesson although this wasn’t explicitly given to the pupils. There was then a questionnaire (Figure 1) for the pupils to answer honestly and without any repercussion. The second lesson was within the same week and the pupils then had two pieces of anonymised work in front of them from two of the peers within the classroom, marked Pupil A (Figure 4) and Pupil B (Figure 5). Pupils were to mark Figure 4 (above) – ‘Pupil A’ anonymous work.

this with a peer assessment sticker which I had prepared (Figure 6) and then they were to answer a questionnaire on their responses to the different method of peer assessment, and their opinions (Figure 2). This intervention was delivered in the AfL section of the lesson. I would then second mark both of these peer assessments, and take note if there was an improvement in the responses of the pupils with this new sticker method intervention, with clear success criteria. I write WWW/EBI for each piece

Figure 5 (above) – ‘Pupil B’ anonymous work.

of work

within the pupils’ books and I would agree/disagree with the comments made by the peer if they were unfair or if there were any misconceptions. After the research, the topic was revisited the next lesson in a starter activity – Success criteria within creative writing and many pupils remembered the WWW/EBI of the intervention. Pupils also had time to reflect upon my comments and the comments of their peers.

Figure 6 – Peer assessment sticker with WWW/EBI of success criteria

9

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

Lesson 1 Success of WWW/EBI For the AfL section of the lesson, pupils were given the task of ‘swap and mark’, using the success criteria of the days lesson. However, this wasn’t shown in the classroom or explicitly told to the pupils, therefore they had to remember this on their own. This was the department’s method of peer assessment. The pupils lacked any motivation to peer assess, and the responses given from the pupils verbally in the class were of boredom and lack of motivation. Moreover, as many pupils sit in their friendship groups they find it hard to criticise their partner’s work.

From marking the books as I usually do, the responses from the peer assessment in Lesson 1 were unhelpful, ‘Write more’, ‘Good work’ rather than giving what their peer did well, and pupils didn’t correct errors which are typical for the group, e.g. use full stops and paragraphing. The class is a small, low-ability nurture group therefore there are only 10 pupils in the class. Of the 10, eight were attending in this lesson and only four pupils wrote WWW/EBI for their peer. This is typical of the class and allows me to believe ‘swap and mark’ style peer assessment of the department with no planning or supervision isn’t helpful.

Pupil Questionnaire 1 The questionnaire (Figure 1) used after the normal ‘swap and mark’ peer assessment used Likert scales to gauge quantitative results and open questions to gain qualitative responses.

The following questions were given to the eight pupils who were in attendance: How often do you use peer assessment?

1. How often do you use peer assessment to mark your partner's work?

3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

The average answer for this question which the pupils gave was ‘once a week’. This shows that peer assessment is regularly used throughout School 1. However, two pupils added: ‘once a month’ and one ‘a few times per week’. This may be as a result of set changes throughout the school, as

Every day

A few Once a times per week week

Once a Once per month term

not all pupils are in the class as the same time.

10

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

How often do you use peer assessment in English?

2. How often do you use peer assessment in English?

3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

The average answer given was ‘a few times per week’. This shocked me as the pupils don’t often use peer assessment with me taking their lessons.

Every day

A few Once a times per week week

Once a Once per month term

Would you like to use peer assessment more or less in the classroom?

3. Would you like to use peer assessment more or less in the classroom?

The average answer from the pupils was that they would like to use peer assessment

4

a lot less.

3 2 1

11

0 Definitely Slightly The same Slightly more amount less

A lot less

Do you think you benefit from peer assessment? Why? It tells me what my mistakes are and its boring To see what other people write and what you can include

It makes your work look bad

I like the teacher to mark my work

It tells me my mistakes

I can see what others have written and this helps my work

Five out of the eight pupils didn’t believe peer assessment was beneficial and the general responses were negative.

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

Would you be tempted to mark a partner’s work right or wrong depending on your feelings towards them? i.e. best friend or someone you don’t like.

5. Would you be tempted to mark a parter's work right or wrong depending on your feelings towards them? i.e. a best friend or someone you don't like

The average answer to this question was ‘I would be slightly tempted’.

Therefore some pupils might be

2.5 2

tempted to mark work correctly or

1.5

incorrectly.

1 0.5 0 Yes I would I would be I mark all I may mark I would feel slightly my work work mark work tempted tempted fairly incorrectly incorrectly

Do you feel pressure to mark work correctly as to not hurt the feelings of your peers?

6. Do you feel pressure to mark work correctly as to not hurt feelings of your peers?

The pupils responded they ‘sometimes’ felt pressure to mark work correctly to

2.5

not hurt the feelings of their peers.

2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Definitely Sometimes Slightly

Not really

Not at all/never

Do you always know the success criteria of what you are marking?

7. Do you always know the success criteria of what you are marking?

Yes

17% No 83% Yes

No

83% of pupils did not always know the success criteria of what they were peer assessing.

12

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

Would having a peer assessment sticker in your books with a tick-box with success criteria help? Circle yes/no. Why? 8. Would having a peer assessment sticker in your books with a tickbox for success criteria help?

67% of pupils believe it would help to have a success criteria sticker in their books. The

No 33%

qualitative responses (below) were generally Yes 67%

positive.

I would know what to do Because it’s better for people to tell, not show.

It is too much pressure

I forget. Ticking is easier for marking.

Yes it will be easier It would be easier to tick

Is there anything else you like or dislike about peer assessment?

Marking other kids work When people check my book they sometimes make fun of me They're too stressful and they don't help I don't like people reading my work

This response was shocking as I didn’t realise the stresses KS3 pupils go through as a result of peer assessment.

Do you prefer peer assessment to self-assessment? Circle yes/no. Why? 10. Do you prefer peer assessment to self-assessment?

No 50%

Yes 50%

It’s hard to mark others work Peer assessment is horrible and not like selfassessment.

Too lonely. In one class it makes everyone feel dumb.

I can see others work and be the teacher for once. It's fun.

It's more fun.

I like self-assessment as I can mark my own mistakes.

13

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

This was the most evenly split of the questions from Lesson 1. 50% of the pupils preferred peer assessment to self-assessment. The qualitative responses provided were both positive and negative, however some were worrying e.g. “In one class it makes everyone feel dumb.”

This correlates with Wragg’s (1997) belief that peer assessment should only be used within a positive classroom environment.

Lesson 2 Success of WWW/EBI Within this next lesson, for the AfL section the pupils were given two anonymised pieces of work (Figure 4 and 5) which they could read through and then they were to be peer assessing. Before starting, the pupils had time to look at the previous comments I had gave for possible peer assessment responses for the WWW/EBI of last lesson so they could reflect. Then I provided the students with the WWW/EBI sticker (Figure 6), which allowed them to directly select which success criteria the anonymous pupil had hit, select the criteria they aren’t then using and offer a suggestion, e.g. “Add in two metaphors”. The anonymous work allowed the pupils to not be judgmental and look for errors and areas of good practice within the peers’ work and this, then, allowed them to successfully select appropriate WWW’s and EBI’s. When second marking these books, there was a more succinct style of peer marking in which the pupils gave direct feedback for the pupils to improve on. Some pupils even gave examples of methods they could use e.g. “Add in two metaphors – He is a rhino.” This showed they engaged with the task more so than in the previous lesson (Pupil marking - Figure 7 and 8). Pupils could not usually think of an EBI for their fellow classmate before this session, and wrote instead ‘write more’ etc, rather than giving constructive feedback.

Nine pupils were in attendance for the second lesson of the intervention, therefore the results may be skewed slightly. However, all of the pupils were able to give feedback to the anonymous work, successfully stating that both creative pieces of writing used a wide-range of vocabulary, personification and other literary techniques. All pupils also gave the anonymous piece of work an area for improvement, e.g. Pupil B to add in similes and metaphors. This is a clear target for the pupils to follow and to implement next lesson.

14

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

Figure 7 and Figure 8 – Example of pupil peer assessment. Clear targets for pupils to hit and tick-box success criteria. One pupil in Figure 8 gave an example for the pupil to use too.

15

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

Pupil Questionnaire 2 The second questionnaire (Figure 2) was given after this more successful peer assessment in the AfL section of the lesson.

Did this peer assessment worksheet help you to be a better peer marker?

Q2) 1. Did this peer assessment worksheet help you to be a better peer marker?

Five out of the nine pupils answered

6

‘definitely’ to this intervention making

5

them a more successful peer marker.

4

This is very positive, and will allow me

3

to implement this with the class in the

2

future.

1 0 Definitely

A No No it didn't This made bit/slightly difference help it difficult

Would you want to peer assess more if this new method was introduced?

Q2) 2. Would you want to peer assess more if this new method was introduced?

3.5

This was quite positive, as the majority

3

of pupils answered ‘A bit/slightly’ more.

2.5

In comparison to ‘A lot less’ in the first

2

intervention, this was a great

1.5

improvement.

1 0.5 0 Definitely

A No No I This has bit/slightly difference wouldn't put me off

16

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

Do you think you benefitted more from this peer assessment method?

Q2) 3. Do you think you benefitted more from this peer assessment method?

86% of the pupils believed they benefitted from this type of peer

No 14%

assessment, over their normal ‘swap and mark’ assessment method. It is Yes 86%

great to see the pupils believed this was a better way to assess their peers’ progress.

Has this helped with the temptation to mark a partner's work right or wrong dependent on your feelings towards them?

Q2) 4. Has this helped with the temptation to mark a partner's work right or wrong dependent on your feelings towards them?

4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

Although one pupil said they would still mark work incorrectly, four of the nine pupils said this anonymous intervention had helped.

17

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

Do you feel less pressure now to mark work correctly as to not hurt the feelings of your peers?

Q2) 5. Do you feel less pressure now to mark work correctly as to not hurt the feelings of your peers?

Four of the nine pupils asked said the

4.5

intervention ‘definitely’ helped. Two

4 3.5

said it ‘slightly’ helped. This is a

3

positive reaction from the pupils.

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Definitely

Slightly

No Not really Made this difference more likely

Do you know the success criteria of what you are marking?

18 Q2) 6. Do you know the success criteria of what you are marking?

This showed a definite increase from the departmental norm of ‘swap and mark’ with 83% of pupils previously

No 25%

answering that they did not know the success criteria. With this intervention, 75% of pupil did understand this and Yes 75%

only 25% did not. In the future, this would hopefully be repeated enough so the pupils understood fully.

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

Would having a peer assessment sticker in your books with a tick-box with success criteria help, now that you have had a go?

Q2) 7. Would having a peer assessment sticker in your books with a tick-box with success criteria help, now that you have had a go?

75% of pupils who answered the questionnaire believe this peer assessment method would help them to be more successful in peer assessing.

No 25% Yes 75%

19

Do you feel you provided better feedback to your peers?

Q2) 8. Do you feel you provided better feedback to your peers?

87% of the pupils felt they had given better feedback to their peers, and this

No 13%

was also reflected in their much more indepth WWW/EBI. This, above all, was great to read as the pupils acknowledged Yes 87%

their peer assessment feedback was better as a result of this intervention.

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

This second peer assessment intervention was more successful as the pupils understood their feedback was more constructive, they would want to use this method of peer assessment more, the anonymous work helped with the temptation to mark work incorrectly and above all, they understood the success criteria for the piece of creative writing work.

Discussion This practitioner research has provided me with a range of information, both quantitative and qualitative, to how pupils can best use peer assessment within the English classroom.

From observation and teaching the pupils in this low-set Year 8 class, I noted that most pupils had no idea what the success criteria was when using Cowley’s (2007) ‘swap and mark’ technique which the department used at least weekly, according to the pupils in Questionnaire 1 (Figure 1). This was clearly an unsuccessful method and the pupils disliked this and wanted to use it ‘a lot less’. Wiliam (2011) believes pupils can be “instructional resources for one another” but only if there is “student engagement”. This research allowed the pupils to enjoy an AfL peer assessment section of their lesson and allowed them to see their work was beneficial to other pupils (87%). This was correlated in the responses they gave to the pupils using the anonymous work, (Figure 7, Figure 8) which was easier for them to use and select from the creative writing. It was also student-centred, and this allowed them to celebrate the work of the anonymous children. NFER (2012) stated that pupils are “more critical of work than teachers”, but as the pupils gave WWW as well as a clear EBI target this gave a balance of criticism and praise.

However, it was clear from Questionnaire 1 that some pupils disliked peer assessment as other pupils had made the pupil “feel dumb” and that pupils “make fun of my work.” This was worrying as clearly, the ethos within that classroom in School 1 was not positive. Peer assessment needs to be introduced and implemented within a secure and safe environment (NFER, 2012; Rowntree, 1989). The stresses which come from having work scrutinised by a peer are high in KS3, as Cowley (2007) suggests: “It cannot be particularly pleasant to know you are way behind your peers” in your classwork, therefore work could be kept private (Cowley, 2007). I anticipated this could have happened before the research project started,

20

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

therefore I ensured the pupil work was kept anonymous and this helped as the pupils believed they were ‘definitely’ better peer assessors, and the majority would want this new method of peer assessment to be introduced to the classroom.

Swaffield (2008) believes students should be a part of assessing within schools, and this brings about a sense of community. However, Wragg (1997) views peer assessment as something which needs to be “carefully prepared” and it can’t be assumed pupils understand how to make “appropriate and factually correct” responses to pupil work. The success criteria was clearly stated in this peer assessment sticker for pupils to follow. From this method of peer assessment, pupils understood the success criteria clearly (75%) in comparison to 83% not knowing the success criteria in the first intervention session, following the departmental method of ‘swap and mark’. Wragg (1997) could see the departmental method as destructive, as he suggests peer assessment needs “teacher monitoring”, which this research utilised. Moreover, James (1998) states teachers must discuss the criteria for the standards of the work as pupils can’t assume to know this. After which, it is then “internalised” which I hope is the result of this intervention.

Wragg (1997) also stated there is no point in “having one ill-informed child pass on incorrect” information to another, therefore this research also second marked the work by the pupils, ensuring no misconceptions were passed on. In addition, this intervention addressed the issue of kinder or harsher marking through friendship groups. When asked, pupils believed this anonymous work helped (4/9) and it helped slightly (2/9). This was positive, as before pupils answered they would be tempted or slightly temped with the usual department peer marking. Pupils also believed they were better at feeding back to their peers (87%) and they benefitted from this (86%). This could help them feel as though they are “valued members of a learning community” (Flutter and Rudduck, 2004) which could enhance their self-esteem.

This practitioner research has been successful in allowing the pupils in this low-set Year 8 class to better give feedback to their peers, it has allowed them to understand the success criteria and overall, allowed the pupils to enjoy this method of peer assessment. It has helped to ensure no bias between friendship groups with anonymous work and helped to

21

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

build a better sense of community within the classroom. This research has suggested that the current English departmental method of ‘swap and mark’ isn’t successful, the pupils don’t feel they give good feedback and they don’t enjoy it. The literature surrounding peer assessment is varied and many feel there must be strict and rigorous planning beforehand with clear success criteria (Wragg, 1997; Swaffield, 2008; James, 2008) and the sense of community must be positive (NFER, 2012; Rowntree, 1989; Cowley, 2007).

My results supported the literature surrounding peer assessment and they were generally positive and beneficial for the pupils, which will hopefully internalise this success criteria.

This practitioner research has found that peer assessment is only useful within Year 8 if there are well thought out and planned methods of peer assessment within a positive environment, and pupils are not successful using peer assessment when there is no clear success criteria and it is loosely planned. The intervention was beneficial as pupils enjoyed the new method and I will continue to use this well planned method of peer assessment stickers within my practice.

22 The next steps for this research could be to use this with exam-style questions within GCSE or A-Level classes, rather using summative feedback over formative, comment led feedback.

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

Reference List Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory (1st ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Cowley, S. (2007). Guerilla Guide To Teaching (1st ed.). London: Continuum.

Flutter, J., & Rudduck, J. (2004). Consulting Pupils (1st ed.). London: Routledge Falmer.

James, M. (1998). Using Assessment for School Improvement (1st ed.). Oxford: Heinemann Educational.

Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2007). Effective Teaching (1st ed.). London [u.a.]: SAGE Publ.

Rowntree, D. (1989). Assessing Students (1st ed.). London: Kogan Page Ltd. Sutton, R. (1998). Assessment For Learning (1st ed.). Salford: RS Publications.

Swaffield, S. (2008). Unlocking Assessment (1st ed.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

Taras, M. (2009). Summative assessment: The missing link for formative assessment. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 33(1), 57–69. doi:10.1080/03098770802638671 The National Foundation for Educational Research. (2012). Getting to Grips with Assessment (1st ed.). Retrieved from https://www.nfer.ac.uk/pdf/getting-to-grips-with-assessment4.pdf Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded Formative Assessment (1st ed.). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Wragg, T. (1997). Assessment and Learning (1st ed.). London: Routledge.

23

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

Appendices Questionnaire 1 Examples

24

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

25

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

26

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

27

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

28

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

Questionnaire 2 Examples

29

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

30

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

31

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

32

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

33

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

34

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

35

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

36

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

37

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

38

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

39

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

Pupils’ Anonymous Work

40

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

41

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

Peer Assessment Sticker

42

PR7102 Research Project

J34513

Signatures from University Tutor/Subject Mentor.

43