Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Perspectives on Medical Education 2/2016

Open Access 01-04-2016 | Original Article

Evaluation of marking of peer marking in oral presentation

Authors: Dietmar Steverding, Kevin M. Tyler, Darren W. Sexton

Published in: Perspectives on Medical Education | Issue 2/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Peer marking is an important skill for students, helping them to understand the process of learning and assessment. This method is increasingly used in medical education, particularly in formative assessment. However, the use of peer marking in summative assessment is not widely adopted because many teachers are concerned about biased marking by students of their peers.

Objective

The aim of this study was to investigate whether marking of summative peer assessment can improve the reliability of peer marking.

Methods

In a retrospective analysis, the peer-marking results of a summative assessment of oral presentations of two cohorts of students were compared. One group of students was told that their peer marks would be assessed against a benchmark consisting of the average of examiner marks and that these scores together with the peer and examiner marks would form their final exam results. The other group of students were just informed that their final exam results would be determined based on the examiner and peer marks.

Results

Based on examiner marks, both groups of students performed similarly in their summative assessment, agreement between student markers was less consistent and more polar than the examiners. When compared with the examiners, students who were told that their peer marking would be scored were more generous markers (their average peer mark was 2.4 % points higher than the average examiner mark) while students who were not being scored on their marking were rather harsh markers (their average peer mark was 4.2 % points lower than the average examiner mark), with scoring of the top-performing students most affected.

Conclusions

Marking of peer marking had a small effect on the marking conduct of students in summative assessment of oral presentation but possibly indicated a more balanced marking performance.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Heylings DJ, Stefani LAJ. Peer assessment feedback marking in a large medical anatomy class. Med Educ. 1997;31:281–6.CrossRef Heylings DJ, Stefani LAJ. Peer assessment feedback marking in a large medical anatomy class. Med Educ. 1997;31:281–6.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference English R, Brookes ST, Avery K, Blazeby JM, Ben-Shlomo Y. The effectiveness and reliability of peer-marking in first-year medical students. Med Educ. 2006;40:965–72.CrossRef English R, Brookes ST, Avery K, Blazeby JM, Ben-Shlomo Y. The effectiveness and reliability of peer-marking in first-year medical students. Med Educ. 2006;40:965–72.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Speyer R, Pilz W, Van Der Kruis J, Brunings JW. Reliability and validity of student peer assessment in medical education: a systematic review. Med Teach. 2011;33:e572–85.CrossRef Speyer R, Pilz W, Van Der Kruis J, Brunings JW. Reliability and validity of student peer assessment in medical education: a systematic review. Med Teach. 2011;33:e572–85.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Somervell H. Issues in assessment, enterprise and higher education: the case for self-peer and collaborative assessment. Asses Eval Higher Educ. 1993;18:221–3.CrossRef Somervell H. Issues in assessment, enterprise and higher education: the case for self-peer and collaborative assessment. Asses Eval Higher Educ. 1993;18:221–3.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Sluijsmans D, Dochy F, Moerkerke G. Creating a learning environment by using self-, peer- and co-assessment. Learn Environ Res. 1998;1:293–319.CrossRef Sluijsmans D, Dochy F, Moerkerke G. Creating a learning environment by using self-, peer- and co-assessment. Learn Environ Res. 1998;1:293–319.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Taras M. Assessment—summative and formative—some theoretical reflections. Br J Educ Stud. 2005;53:466–78.CrossRef Taras M. Assessment—summative and formative—some theoretical reflections. Br J Educ Stud. 2005;53:466–78.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Tyler KM. Peer-level multiple source feedback for fitness to practice. Med Educ. 2006;40:482–3.CrossRef Tyler KM. Peer-level multiple source feedback for fitness to practice. Med Educ. 2006;40:482–3.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Epstein RM. Assessment in medical education. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:387–96.CrossRef Epstein RM. Assessment in medical education. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:387–96.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;327:307–10.CrossRef Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;327:307–10.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Pond K, Ul-Haq R, Wade W. Peer review: a precursor to peer assessment. Innov Educ Train Int. 1995;32:314–23.CrossRef Pond K, Ul-Haq R, Wade W. Peer review: a precursor to peer assessment. Innov Educ Train Int. 1995;32:314–23.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Harris JR. Peer assessment in large undergraduate classes: an evaluation of a procedure for marking laboratory reports and a review of related practices. Adv Physiol Educ. 2011;35:178–87.CrossRef Harris JR. Peer assessment in large undergraduate classes: an evaluation of a procedure for marking laboratory reports and a review of related practices. Adv Physiol Educ. 2011;35:178–87.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Ohaja M, Dunlea M, Muldoon K. Group marking and peer assessment during a group poster presentation: the experiences and views of midwifery students. Nurse Educ Pract. 2013;13:466–70.CrossRef Ohaja M, Dunlea M, Muldoon K. Group marking and peer assessment during a group poster presentation: the experiences and views of midwifery students. Nurse Educ Pract. 2013;13:466–70.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Williams E. Students attitudes towards approaches to learning and assessment. Assess Eval Higher Educ. 1992;17:45–58.CrossRef Williams E. Students attitudes towards approaches to learning and assessment. Assess Eval Higher Educ. 1992;17:45–58.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Nofziger AC, Naumburg EH, Davis BJ, Mooney CJ, Epstein RM. Impact of peer assessment on the professional development of medical students: a qualitative study. Acad Med. 2010;85:140–7.CrossRef Nofziger AC, Naumburg EH, Davis BJ, Mooney CJ, Epstein RM. Impact of peer assessment on the professional development of medical students: a qualitative study. Acad Med. 2010;85:140–7.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Ballantyne R, Hughes K, Mylonas A. Developing procedures for implementing peer assessment in large classes using an action research process. Asses Eval Higher Edu. 2002;27:427–41.CrossRef Ballantyne R, Hughes K, Mylonas A. Developing procedures for implementing peer assessment in large classes using an action research process. Asses Eval Higher Edu. 2002;27:427–41.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Evaluation of marking of peer marking in oral presentation
Authors
Dietmar Steverding
Kevin M. Tyler
Darren W. Sexton
Publication date
01-04-2016
Publisher
Bohn Stafleu van Loghum
Published in
Perspectives on Medical Education / Issue 2/2016
Print ISSN: 2212-2761
Electronic ISSN: 2212-277X
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-016-0254-8

Other articles of this Issue 2/2016

Perspectives on Medical Education 2/2016 Go to the issue