Self and peer assessment – does it make a difference to student group work?

Nurse Education in Practice (2005) 5, 40–48

NurseEducation

www.elsevierhealth.com/journals/nepr

in Practice

Self and peer assessment – does it make adifference to student group work?

Naomi Elliott*, Agnes Higgins1

School of Nursing and Midwifery Studies, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland

Summary The use of group projects as an assessment strategy is increasing inpopularity in education. However problems can arise if members of the group do notcontribute equally to the process and required outcome. Self and peer assessmenthas been advocated as one means of overcoming the problem of ‘free riders’. Areview of the literature would suggest that the vast majority of research in the areaof self and peer assessment has been carried out in disciplines other than nursingand midwifery. This paper provides a brief overview on the available literature onself and peer assessment and reports on an action research approach to thedevelopment and evaluation of a self and peer assessment strategy, designed topromote student participation in a group project. While further research is neededto substantiate the findings, the results support its continuing use within theprogramme. To aid the lecturer who is new to self and peer assessment and who maywish to pursue the idea within their own programme the assessment tool andguidelines used in the project are also included.

�c 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

KEYWORDSSelf and peer

assessment;Group project;Student perception

Introduction

A continuing challenge for educators using groupwork is to ensure that it is a positive learning ex-perience for students. Group work is an importantteaching strategy within the nursing curriculum asit can facilitate both knowledge acquisition and thedevelopment of teamwork skills, which are essen-tial for the professional practitioner. Students of-ten enjoy working in a group and they valuelearning from and with other people (Jaques,2000). However, problems can arise when group

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +353-1-6083106; fax: +353-1-4732984.

E-mail addresses: [email protected]; [email protected] Tel.: +353-1-6083703; fax: +353-1-4732984.

1471-5953/$ - see front matter �c 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserdoi:10.1016/j.nepr.2004.03.004

work is assessed and the same mark is awarded toindividual students irrespective of their contribu-tion to the group work. The purpose of this paper isto report on an action research approach to thedevelopment and evaluation of a self and peer as-sessment strategy, which was designed to promotestudent participation in a curriculum design groupproject and enhance fairness in group workassessment.

Background literature

The problem of ‘free-riders’ within group work iswell recognised (Boud, 2001), and educators needto consider the impact this has on student’s at-titude to group work. According to Freeman and

ved.

mail to: [email protected];

41Self and peer assessment – does it make a difference

McKenzie (2002) students view group work as-sessment as unfair if there is equal reward forunequal contributions. These negative experi-ences can lead to students feeling discontent anddissatisfied with group work (Toynbee-Wilson,2001), and result in students resenting furthergroup work when the assessment system is per-ceived as unfair and inequitable (Boud, 2001).Therefore, the challenge for educators is to de-velop new systems of assessment that are re-cognised and accepted by students as ensuringequality in group work assessment.

As the emphasis in higher education is movingtowards developing a student-centered curricu-lum, interest is growing in the use of self andpeer assessment. Freeman (1995) suggests thatrelinquishing control over the assessment processmay be difficult for many teachers, but sees it asimportant if ‘intellectual and vocational confor-mity’ (p. 290) is to be avoided. The developmentof self and peer assessment skills is also neces-sary if the critical thinking, reflective practitionerespoused in nursing literature is to be realised(An Bord Altranais, 2000; Government of Ireland,2000). Ten years ago Burke (1994) highlighted theunder valuing and under utilization of self andpeer assessment in nursing education and sug-gested that it should form a significant part ofany appraisal event. A review of the current lit-erature suggests that little has changed as themajority of the work done on self and peer as-sessment continues to be within higher educationand within disciplines other than nursing andmidwifery.

Self-assessment is defined as students assessingtheir own work and peer-assessment as studentsassessing the work of others within a group(Hanrahan and Isaacs, 2001). This broad definitionof the terms is open to different interpretationsand practical applications. The literature revealsthat self and peer assessment can be categorisedinto two main areas namely, those that view selfand peer assessment as an outcome, and thosethat view it as a process. The majority of studiesto date, have focused on self and peer assess-ment as an outcome which, for example, involvesthe grading of written work (Hanrahan andIsaacs, 2001; Lin et al., 2001; Donaldson andTopping, 1996), grading of clinical practice (Vu-orinen et al., 2000; Crawford and Kiger, 1998) orgrading of oral presentations (Donaldson andTopping, 1996). In contrast, there is a dearth ofresearch evidence on the use of self and peerassessment as process which focuses on the stu-dent’s contribution to the different activitiesassociated with group work for example, at-

tending group meetings or meeting work dead-lines on time (Freeman and McKenzie, 2002;Gibbs, 1995). The process approach to self andpeer assessment is considered important espe-cially when it comes to situations involving groupwork (Falchikov, 1993). One study by Freemanand McKenzie (2002), used student assessment offellow students’ contributions to group workprojects within undergraduate and post-graduateprogrammes in an attempt to ‘. . . improvelearning from team assessment tasks and makethe assessment fairer for students’ (p. 551).Whilst this recent research provides some evi-dence that self and peer assessment of studentcontribution to group work enhances studentsatisfaction, given the paucity of research thereis clearly a need for further study in this area,which is highly relevant in nurse education. Thepurpose of this study was to develop a self andpeer assessment strategy which would promotestudent participation and satisfaction with groupwork.

Research design

The research design utilized in the study was in-fluenced by key writers in the area of action re-search (McNiff, 1996; Hart and Bond, 1995;McKiernan, 1994). As a form of enquiry action re-search is concerned with doing research with andfor people rather than on people (Meyer, 1995).Action research aims to solve the immediate andpressing day to day problems of practitioners(Reason and Bradbury, 2001; McKiernan, 1994). It isconcerned with diagnosing a problem in a specificcontext and attempts to solve it in that context(Williamson and Prosser, 2002). Action researchersdescribe their craft as a self-reflective, dynamic,cyclical process of fact-finding, planning, actionand reflection, undertaken by participants in socialsituations who wish to improve their own practice,their understanding of the practice and the contextin which the practice occurs (Brydon-Miller et al.,2003; McNiff, 1996; Elliott, 1991). Action researchoffers a collegial and collaborative relationshipwhereby the researchers and practitioner can cometogether to decide on the problem and plan theaction to correct it, thus reducing the risk that theresearch is merely a scholastic, self-serving exer-cise divorced from the reality of everyday practice(Webb, 1989). By involving people at all stages, itcreates a sense of ownership, minimising thechance that both the intervention and findings areperceived as being irrelevant to the world of

42 N. Elliott, A. Higgins

practice (Davison et al., 2004). This reflects amovement away from the concerns of the re-searcher to those of the practitioners, a movementwhich was necessary if this project was to succeedat any level.

Background to the study

This study involved students who were undertakinga one-year part time post-graduate programme inClinical Health Sciences Education. They were allRegistered nurses or midwives who had completedeither a primary or master’s degree programme.This post-graduate programme consisted of fivemodules that were focused on the theory andpractice of clinical health sciences education. Inorder to meet the course aims the students’ un-dertook one module on curriculum issues. The aimof this module was to provide the students with anopportunity to explore, debate and evaluate vari-ous models and theories of curriculum design anddevelopment in order that they may design, im-plement and critically appraise curricula for healthsciences education. The assessment strategy forthe module involved a group project, which re-quired the student to design a module of study. Asthe introduction of a group project was a newventure, it was agreed at course committee thatthe students’ experiences needed to be monitoredand evaluated on a continuous basis. Separate in-stitutional approval was not required for this studygiven that all key stakeholders, including studentswere represented at this course committee. Fur-thermore, student understanding of action re-search was well developed as action researchmethodology was a learning outcome for anothermodule within the programme.

Identifying the general idea or problem

The general idea refers to a state of affairs onewishes to change or improve. In selecting an ideafor action research Elliott (1991) suggests that thesituation should impinge on one’s field of actionand be something one would like to change or im-prove. The idea for this study arose from students’verbal and written evaluation comments of theirgroup work experience. Although the majority ofstudents was in favour of a group project and be-lieved that it was a very positive learning experi-ence, a review of their comments over the previoustwo years highlights the problem of the non-

contributing group members. One student wrote:‘Hard to ensure everyone did a fair share of thework. I found this frustrating as a team player towork with others who were happy to take the creditfor work they haven’t done’. Another studentwrote ‘I do not think some people worked as hardas others, and some people are carried through theprocess and still get the same mark’. Other stu-dents identified the need for support to enablingstudents to deal with the problem of non-contributors as the following comment suggests:‘Guidance on how to deal with the issue of ateam member not contributing. How to do thisinformally and formally’.

Hence, the aim of this study was to explore thepossibility of developing, implementing and eval-uating a self and peer assessment dimension to theoverall assessment strategy for the module, incollaboration with the students.

Designing and implementing the self andpeer assessment strategy

In line with the collaborative process espoused inaction research, the students were involved indeveloping the self and peer assessment strategy(Williamson and Prosser, 2002; Coghlan andBrannick, 2001). Following a review of the liter-ature a self and peer assessment tool was de-veloped (see Appendix A). The tool focused oncertain aspects of group process namely, groupmaintenance functions such as listening to eachother, helping the group address individual dif-ferences and task functions such as, attendingmeetings and completing tasks on time, and thedesign was influenced by the work of Jaques(2000) and Gibbs (1995). Following an open dis-cussion of the strengths and weaknesses of bothpositive and negative grading options, the studentsunanimously decided to use the positive gradingoption, as a means of moderating the individual’sgrade for the group project. The decision to limitthe self and peer assessment to ten percent of theoverall grade was made collaboratively with stu-dents and lecturers. These decisions informed thewritten guidelines which were developed and givento the students in conjunction with the assessmenttool (see Appendix B). At the end of the groupproject, the students completed independently anassessment form for each member of the group,including one for themselves. The completedassessment forms were then submitted to thecourse co-ordinator at the end in a sealedenvelope.


Evaluation process

One of the criticisms of action research is itstendency to produce either ‘research with littleaction or action with little research’ (Dickens andWatkins, 1999 p. 131 cited in Davison et al.,2004). The cyclical process of action researchrequires that some form of evaluative researchfollows the action (McNiff, 1996; Elliott, 1991). Inorder to evaluate the self and peer assessment, apostal questionnaire was selected as the mostappropriate methodology to afford student ano-nymity. At this stage the students delegated thedevelopment of the evaluation questionnaire tothe lecturers. The questionnaire consisted oftwenty-six questions. Both closed and open-endedquestions were designed to elicit the students’perception of how the process contributed to theaspects of fairness, motivation and participationin the group work. The closed questions used afive point likert scale to elicit student’s views ondifferent aspects of the self and peer assessmentstrategy. In recognition that consent in researchis an on-going process, an explanatory letter in-viting the students to complete the questionnairewas sent to the 20 students who had alreadycompleted the programme. The timing of thedata collection was following the student’s awardof final results. From an ethical perspective, thestudents had completed the programme and wereunder no obligation to participate in the study. Italso increased the likelihood that the studentswould feel free to evaluate the process honestly,without fear of negative consequence. Informedconsent was not obtained directly, but inferredby the return of the completed questionnaire. Astamped addressed envelope was included to fa-cilitate return. Seventeen students returned thecompleted questionnaire, which was a responserate of 85%. Ideally, in collaborative action re-search, the students would be involved in theanalysis phase of the research. However, this wasnot practical given that the students had com-pleted the programme. Quantitative data analysiswere completed using descriptive statistics. Inpresenting the findings, the data from the openended questions are integrated with quantitativeresults to illuminate the findings.

Findings

These findings should be interpreted in light ofthe student’s previous experience and overall

satisfaction with the self and peer assessmentprocess. In this study 77% (n ¼ 13) of studentshad no previous experience of self assessmentand 94% (n ¼ 16) had no experience of peer as-sessment. Whilst this was a new experience formany students, self and peer assessment wasrated by 65% (n ¼ 11) of the students as con-tributing positively to the group work. Studentsatisfaction was reflected in the finding that 83%(n ¼ 14) of students made the recommendationto continue using this form of self and peer as-sessment for group work.

Student perception of fairness

The majority of students (83% n ¼ 14) consideredthe self and peer assessment as a fair method ofassessing the individual’s contribution to groupwork and 70% (n ¼ 12) believed it to be a fairmethod of awarding marks. The majority of stu-dents (65%; n ¼ 11) either strongly agreed (30%;n ¼ 5) or agreed (35%; n ¼ 6) with the statement‘that the self and peer assessment meant that mycontribution to the group work was valued’.Students were of the opinion that those whoparticipated least in the group work were awar-ded a lower grade. One student commented ‘itgave our group the opportunity to award indi-viduals fairly on how each one participated . . . inour group one member contributed very little, soit would not have been fair for her to have thesame mark as one who overly exerted them-selves’. The opportunity to award an individualmark was important given that 47% (n ¼ 8) of thestudents believed that the workload was un-equally divided amongst the group and two stu-dents (12%) were undecided about this issue.Table 1 provides the detail of the student’sperceptions of fairness.

Student’s ability to assess self and peer

The students responded to two questions designedto explore their perceived ability to make fair as-sessments. Students (94%; n ¼ 16) had a strongbelief that they were able to assess fairly their owncontribution to the group work. However, when itcame to assessing their peers, 30% (n ¼ 5) found itdifficult to be fair. The qualitative comments pro-vide some insight into the possible reasons for thedifficulties. Students stated that it was tough ‘tomark down’ or ‘penalise’ students who were not

Table 1 Student’s perceptions of fairness (n ¼ 17)

Stronglyagree (%)

Agree(%)

Undecided(%)

Disagree(%)

Stronglydisagree (%)

The self & peer assessment was a fair method ofassessing individual’s contribution to group work

24 59 0 17 0

The self & peer assessment meant that mycontribution to the group work was valued

30 35 0 35 0

The self & peer assessment was a fair method ofawarding marks for group work

35 35 12 18 0

Self & peer assessment ensured that individuals whoparticipated least in the group work were awarded alower grade

29 36 29 6 0

The group work was shared equally among groupmembers

12 29 12 35 12

Table 2 Student’s perceptions of motivation (n ¼ 17)

Stronglyagree (%)

Agree(%)

Undecided(%)

Disagree(%)

Stronglydisagree (%)

The self & peer assessment increased mymotivation to participate in the group work

18 47 0 35 0

The self & peer assessment increased the othergroup members’ motivation to participate in thegroup work�

24 29 29 12 0

* 6 not answered.


contributing equitably due to personal and familycommitments.

The influence of self and peer assessment onstudent motivation

Another important finding to emerge from thisstudy was that self and peer assessment had apositive impact on student motivation. Sixty-fivepercent of students (n ¼ 11) believed that theself and peer assessment increased their ownmotivation with 53% (n ¼ 9) agreeing that it in-creased their colleague’s motivation to partici-pate in the group work (see Table 2). The themeof motivation was also common in the students’qualitative comments. It influenced students indifferent ways. Student stated that the self andpeer assessment was an ‘extra motivationalstrategy to keep all the group going’ and ‘itprovides motivation for group member to make ameaningful contribution to the group work’ andfurthermore ‘it encouraged a higher standard ofwork and promoted attendance at meetings’.However, for one student fear was a motivatingfactor as the following comment suggests; ‘it

definitely made me work as there was the fear ofbeing marked down if I didn’t contribute’. An-other student feared that the assessment couldbe used as ‘a way for some members to get ateach other’.

Students’ views of the guidelines andassessment tool

In view of the developmental aspect of this as-sessment strategy, it was important to assess thestudents’ views of the information given and theappropriateness of the criteria used. There was100% (n ¼ 17) satisfaction with the written guide-lines and the additional verbal information given bylecturers. Students believed that the criteria usedin the assessment tool were appropriate for mark-ing an individual’s contribution to the group work.Some student recommendations for further devel-opment included increasing the percentage ofmarks allocated to self and peer assessment, pro-viding students with a breakdown of their self andpeer assessment marks and further education onhow to deal with different personalities within thegroup.


Discussion

Overall the findings from this small study supportthe use of a self and peer assessment dimensionto group work in the context of higher educa-tion. One of the key problems identified in theliterature was the awarding of a group grade ir-respective of the individual student’s contribu-tion (Freeman and McKenzie, 2002). The findingsfrom this study indicate that students found thatthe self and peer assessment was an effectivestrategy in assuring fairness and equity in thegrading of their group project. These findingssupport the earlier research of Freeman andMcKenzie (2002) and Gatfield (1999) who attrib-uted student satisfaction with peer assessment tothe fact that students perceived it as a fairsystem of awarding marks. It is important tonote, in the current study, that the student’sperception of fairness was made against thebackground of an unequal division of workloadwithin the group work. One possible interpreta-tion for student satisfaction is that they wel-comed the opportunity that peer assessmentgave them to moderate the mark awarded to‘free-riders’.

The importance of students being given timeto develop skills in self and peer assessment ishighlighted by Jaques (2000). The opportunityfor this cohort of students to develop their skillsin giving feedback was built into a module onmicroteaching where students used self and peerassessment to provide formative feedback ontheir teaching. This may have reflected in thecurrent study’s findings where student’s believedthat they able to make a fair assessment oftheir own contribution. However, when it cameto marking their peers, students reported havingno problems down-grading individuals who theyperceived to be free-riders, but were reluctantto down-grade individuals who they knew hadpersonal problems which reduced their contri-bution to group work. This has implications in sofar as a strategy that was intended to promotefairness has in itself the potential to introducean element of unfairness. This means that theconcept of fairness can be eroded if studentsare not sensitised to the possibility that thatthere could be members in the group who aresilent about personal problems and are beinglabelled as ‘free-riders’. This has implicationsfor future preparatory information given tostudents.

One benefit of peer and self-assessment dem-onstrated in studies by Freeman and McKenzie

(2002) and Hanrahan and Isaacs (2001) is its po-sitive effect on motivation. In addition, Gatfield(1999) highlights that whilst the use of self andpeer assessment does not guarantee constructiveworking relationships, it is an ‘effective devicefor encouraging good group management prac-tices and enforces a degree of discipline for thestudents to engage in meaningful cooperativework’ (p. 372). The findings from this studysupport the previous findings as students reportedan increase in their own motivation to participatemeaningfully and produce a high standard ofwork.

Conclusion and proposed action for nextcycle-recommendations

Group work is now accepted as part of theoverall assessment strategy used in higher edu-cation. Its use challenges educators to considerways of assessing both the process and outcome,and to ensure fairness in grading group work.Self and peer assessment has the potential tomeet these challenges and have a positive im-pact on student learning. An important elementof assessing group work is to acknowledge thestudent contribution to the process and not fo-cus solely on the outcome. The person bestplaced to make an informed assessment of anindividual’s contribution to the process, is thestudent. Findings from this study indicate thatself and peer assessment does make a differenceto the student perceptions of the fairness of theassessment system and enhances student moti-vation in group work. Action research as a modeof inquiry is limited by the fact that the findingsgenerated are specific to the context from whichthey are derived (Badger, 2000). Given the smallsample size, single location and the nature ofthe student group, generalisation of the findingsis limited. The use of a questionnaire provides alevel of information, which does not allow par-ticipants to provide in-depth description of theirexperiences. However, the positive findings sup-port the continuing use of self and peer assess-ment within this programme. In keeping with thecyclical process of action research, the nextcycle in this study will focus on the student is-sues of increasing the percentage of the gradeallocated to the self and peer assessment andexploring the meaning of the concept of ‘free-riders’ during the preparatory phase of themodule.


Appendix A

Self and Peerassessment for Curriculum Group Project

Name of the student being assessed

Name of assessor

Well belowaverage

0

Belowaverage

1

Average

2

Aboveaverage

3

Well aboveaverage

4

OutstandingContribution

5

Attended scheduled meeting.

Completed agreed tasks on time.

Submitted individual work that was accurate and didnot require major revision by other participants.

Willingly took on an equal share of the work,including unpopular tasks that were required tocomplete the overall project.

Was open to other peoples’ ideas and respondedpositively to feedback on own work.

Provided critically review and constructive feedbackto group members on their submitted work.

Generated ideas, suggestions and solutions that wereimaginative, yet realistic and workable.

Helped the group address individual differences in aconstructive manner.

Shared the responsibility for getting the projectwritten up and submitted in accordance with thecurriculum project guidelines.

Made an overall positive contribution to the groupwork.

Total

Final Mark Awarded:________

Signature of the assessor: Date:

Some of the ideas in this assessment form have been influenced by Jaques (2000) and Gibbs (1995).


Appendix B

Instructions• On your own, complete a separate assessment form for each member of the group, including yourself.• Please consider each member’s individual contribution to the whole group project.• Ask yourself questions like:

(1) Did the person (I) contribute above or below average to the effective functioning of the group?(2) Did the person (I) contribute above or below average to the workload?(3) Was the quality of their (my) work above or below average?

• Try to be positive but rigorous. Try to be aware of any personal bias for or against any member of thegroup.

Remember:

• It is unlikely that each member of the group contributed equally or above average to all the areasidentified.

• In the event of you awarding yourself the top or the bottom mark, the assessment form must be ac-companied by a written rationale for the mark given. (The written rationale must be a minimum of400 words).

• Please remember to write your own name and the name of the student being assessed on the top ofthe assessment form and sign the form once completed.

• The completed forms should be submitted to the course co-ordinator in a sealed envelope with thecompleted assignment.

• The student’s right to confidentiality will be maintained. Students will only be given a summativebreakdown of their results.

Grading the Project:

• The mark awarded by the lecturers for the written project is a group mark. Each student in the groupwill receive the same mark for the written submission.

• The % of the overall mark awarded by the lecturers ¼ 90%.• The mark awarded by the students is an individual mark, which will be used to adjust the group mark

so that each student gets an individual mark.• The % of the overall mark awarded by the students ¼ 10%.

Calculating the Final Mark for the Group Project:

Student Mark from self and peer assessment :¼ sum of the individual scores awarded from assessment

number of students in the group

For example: if there are 5 members in the group 10þ15þ20þ25þ305

¼ 20 out of a maximum of50 points which is 4 out of a maximum of 10%

Group mark (awarded by lecturer for written report 65 marks/100) 58.5 (90% weighting)Self and peer assessment mark 4.0 (10% weighting)Individual student mark 62.5

en influenced by Gibbs (1995).

Guidelines for the self and peer assessment process for the Curriculum Group Project

Some of the ideas in this assessment form have be

Some of the ideas in this assessment form have been influenced by Gibbs (1995).


References

An Bord Altranais, 2000. Review of Scope of Practice forNursing and Midwifery Final Report. An Bord Altranais,Dublin.

Badger, T., 2000. Action research, change and methodologicalrigour. Journal of Nursing Management 8, 201–207.

Boud, D., 2001. Conclusion: challenges and new directions. In:Boud, D., Cohen, R., Sampson, J. (Eds.), Peer Learning inHigher Education: learning from and with each other. KoganPage Ltd, London.

Brydon- Miller M., Greenwood D., Maguire, P., 2003. Why actionresearch? Action Research 1 (1), 9–28.

Burke, L., 1994. Teacher self-evaluation: an assessment usingDelamont’s “beyond Flanders” fields’ technique. NurseEducation Today 14 (3), 194–202.

Coghlan D., Brannick, T., 2001. Doing Action Research in YourOwn Organisation. Sage, London.

Crawford M.W., Kiger, A.M., 1998. Development through self-assessment: strategies used during clinical nursing place-ments. Journal of Advanced Nursing 27 (1), 157–164.

Davison R., Martinsons M., Kock, N., 2004. Principles ofcanonical action research. Information Systems Journal 14,65–86.

Donaldson A.J.M., Topping, K.J., 1996. Promoting Peer AssistedLearning Amongst Students in Higher and Further Educa-tion. Staff and Educational Development Association,Birmingham.

Elliott, J., 1991. Action Research for Educational Change. OpenUniversity Press, Buckingham.

Falchikov, N., 1993. Group process analysis – Self and peerassessment of working together in a group. Educational andTraining Technology International 30, 275–284.

Freeman, M., 1995. Peer assessment of groups by groups.Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 20 (3),289–299.

Freeman M., McKenzie, J., 2002. SPARK, a confidential web-based template for self and peer assessment of studentteamwork: benefits of evaluating across different sub-jects. British Journal of Educational Technology 33 (5),551–569.

Gatfield, T., 1999. Examining student satisfaction with groupprojects and peer assessment. Assessment and Evaluation InHigher Education 24 (4), 375–377.

Gibbs, G., 1995. Learning in Teams: A Tutor Guide. OxfordCentre for Staff Development, Oxford Brookes University.

Government of Ireland, 2000. A Strategy for Pre-registrationNursing Education Degree Programme. Stationery Office,Dublin.

Hanrahan S.J., Isaacs, G., 2001. Assessing self- and peer-assessment: the students’ views. Higher Education Research& Development 20 (1), 53–70.

Hart E., Bond, M., 1995. Developing action research in nursing.Nurse Researcher 2 (3), 4–14.

Lin S.S.J., Liu E.Z.F., Yuan, S.M., 2001. Web-based peerassessment: feedback for students with various thinking-styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 17, 420–432.

Meyer, J., 1995. Stages in the process: a personal account.Nurse Researcher 2 (3), 24–37.

McKiernan, J., 1994. Curriculum Action Research: A Handbook ofMethods and Resources for the Reflective Practitioner. KoganPage, London.

McNiff, J., 1996. You and your action research project.Routledge, New York.

Reason, P., Bradbury, H. (Eds.), 2001. Handbook of actionresearch: Participative inquiry and practice. Sage Publica-tions, London.

Toynbee-Wilson, J., 2001. Project management teams: a modelof best practice in design. In: Boud, D., Cohen, R., Sampson,J. (Eds.), Peer Learning in Higher Education: learning from &with each other. Kogan Page Ltd, London.

Jaques, D., 2000. Learning In Groups, 3rd ed. Kogan Page Ltd,London.

Vuorinen R., Tarkka M.T., Meretoja, R., 2000. Peer evaluation innurses’ professional development: a pilot study to investi-gate the issues. Journal of Clinical Nursing 9, 273–281.

Webb, C., 1989. Action research: philosophy, methods andpersonal experience. Journal of Advanced Nursing 14 (5),403–410.

Williamson G., Prosser, S., 2002. Action research: politics,ethics and participation. Journal of Advanced Nursing 40 (5),587–593.

Self and peer assessment – does it make a difference to student group work?

Documents

Transcript of Self and peer assessment – does it make a difference to student group work?