1

STUDENT-CENTRED TESTING: SELF- AND PEER-ASSESSMENT AS MEANS OF

ENGAGING STUDENTS

Student-Centred Testing: Self- and Peer-Assessment as Means of Engaging

Students
Anna Wypychowicz
University of Warsaw

2
STUDENT-CENTRED TESTING: SELF- AND PEER-ASSESSMENT AS MEANS OF
ENGAGING STUDENTS
Spillers (2012) text on self- and peer-assessment is a non-empirical article which
focuses on presenting the idea behind both assessment types, possible implications, as well as
reasons for doing so. The articles role is purely to inform and give general knowledge about
these ways of assessing students. The article is very well-structured, first presenting
information about one assessment type, and then proceeding to the next one. Although not
stated exactly in the article, basing on the information provided, it can be assumed that Spiller
(2012) wrote her article for teachers of higher education. According to Spiller (2012), when
introducing self-assessment, teachers should make sure their students are involved in both
deciding on the expectations and standards concerning their performances, as well as placing
their judgment in relation to these standards. Similarly, peer-assessment requires the student to
involve in both mentioned stages, this time, however, when assessing his/her peers piece of
work and not their own (Spiller, 2012). In both types of testing one of the reasons for using
peer- and self-assessment Spiller (2012) gives is encouraging reflection on the piece of work
the student is currently assessing, no matter it being his/her own or their peers. Another
reason presented by Spiller (2012) is engaging students into the process of assessment builds
on a natural tendency to check out the progress of ones own learning (Spiller, 2012, p.4).
Kearney and Perkins (2014) focused their study on the relationship between ASPAL
(Authentic Self- and Peer-Assessment for Learning) model and engagement of the students.
Their empirical study, as most of the studies concerning ASPAL model, is, too, based in a
higher education. Kearney and Perkins (2014) conducted their study at the University of
Notre Dame, Sydney. The participants were 230 first-year students of Bachelor of Primary
Education course on their second semester of study. The reason for these students to be
chosen was their prior experience with university assessment, but also a capability of
undertaking the process again. The aim of the study was, too, different. The research question
Kearney and Perkins (2014) asked was, whether as being repeatedly exposed to the

3
STUDENT-CENTRED TESTING: SELF- AND PEER-ASSESSMENT AS MEANS OF
ENGAGING STUDENTS
assessment process, the students judgment will improve. The study consisted of several
stages which lasted for 7-8 weeks. First, the students were introduced to the concept of
ASPAL model and completed the survey about their current opinion on university assessment,
engagement in the classes and level of satisfaction with the course. One week later, they
looked at exemplary lesson plans, and performed marking with their peers, guided by their
teacher. In the third week, together with the lecturer, the students developed marking criteria
for their lesson plans, and in the fourth week the pilot marking took place. Two weeks later
they handed in their lesson plans and self- and peer-assessment took place. In order to collect
data, during the last week, the participants were given a survey which consisted of four openended questions related to their positive and negative feelings towards the ASPAL model. The
overall findings concluded that 63% of the students were positive about the model, and 30%
negative, the remaining 7% reactions being neutral (Kearney & Perkins, 2014). When it
comes to engagement, Kearney & Perkins (2014) stated that:
while only one of these questions asked specifically about engagement, the responses
to the other questions provided valuable data with regard to engagement as defined by the
NSSE; specifically, enriching the educational experience. (Kearney & Perkins, 2014, p.5)
When analysing the responses to the question strictly connected with engagement, Kearney
and Perkins (2014) found that 61,5% of participants rated their engagement in the process
high or very high, whereas 12,8% rated themselves as moderately engaged and the
remaining 25% rated the process as not engaging and beneficial. It is important to mention
that the question on negative aspects of the assessment was answered by only 40% of
respondents, noting there was not enough time for the peer-assessment to be done properly
and that more pilot marking was needed in the future. The last question of the survey, being
the request for additional comments, was answered by only 34% of participants, 90% of the
answers being positive. At the end of the article, Kearney and Perkins (2014) stated that the

4
STUDENT-CENTRED TESTING: SELF- AND PEER-ASSESSMENT AS MEANS OF
ENGAGING STUDENTS
studys aim was not to prove whether ASPAL model is or in not successful in engaging
students in the assessment process, but rather acts as an opening of the discussion on the
subject of ASPAL model and its capacity of engaging students. Kearney and Perkins (2014)
also pointed out that involving students in the assessment process does not have to be
implemented only for education degree students, as practice experience, but could be applied
at all levels, with some contextual variation, to promote the generic skills all students require
to thrive (Kearney & Perkins, 2014, p.9).
The study conducted by Kearney, Perkins and Kennedy-Clark (2015) is an empirical
study, which research is based on higher education students and is related with self- and peerassessment. Kearney et al (2015) wanted to research and provide a proof of concept of a
collaborative peer-, self- and lecturer assessment processes (Kearney et al, 2015, p.1), as well
as find out whether these types of assessment can engage students in learning process. In
order to study the concept, Kearney et al (2015) conducted empirical research in an
undergraduate Bachelor of Education degree with approximately 280 students. The
participants were first year students in their second semester, the process taking place as one
of the assignments over the duration of mathematics unit. In the University of Notre Dame in
Sydney, where the students learn, each semester lasts 13 weeks and all units are undertaken
face-to-face (Kearney et al, 2015). The aim and the research question of the study was to
ascertain the difference in results from various types of assessment, comparing the results
from lecturer assessment, peer-assessment, self-assessment and final assessment, the second
aim, which we will focus on, being researching ASPAL model as mean of engaging students
in the process of learning. The study lasted for 8 weeks and was divided into 6 steps, during
which the participants discussed AASL (Authentic Assessment for Sustainable Learning) and
ASPAL processes, completed the survey which role was to find out about their previous
experience with self- and peer-assessments, their overall feelings about assessment throughout

5
STUDENT-CENTRED TESTING: SELF- AND PEER-ASSESSMENT AS MEANS OF
ENGAGING STUDENTS
the course, and their current level of engagement in the course (Kearney et al, 2015, p. 5).
The next step of the study was to engage participants in the process of developing marking
criteria and to run pilot marking one week after the development process. After that,
participants submitted their assignments and a week later they self- and peer-assessed their
work. The last stage of the case consisted of returning the assessments to the participants,
along with feedback from their peers, and holding a debriefing session. The attendance on
lectures was not obligatory, and yet the average attendance while duration of the study was
93%, never, however, reaching full attendance. The study showed only one absence at the
self- and peer-assessment lecture, the student later resigning from the unit for unknown
reasons. Kearney et al (2015), however, points out that although there was near full
attendance during the unit, she is unable to determine whether the students were
academically engaged just because they attended. The findings of the research can be useful
for teachers of higher education, however further research might be needed to find out
whether this type of assessment in reality engages students academically.
Black and Harrison (2001) described their empirical study which was called the Kings
Medway Oxford Formative Assessment Project KMOFAP. The aim of the project was to
introduce teachers of secondary education to formative assessment and let them find out
whether formative assessment is more successful than summative assessment. In the article,
Black and Harrison (2001) focus on one aspect of their study, which was described in detail in
their earlier article (Black & Harrison, 2001). In the project took part twelve science teachers
and twelve mathematics teachers from six comprehensive schools, all teaching students from
year 7 to year 11, choosing their own target classes to work with. At the end of the study all of
the participating teachers were asked to write a few pages long reflection essay about their
work with formative assessment. Analysing these essays, Black and Harrison (2001) found
out that through implementing self- and peer-assessment into classrooms, students learned

6
STUDENT-CENTRED TESTING: SELF- AND PEER-ASSESSMENT AS MEANS OF
ENGAGING STUDENTS
there is a need for developing the overview of their work which is clear not only for them, but
also for their peers (Black & Harrison, 2001). Some of the teachers noted that the use of
formative assessment when checking tests and homework engages students in the lesson, as
they take over the role of teachers and examiners (Black & Harrison, 2001). When the main
focus of the work is placed with the students, the teacher can be free to observe and reflect
on what is happening and so choose and frame helpful interventions (Black & Harrison,
2001, p.45). Another finding of the study was discovering that involving students in peerassessment helps them to take responsibility for their
own and one anothers learning (Black & Harrison, 2001, p.47), for example, when a student
gets a feedback from his/her peer on illegibility of their writing, they are much more sure to
work on writing more clearly, than when hearing the same feedback from the teacher (Black
& Harrison, 2001). The findings of the study were proved to be useful for teachers,
furthermore, as one of the teachers participating in the study noted, I am convinced that it is
worth sacrificing the odd extension piece of work, or even the odd small section of the
syllabus, in order to ensure that what is covered is well understood (Black & Harrison, 2001,
p.47). Black and Harrison (2001) pointed out at the end of their article that from their work
several problems and challenges arose. In their next research they want to focus on the
quality of the formulations of the goals and of the questions that are set before students
(Black & Harrison, p.48), as well as the relationship between the formative and summative
assessment role of the teacher.
Nortcliffe (2012) in her research focuses mostly on students ability to assess
themselves and their peers. The study lasted for 5 years, the participants being the students of
computer networking in a post-1992 university, in total number of 217. The study was
conducted as curriculum module Web-based Design and Development, which ran as a core
module of a BSc Computer and Network Engineering course (Nortcliffe, 2012). The module

7
STUDENT-CENTRED TESTING: SELF- AND PEER-ASSESSMENT AS MEANS OF
ENGAGING STUDENTS
consisted of three Assessments: group-assessment on the presentation of the research
conducted by the students, peer-assessment to develop an enterprise website and electronic
25-question phase test, randomly chosen from the pool of 50 (Nortcliffe, 2012). Additionally,
Nortcliffes (2012) students were given a yearly survey to collect their reflections on the
assessment approaches. What is important in the study, considering this paper, is the
engagement of the students in the peer- and self-assessment process. The peer-assessment was
conducted in the form of worksheet to fill in while listening to the peers presentations
(Nortcliffe, 2012). In order to fill in the worksheet, students had to listen carefully and reflect
on the presentation, giving appropriate comments on good and bad sides of the presentations.
Similarly, the students presenting their research, after the speech had to fill in the same
worksheets for their group. Later on, students were asked about their reflections on this type
of assessment, their responses varying from clearly positive, neutral to negative (Nortcliffe,
2012). Looking at these responses, Nortcliffe (2012) concluded that students had to be
engaged in the process, as their responses were detailed and varied. Nortcliffe (2012),
however, pointed out that although students rather enjoyed assessing themselves and their
peers, they were not so sure whether they would like to do the same activity again.
Thomas, Martin and Pleasants (2011) in their empirical article focused on the
relationship between self- and peer-assessment and students future-learning in higher
education. In their work Thomas et al (2011) analyzed three projects involving ASPAL model,
to find out how self- and peer-assessment can be used to enhance future-learning, all of them
taking place at La Trobe University within Faculty of Education. The first study was
conducted as core education subject for first year students of primary education in
mathematics, the number of participants being 212. The research question was to find out
how to encourage first year pre-service teachers to be critically involved with assessment
practices (Thomas et al, 2011, p.5) and how could these practices involve students in

8
STUDENT-CENTRED TESTING: SELF- AND PEER-ASSESSMENT AS MEANS OF
ENGAGING STUDENTS
constant reflecting about their teaching and learning. In order to answer the questions, groups
of three were giving a 45-minute presentation each week, after which 10-15 minutes were
devoted to self- and peer-assessment. These practices were not only to make students aware of
the qualities of good presentation, but also to help pre-service teachers to understand what to
look for when assessing their future students presentations. After that, the class came together
and discussed their reflections, and then the self- and peer-assessment work was graded by
the lecturer (Thomas et al, 2011, p.7). Thomas et al (2011) concluded that thanks to the
project the pre-service teachers understood what makes a good presentation and what a
teacher needs to look for when assessing others presentation. The second project was
participated by 37 students in Teaching and Program Development (TPD) course. The aim
was to make a link between students current and future challenges. Students were asked to
prepare and present a program of the course using a wiki, to which later they were to develop
a criteria for peer-assessment. At first, students were reluctant and wanted the teacher to mark
them, but soon they agreed to do it themselves and came up with three criteria. However,
what the researcher noticed, was that the engagement of students in peer-assessment varied.
Some ignored the criteria completely, some had awarded all of their team-members the same
mark, when others finally focused really on the criteria and provided detailed feedback for all
students (Thomas et al, 2011). Although many of the participants did not engage in the
formative assessment as much as the researcher could hope for, those who did will for sure
benefit from the experience and would be able to use it in their future work (Thomas et al,
2011). The last project was conducted as part of Leading Groups in Outdoor Environment
course, with 58 students participating. The aim of the project was finding a way to engage
the students in learning that was both deeper and of more relevance to the contexts in which
they would work after graduating (Thomas et al, 2011, p.11). The method used was self- and
peer-assessment of two students assignments. After writing and sending in the assignments,

9
STUDENT-CENTRED TESTING: SELF- AND PEER-ASSESSMENT AS MEANS OF
ENGAGING STUDENTS
the teacher coded them anonymously and assigned into groups of three. Each group of
students was to provide peer-assessment to the assignments, as well as self-assessment to their
own work, by giving marks and a brief feedback at the back of the assignment. Then, the final
mark was to be decided on the average of self- and three peer-assessments. There were several
outcomes of the project. First of all, the students approach towards the formative assessment
methods changed. While at first the students were afraid of the ASPAL model, later on they
begun to appreciate its benefits on their own learning (Thomas et al, 2011). As some of the
students pointed out, the methods taught them the qualities of good and bad assignment, as
well as to reflect on their own work (Thomas et al, 2011). At the end of the project, the
researcher asked the participants to write a short feedback form on what was beneficial from
the method, if there was anything. The responses were mainly positive, demonstrating the
level of engagement and thinking. There was, however, one negative answer which needs to
be noted. The student pointed out the problem which emerges when using the ASPAL model,
mainly the competence of students to assess themselves and their peers (Thomas et al, 2011).
He noticed that if student writing an assignment does not really understand the subject, might
later assess his/her and others work wrongly. However, although the students concern were
valid, there is a need to remember that developing () abilities to make judgments about the
quality of works is a process (Thomas et al, 2011, p.13). Thomas et al (2011) concluded that
ASPAL model has a great impact on ones development as critical thinker, and critical
thinking is not only what academics should be encouraged to do, but also what employers
expect () graduates to be able to do (Thomas et al, 2011, p.13).
In conclusion, as all of the studies and researches analyzed in the paper prove that selfand peer-assessments do enhance students engagement in the learning process (Kearney &
Perkins, 2014, Black and Harrison, 2001, Nortcliffe, 2012, Thomas et al, 2011), however,
Kearney et al (2015) were not able to prove whether the participants of their study were able

10
STUDENT-CENTRED TESTING: SELF- AND PEER-ASSESSMENT AS MEANS OF
ENGAGING STUDENTS
to become engaged academically. Not only that, but these methods were proven useful for the
pre-service teachers as a practice for assessing their future students work (Thomas et al,
2011, Kearney et al, 2015, Kearney & Perkins, 2014). ASPAL model teaches future teachers
the practical ability to assess assignments (Thomas et al, 2011, Kearney et al, 2015, Kearney
& Perkins, 2014), as well as develops students critical thinking (Thomas et al, 2011).

11
STUDENT-CENTRED TESTING: SELF- AND PEER-ASSESSMENT AS MEANS OF
ENGAGING STUDENTS
Resources:
Black, P, & Harrison, C. (2001). Feedback in questioning and marking: the science
teachers role in formative assessment. School Science Review, June 2001. 82(301). 55-61
Black, P. & Harrison, C. (2001). Self- and peer-assessment and taking responsibility:
the science students role in formative assessment. School Science Review, September 2001,
83(302). 43-49
Kearney, S., & Perkins, T. (2014). Engaging Students through Assessment: The
Success and Limitations of the ASPAL (Authentic Self and Peer Assessment for Learning)
Model. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice. Volume 11, Issue 3. 1-14
Kearney, S., Perkins, T. & Kennedy-Clark, S. (2015). Using self- and peer-assessments
for summative purposes: analysing the relative validity of the AASL (Authentic Assessment
for Sustainable Learning) model. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2015, 1-14.
McMillan, J. H., & Hearn J. (2008). Student Self-Assessment: The Key to Stronger
Student Motivation and Higher Achievement. educational HORIZONS, Fall 2008, 40-49.
Nortcliffe, A. (2012). Can Students Assess Themselves and Their Peers? - A Five
Years Study. Student Engagement and Experience Journal. Volume 1, Issue 2. 1-17
Spiller, Dorothy (2012). Assessment Matters: Self-Assessment and Peer-Assessment.
Teaching Development| Whanga Whakapakari Ako.
Thomas, G., Martin, D., & Pleasants, K. (2011). Using self- and peer-assessment to
enhance students future-learning in higher education. Journal of University Teaching &
Learning Practice. Volume 8, Issue 1. 1-17