Chemical engineering students’ perceptions of peer and self-assessment

Figures & data

Figure 1. Outline of the development of the PPSA questionnaire through Studies I and II.

Figure 2. Percentages of different Likert-responses for perceptions of peer assessment (PA) in the PPSA1 and the mean values for each question. The response range at the bottom of the Figure is from Strongly disagree (= 1) to Strongly agree (= 5). Meanwhile, the superscripts after the items on the left indicate their source with 1 = Planas Lladó et al. (2014) and 2 = Wen and Tsai (2006).

Figure 3. Percentages of different Likert-responses for perceptions of self-assessment (SA) in the PPSA1 and the mean values for each question. The response range at the bottom of the Figure is from Strongly disagree (= 1) to Strongly agree (= 5). Meanwhile, the superscripts after the items on the left indicate their source with 1 = Planas Lladó et al. (2014) and 2 = Wen and Tsai (2006).

Table 1. Examples of characteristic responses in different open response categories for peer and self-assessment in the questionnaires.

Category	Example (Peer assessment)	Example (Self-assessment)
Learning and reflection	When you familiarise yourself with the assessment criteria and model solutions, learning is kind of inevitable	Self-assessment was good when you had to go through again the assignments you had done, and you saw if something had gone wrong
Motivation and interest	Peer assessment was interesting and useful, the course felt different from other courses, because teachers’ evaluation was not the only assessment method	Self -assessment was nice change to traditional assessment
Self-efficacy	I believe that the peer assessment will go well	I believe I am fair and just in my assessment, also towards myself
Exhaustion and workload	Workload was too big	I experienced it … solely as increasing workload
Cynicism	I doubt that many students can assess accurately	Is this worth it, people may just get frustrated
Self-critisism	It’s hard to assess other work when you did not succeed in it yourself	It’s hard to be objective when conducting self- assessment

Table 2. The relevant statistical EFA indicators for the PPSA2 and the PPSA3.

	No. items	Barlett	KMO	Parallel	VMAP	α	ωt
Peer assessment PPSA2	22	<0.001	0.90	3	3	0.92	0.94
Self-assessment PPSA2	24	<0.001	0.87	3	3	0.93	0.95
Peer assessment PPSA3	15	<0.001	0.88	3	3	0.88	0.92
Self-assessment PPSA3	15	<0.001	0.85	3	3	0.9	0.94

Table 3. The factors structure of the peer assessment items in PPSA3, together with the means, standard deviations, and McDonald’s omega values of the factors.

	PF1	PF2	PF3
McDonald’s ωt	0.90	0.80	0.82
Mean (sd)	3.07 (0.89)	3.80 (0.70)	2.35 (0.72)
Peer assessment supported my learning in the course	0,795
Peer assessment motivated me to engage more deeply with course tasks.	0,860
Peer assessment made me participate more in course activities.	0,703
Peer assessment helped me recognise my errors.	0,735
Peer assessment increased my motivation to study in the course.	0,859
Peer assessment made me review the course contents more.	0,766
I was able to assess the performance of my peers with the provided assessment rubrics and model solutions		0,862
I was able to apply the assessment rubric to mark my peers’ solutions.		0,866
I understood how the tasks were supposed to be solved when I compared them to the assessment rubric and model solutions.	0,260	0,499
Peer assessment is unfair because the effort students put into it varies a lot			0,734
The criteria for peer assessment felt unjust when compared to the tasks.		−0,280	0,610
I felt that I could not assess others’ work reliably.			0,537
I feel that many students were not able to assess their peers’ work.			0,736
Peer assessment increased the workload too much	−0,243		0,612
In peer assessment, the students are forced to do the teacher’s work as well.			0,690

PF1 = Peer assessment as supporting learning –factor.

PF2 = Self-efficacy in peer assessment –factor.

PF3 = Negative experiences of peer assessment –factor.

Table 4. The factors structure of the self-assessment items in PPSA3, together with the means, standard deviations, and McDonald’s omega values of the factors.

	SF1	SF2	SF3
McDonald’s ωt	0.88	0.82	0.89
Mean (sd)	3.19 (0.81)	3.73 (0.71)	2.17 (0.82)
Self-assessment supported my learning in the course	0,902
Self-assessment made me review the course contents more.	0,826		0,217
Self-assessment made me participate more in course activities.	0,743
Self-assessment helped me to recognise my errors.	0,727		−0,230
Self-assessment motivated me to engage more deeply with course tasks.	0,693
Self-assessment increased my motivation to study in the course.	0,575
I was able to apply the assessment rubric to mark my solutions.		0,876
I was able to to assess my performance with the provided assessment rubrics and model solutions.		0,851
I understood how the tasks were supposed to be solved when I compared them to the assessment rubric and model solutions.	0,309	0,588
Self-assessment increased the workload too much			0,894
Self-assessment was unpleasant and stressful			0,823
Performing self-assessment felt frustrating.			0,880
It was difficult to assess my performance if I had not mastered the tasks myself.			0,772
I felt that I could not assess my work reliably.	0,252	−0,258	0,694
There is little benefit to self-assessment compared to the workload.			0,556

SF1 = Self-assessment as supporting learning –factor.

SF2 = Self-efficacy in self-assessment –factor.

SF3 = Negative experiences of self-assessment –factor.

Table 5. Correlations between the peer and self-assessment factors in PPSA3 and the measures of learning approaches, study-related burnout, and general self-efficacy.

	Mean	SD	PF1	PF2	PF3	SF1	SF2	SF3
Self-efficacy	3.94	0.96		0.18*			0.23*
Unreflective	3.31	0.78			0.23*		−0.21*	0.27**
Deep	3.24	0.69		0.26**			0.22*
Exhaustion	3.04	0.98	0.18*					0.29**
Cynicism	2.23	1.09			0.23*		−0.20*	0.25**
Inadequacy	3.20	1.10	0.18*		0.22*			0.31**

Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

PF1 = Peer assessment as supporting learning –factor.

PF2 = Self-efficacy in peer assessment –factor.

PF3 = Negative experiences of peer assessment –factor.

SF1 = Self-assessment as supporting learning –factor.

SF2 = Self-efficacy in self-assessment –factor.

SF3 = Negative experiences of self-assessment –factor.

Unreflective = Unreflective approach to learning.

Deep = Deep approach to learning.

Table

1A. Learning and reflection Peer assessment supported my learning in the course. Peer assessment made me review the course contents more. Peer assessment helped me understand what I know and do not know. Peer assessment helped me recognise my errors. Peer assessment opened new perspectives to the course tasks and their solutions. I feel like I improved in peer assessment during the course.	1B Learning and reflection Self-assessment supported my learning in the course. Self-assessment made me review the course contents more. Self-assessment helped me understand what I know and do not know. Self-assessment helped me to recognise my errors. I feel like I improved in self-assessment during the course.
2A Motivation and participation It was good that the students participated in assessment through peer assessment. Peer assessment motivated me to engage more deeply with course tasks. Peer assessment increased my motivation to study in the course. Peer assessment made me participate more in course activities. Peer assessment brought nice variation to how courses are usually assessed	2B Motivation and participation It was good that the students participated in assessment through self-assessment. Self-assessment motivated me to engage more deeply with course tasks. Self-assessment increased my motivation to study in the course. Self-assessment made me participate more in course activities. Self-assessment brought nice variation to how courses are usually assessed.
3A Self-efficacy in peer assessment I was able to assess the performance of my peers with the provided assessment rubrics and model solutions. I understood how the tasks were supposed to be solved when I compared them to the assessment rubric and model solutions. I was able to apply the assessment rubric to mark my peers‘ solutions.	3B Self-efficacy in self-assessment I was able to assess my performance with the provided assessment rubrics and model solutions. I understood how the tasks were supposed to be solved when I compared them to the assessment rubric and model solutions. I was able to apply the assessment rubric to mark my solutions.
4A Exhaustion and workload There is little benefit to peer assessment compared to the workload. In peer assessment, the students are forced to do the teacher’s work as well. Peer assessment increased the workload too much.	4B. Exhaustion and workload There is little benefit to self-assessment compared to the workload. In self-assessment, students are forced to do the teacher’s work as well. Self-assessment increased the workload too much.
5A Cynisism I feel that many students were not able to assess their peers’ work. Peer assessment is unfair because the effort students put into it varies a lot. The criteria for peer assessment felt unjust when compared to the tasks. Peer assessment was a waste of time and felt useless.	5B. Cynisism­­­ Performing self-assessment felt frustrating. The criteria for self-assessment felt unjust when compared to the tasks. Self-assessment was a waste of time and felt useless.
6A Self-critisism I was ashamed to show my solutions to others. I felt that I could not assess others’ work reliably. It was difficult to give feedback if I had not mastered the tasks myself.	6B. Self-criticism Self-assessment was unpleasant and stressful. I felt that I could not assess my work reliably. It was difficult to assess my performance if I had not mastered the tasks myself.

Planas Lladó, A., L. Feliu Soley, R. M. Fraguell Sansbelló, G. Arbat Pujolras, J. Pujol Planella, N. Roura-Pascual, J. J. Suñol Martínez, and L. Montoro Moreno. 2014. “Student Perceptions of Peer Assessment: An Interdisciplinary Study.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 39 (5): 592–610. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2013.860077.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wen, M. L., and C.-C. Tsai. 2006. “University Students’ Perceptions of and Attitudes toward (Online) Peer Assessment.” Higher Education 51: 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6375-8.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar