Peer assessment has been found to have many advantages in learning particularly when viewing it through a socio-cultural lens. This study explored peer assessment across language teacher education coursework, following 15 teacher candidates through three semesters of TEFL coursework. This longitudinal approach is rare with peer assessment research. Surveys and interviews were collected to understand the students’ perception of peer assessment, including how it contributed to their learning and its summative use. Results indicated that repeatedly practicing peer assessment in coursework led to increased positive perception about its usefulness in learning and enhanced trust in peers as qualified assessors, but with a complex interaction of various factors in students’ perception, such as perceived task difficulty, interpersonal relationships, mode of feedback, etc. The participants’ hesitant attitudes about summative use of peer assessment (PA) was interpreted as largely based on their socio-culturally shaped perspectives of authority and academic achievement. Implications for using peer assessment in language teacher education are offered.
AdachiC.TaiJ.H.-M.DawsonP. (2018). Academics’ perceptions of the benefits and challenges of self and peer assessment in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43, 294–306.
2.
Al-BarakatA.Al-HassanO. (2009). Peer assessment as a learning tool for enhancing student teachers’ preparation. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 37, 399–413.
3.
AuerbachC.F.SilversteinL.B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction to coding and analysis. New York University Press.
4.
AzarnooshM. (2013). Peer assessment in an EFL context: Attitudes and friendship bias. Language Testing in Asia, 3, 3–11.
5.
BabaiiE.AdehA. (2019). One, two, . . ., many: The outcomes of paired peer assessment, group peer assessment, and teacher assessment in EFL writing. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 16, 53–66.
6.
BallantyneR.HughesK.MylonasA. (2002). Developing procedures for implementing peer assessment in large classes using an action research process. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 427–441.
7.
BearmanM.DawsonP.BennettS., et al. (2017). How university teachers design assessments: A cross-disciplinary study. Higher Education, 74, 49–64.
8.
BoudD.FalchikovN. (2006). Aligning assessment with lone-term learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 399–413.
9.
BrownH.D.AbeywickramaP. (2019). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. 3rd edition. Pearson Education.
10.
BrownG.T.L.IrvingS.E.PetersonE.R.HirschfeldG.H.F. (2009). Use of interactive-informal assessment practices: New Zealand secondary students’ conceptions of assessment. Learning and Instruction, 19, 97–111.
11.
BuholzerF.RietscheR.SöllnerM. (2018). Knowing what learners like: Developing a cultural sensitive peer assessment process in MOOCs. In Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik (MKWI), Lüneberg, Germany. Available at: https://www.alexandria.unisg.ch/253133 (accessed November 2021).
12.
BryantD.A.CarlessD.R. (2010). Peer assessment in a test-dominated setting: Empowering, boring or facilitating examination preparation?Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 9, 3–15.
13.
CabelloV.ToppingK.J. (2020). Pre-service teachers’ conceptions about the quality of explanations for the science classroom in the context of peer assessment. General Issue, 8, 207–318.
14.
CarsonJ.NelsonG. (1996). Chinese students’ perceptions of ESL peer response group interaction. Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 1–19.
15.
ChangC.C.TsengK.H.ChouP.N.ChenY.H. (2011). Reliability and validity of Web-based portfolio peer assessment: A case study for a senior high school’s students taking computer course. Computers & Education, 57, 1306–1316.
16.
CharalambousC.Y.PhilippouS.OlympiouG. (2018). Reconsidering the use of video clubs for student-teachers’ learning during field placement: Lessons drawn from a longitudinal multiple case study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 74, 49–61.
17.
CheahP.K.DiongF.W.YapY.O. (2018). Peer assessment in higher education: Using Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to identify perspectives of Malaysian Chinese students. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 26, 1471–1489.
18.
CohenE.G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.
19.
CreswellJ.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches: International student edition. Sage.
20.
CurtinM.FosseyE. (2007). Appraising the trustworthiness of qualitative studies: Guidelines for occupational therapists. Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 54, 88–94.
21.
d’AlessioM.A. (2018). The effect of microteaching on science teaching self-efficacy beliefs in preservice elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29, 441–467.
22.
DörnyeiZ. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
23.
EomS.B.WenJ.AshillN. (2006). The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 4, 215–235.
24.
FalchikovN. (2007). The place of peers in learning and assessment. In BoudD.FalchikovN. (Eds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the long term (pp. 128–143). Routledge.
25.
FalchikovN.GoldfinchJ. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70, 287–322.
26.
GarrattL. (1995). Peer feedback in writing: Is it ‘culturally appropriate’ for Hong Kong Chinese adult learners?Occasional Papers in English Language Teaching, 5, 97–118.
27.
GielenS.DochyF.OnghenaP. (2011). An inventory of peer assessment diversity. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 137–155.
28.
HarfordJ.MacRuaircG. (2008). Engaging student teachers in meaningful reflective practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1884–1892.
29.
JohJ. (2019). Impact of peer feedback on learning: A case of EFL teacher trainees. Journal of Asia TEFL, 16, 1102–1117.
30.
KaufmanJ.H.SchunnC.D. (2011). Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: Their origin and impact on revision work. Instructional Science, 39, 387–406.
31.
KellyA.E. (2004). Design research in education: Yes, but is it methodological?Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 115–128.
32.
KhonbiZ.A.SadeghiK. (2012). The effect of assessment type (self vs. peer vs. teacher) on Iranian university EFL students’ course achievement. Language Testing in Asia, 2, 47–74.
33.
KiliçD. (2016). An examination of using self-, peer-, and teacher-assessment in higher education: A case study in teacher education. Higher Education Studies, 6, 136–144.
34.
KimM. (2009). The impact of an elaborated assessee’s role in peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34, 105–114.
35.
KorthagenF.A.J. (2001). Linking practice and theory: The pedagogy of realistic teacher education. Erlbaum.
36.
Le HebelF.ConstantinouC.P.HospesovaA., et al. (2018). Students’ perspectives on peer assessment. In DolinJ.EvansR. (Eds.), Transforming assessment: Through an interplay between practice, research and policy (pp. 141–173). Springer International.
37.
LinG.-Y. (2018). Anonymous versus identified peer assessment via a Facebook-based learning application: Effects on quality of peer feedback, perceived learning, perceived fairness, and attitude toward the system. Computers and Education, 116, 81–92.
38.
LiuN.-F.CarlessD. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11, 279–290.
39.
MangelsdorfK. (1992). Peer reviews in the ESL composition classroom: What do the students think?ELT Journal, 46, 274–284.
40.
MartinJ. N.NakayamaT. K. (2001). Experiencing intercultural communication: An introduction. Mayfield.
41.
MatsunoS. (2009). Self-, peer-, and teacher-assessments in Japanese university EFL writing classrooms. Language Testing, 26, 75–100.
42.
McLeayF.WessonD. (2014). Chinese versus UK marketing students' perceptions of peer feedback and peer assessment. The International Journal of Management Education, 12, 142–150.
43.
MehrensW.A.PophamW.J.RyanJ.M. (1998). How to prepare students for performance assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17, 18–22.
44.
MercaderC.IonG.Diaz-VicarioA. (2020). Factors influencing students’ peer feedback uptake: Instructional design matters. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 45, 1169–1180.
45.
MerriamS. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. 4th edition. Jossey-Bass.
46.
MillerL.NgR. (1996). Autonomy in the classroom: Peer assessment. In PembertonR.LiE.S.L.OrW.W.F.PiersonH.D. (Eds.) Taking control: Autonomy in language learning (pp. 133–146). Hong Kong University Press.
47.
MokJ. (2011). A case study of students’ perceptions of peer assessment in Hong Kong. ELT Journal, 65, 230–239.
48.
Morahan-MartinJ. (1996). Should peers’ evaluations be used in class projects? Questions regarding reliability, leniency, and acceptance. Psychological Reports, 78, 1243–1250.
49.
Murillo-ZamoranoL.R.MontaneroM. (2018). Oral presentations in higher education: A comparison of the impact of peer and teacher feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43, 138–150.
50.
MurrayH.G.LangM. (1997). Does classroom participation improve student learning?Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20, 7–9.
51.
NawasA. (2020). Grading anxiety with self and peer-assessment: A mixed-method study in an Indonesian EFL context. Issues in Educational Research, 30, 224–244.
52.
NelsonG.CarsonJ. (2006). Cultural issues in peer response: Revisiting ‘culture’. In HylandK.HylandF. (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Contexts and issues (pp. 42–59). Cambridge University Press.
53.
NewmanS.J. (1996). Reflection and teacher education. Journal of Education of Teaching, 22, 297– 310.
54.
O’NeillL.MorckeA.M. (2016). Summative peer marking?Perspectives on Medical Education, 5, 73–74.
55.
OxfordR. (2011). Teaching and researching language learning strategies. Pearson Education.
56.
PatriM. (2002). The influence of peer feedback on self-and peer-assessment of oral skills. Language Testing, 19, 109–131.
57.
PenuelW.R.FishmanB.J.ChengB.H.SabelN. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40, 331–337.
58.
RatminingsihN.M.ArtiniL.P.PadmadewiN.N. (2017). Incorporating self and peer assessment in reflective teaching practices. International Journal of Instruction, 10, 165–184.
59.
ReinholzD. (2016). The assessment cycle: A model for learning through peer assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 41, 301–315.
60.
RichardsJ.C.RodgersT.S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. 3rd edition. Cambridge University Press.
61.
RichertA.E. (1999). Teaching teachers to reflect: A consideration of programme structure. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22, 509–527.
62.
RoscoeR.D.ChiM.T.H. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors’ explanations and questions. Review of Educational Research, 77, 534–574.
63.
RoskamsT. (1999). Chinese EFL Students' attitudes to peer feedback and peer assessment in an extended pair work setting. RELC Journal, 30, 79–123.
64.
Sahin-TaskinC. (2018). Effects of active learning environments supported with self- and peer assessment on pre-service teachers’ pedagogical and self-efficacy beliefs. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 46, 421–440.
65.
SaitoH. (2008). EFL classroom peer assessment: Training effects on rating and commenting. Language Testing, 25, 553–581.
66.
SaitoH.FujitaT. (2004). Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writing classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 8, 31–54.
67.
SchunkD.H.PajaresF. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. In WentzelK.R.WigfieldA. (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation at School (pp. 35–54). Routledge.
68.
SeifertT.FeliksO. (2019). Online self-assessment and peer-assessment as a tool to enhance student-teachers’ assessment skills. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 44, 169–185.
69.
SlavinR.E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Allyn & Bacon.
70.
SluijsmansD.M.A.PrinsF. (2006). A conceptual framework for integrating peer assessment in teacher education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 32, 6–22.
71.
SluijsmansD.M.A.Brand-GruwelS.van MerriënboerJ.J.G. (2002). Peer assessment training in teacher education: Effects on performance and perceptions. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 443–454.
72.
SluijsmansD.M.A.Brand-GruwelS.van MerriënboerJ.J.G.BastiaensT.J. (2003). The training of peer assessment skills to promote the development of reflection skills in teacher education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 29, 23–42.
73.
SluijsmansD.M.A.Brand-GruwelS.van MerriënboerJ.J.G.MartensR.L. (2004). Training teachers in peer-assessment skills: Effects on performance and perceptions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41, 59–78.
74.
SridharanB.TaiJ.BoudD. (2019). Does the use of summative peer assessment in collaborative group work inhibit good judgement?Higher Education, 77, 853–870.
75.
StrijbosJ.-W.NarcissS.DünnebierK. (2010). Peer feedback content and sender’s competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency?Learning and Instruction, 20, 291–303.
76.
TaurinaZ. (2015). Students’ motivation and learning outcomes: Significant factors in internal study quality assurance system. International Journal for Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education, 5, 2625–2630.
77.
ThanhP.T.H.GilliesR. (2010). Designing a culturally appropriate format of formative peer assessment for Asian students: The case of Vietnamese students. International Journal of Educational Reform, 19, 72–85.
78.
TillemaH.H.KesselsJ.W.M.MeijersF. (2000). Competencies as building blocks for integrating assessment with instruction in vocational education: A case from the Netherlands. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25, 265–278.
79.
TokanM.K.ImakulataM.M. (2019). The effect of motivation and learning behaviour on student achievement. African Journals Online, 39, 1–8.
80.
ToppingK.J. (2018). Using peer assessment to inspire reflection and learning. Routledge.
81.
TsuiA.B.M.NgM. (2000). Do secondary L2 writers benefit from peer comments?Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 147–170.
82.
VerloopN.WubbelsT. (2000). Some major developments in teacher education in the Netherlands and their relationship with international trends. In WillemsG.M.StakenborgJ.H.J.VeugelersW. (Eds.), Trends in teacher education (pp. 19–32). Garant.
WenM.L.TsaiC.C. (2008). Online peer assessment in an inservice science and mathematics teacher education course. Teaching in Higher Education, 13, 55–67.
85.
WilsonR.M.PollockP.H.HamannK. (2007). Does active learning enhance learner outcomes? Evidence from discussion participation in online classes. Journal of Political Science Education, 3, 131–142.
86.
WooM.W.SerenkoA.ChuS.K.W. (2019). An exploratory study of the relationship between the use of the Learning Commons and students’ perceived learning outcomes. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 45, 413–419.
87.
YangM.BadgerR.YuZ. (2006). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback in a Chinese EFL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 179–200.
88.
ZhanY. (2020). What matters in design? Cultivating undergraduates’ critical thinking through online peer assessment in a Confucian heritage context. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 46, 615–630.
89.
ZhangS. (1995). Re-examining the affective advantages of peer feedback in the ESL writing class. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 209–222.
ZhaoH. (2018). Exploring tertiary English as a foreign language writing tutors’ perceptions of the appropriateness of peer assessment for writing. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43, 1133–1145.
92.
ZouY.SchunnC.D.WangY.ZhangF. (2017). Student attitudes that predict participation in peer assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 43, 800–811.
