Student ability and learning experience in assessing peers alongside supervisors in the long case

Annette Burgess; Chris Roberts; Kirsten Black; Craig Mellis

doi:10.11157/fohpe.v16i2.71

Authors

Annette Burgess The University of Sydney
Chris Roberts
Kirsten Black
Craig Mellis

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.11157/fohpe.v16i2.71

Keywords:

peer assessment, peer assisted learning, medical students, long case examinations

Abstract

Background: Peer assessment can provide a valuable method of enriching students’ learning experience, particularly when students act as the assessors, which provides a highly effective enquiry-based learning experience and is increasingly being utilised in medical schools internationally. In preparation for their summative examinations, senior medical students at the Sydney Medical School are required to assess their peers, alongside an academic co-examiner, in the formative long case examinations. This study sought to assess the level of agreement in marking and decision making between student peer and academic assessors, to evaluate the impact of peer assessment on examination performance and to investigate students’ perception of their experience as assessors.

Methods: Medical students examined their peers, alongside an academic co-examiner. We randomly allocated half of the student participants to examine a peer, alongside an academic assessor, prior to being examined themselves. The level of agreement in marking was determined by comparing the independent marking sheets of student and academic co-examiners. Data on whether the student was examined before or after assessing a peer (order of examination) were collected and compared to measure whether prior participation as a peer assessor improved student examination performance. Questionnaires and focus group discussions were used to evaluate student peer assessor perceptions.

Results: Over a 3-year period (2010 to 2012), 197 students participated as co- examiners and were also examined by their peers, with students marking significantly more leniently than their academic co-examiners. Order of examination had no significant bearing on student examination performance. Students identified several benefits of acting as an examiner, including better insight into examination technique, opportunities for self-reflection and knowledge acquisition, and development of some of the attributes of professionalism. However, students identified difficulty in providing critical feedback to peers.

Conclusion: Engagement as an assessor alongside an academic supervisor provides a rich learning experience for students. Additional training in both peer assessment and feedback may increase students’ professional and educational outcomes for future iterations of the activity.

References

Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K., & Mylonas, A. (2002). Developing procedures for implementing peer assessment in large classes using an action research process. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 427–441.

Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31, 399–413.

Bradley, P., & Postlethwaite K. (2003). Simulation in clinical learning. Medical Education, 37 (supplement 1), 15.

Brindley, C., & Schofield, S. (1998). Peer assessment undergraduate programmes. Teaching in Higher Education, 3(1),169–176.

Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bucknall, V., Sobic, E. M., Wood, H. L., Howlett, S. C., Taylor, R., & Perkins, G. D. (2008). Peer assessment of resuscitation skills. Resuscitation, 77(2), 211–215.

Burgess, A., Clark, T., Chapman, R., & Mellis, C. (2013). Senior medical students as examiners in the OSCE. Medical Teacher, 35, 58–62.

Bushell, G. (2006). Moderation of peer assessment in group projects. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(1), 91–108.

Cassidy, S. (2006). Developing employability skills: Peer assessment in higher education. Education and Training, 48(7), 508–517.

Creswell, J. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Cushing, A., Abbott, S., Lothian, D., Hall, A., & Westwood, O. (2011). Peer feedback as an aid to learning—what do we want? Feedback. When do we want it? Now! Medical Teacher, 33, 105–112.

English, R., Brookes, S. T., Avery, K., Blazeby, J. M., & Ben-Shlomo, Y. (2006). The effectiveness and reliability of peer marking in first year medical students. Medical Education, 40(10), 965–972.

Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287–322.

Hasnain, M., Onish, H., & Elstein, A. S. (2004). Inter-rater agreement in judging errors in diagnostic reasoning. Medical Education, 38(6), 609–616.

Heywood, J. (2000). Assessment in higher education. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Johnson, R., & Onwveghbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.

Jones, R., Higgs, R., De Angelis, C., & Prideaux, D. (2001). Changing face of medical curricula. Lancet, 357, 699 –703.

Kernan, W. N., Quagliarello, V., & Green, M. L. (2005). Student faculty rounds: A peer-mediated learning activity for internal medicine clerkships. Medical Teacher, 27(2),140–144.

Kneebone, R., & Nestel, D. (2005). Learning clinical skills: The place of simulation and feedback. The Clinical Teacher, 2(2), 86–90.

Landis, J. R, & Koch, G. G. (1997). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.

Marcoulides, G. A., & Simkin, M. G. (1995). The consistency of peer review in student writing projects. Journal of Education for Business, 70(4), 220–223.

Pendleton, D., Schofield, T., Tate, P., & Havelock, P. (Eds.). (2003) The new consultation: Developing doctor–patient communication. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge.

Reiter, H. I., Rosenfeld, J., Nandagopal, K., & Eva, K. W. (2004). Do clinical clerks provide candidates with adequate formative assessment during objective structured clinical examinations? Advances in Health Sciences Education, 9, 189–199.

Silbert, B. I., & Lake, F. R. (2012). Peer-assisted learning in teaching clinical examination to junior medical students. Medical Teacher, 34, 392–397.

Sluijsman, D., Dochy, F., & Moerkerke, G. (1999). Creating a learning environment by using self-, peer-, and co-assessment. Learning Environment Research, 1(3), 293–319.

Ten Cate, O., & Durning, S. (2007). Peer teaching in medical education: Twelve reasons to move from theory to practice. Medical Teacher, 29(6), 591–599.

Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in college and university. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249–276.

Topping, K. J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631–645.

Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 20–27.

Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2),149–169.

Van den Berg, I., Admiraal, W., & Pilot, A. (2006). Peer assessment in university teaching: Evaluating seven course designs. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(1), 19–36.

Van Lehn, K. A., Chi, M. T. H., Baggett, W., & Murray, R. C. (1995). Progress report: Towards a theory of learning during tutoring. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center.

Vickerman, P. (2009). Student perspectives on formative peer assessment: An attempt to deepen learning? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 34: 221–230.

Wilkinson, T. J, Campbell, P. J., & Judd, S. J. (2008). Reliability of the long case. Medical Education, 42(9), 887–893.