Meng Fan meng.fan@ncl.ac.uk Newcastle University 17 th June 2011

1. Internationalisation of Pedagogy and Curriculum in Higher Education ConferenceInternational students’ perceptions, practices and identities of peer assessment in the British university: a case study Meng Fan meng.fan@ncl.ac.uk Newcastle University 17th June 2011

2. Outline • Introduction • Innovation • Methodology • Initial results • Limitations

3. 1 Introduction (1) • Definitions of PA (peer assessment) Peer assessment is a process in which students evaluate performance or achievement of their peers (Topping et al. 2000) • Benefits of PA e.g. enhance learning outcomes/improve responsibility/promote cognition/develop transferable skills (Li & Steckelberg, 2005; Falchikov, 1986; Topping, 1998)

4. 1 Introduction (2) • Critiques of PA: e.g. conditions of effectiveness • Research purposes: Developing understanding of tertiary international students’ perceptions of peer assessment

5. 1 Introduction (3) • The central research question: What are positive and problematic aspects of peer assessment that international students have with in the British university? • The sub-questions : What are the views and opinions of international students in relation to their experiences of peer assessment? What are learner identities of international students in the process of peer assessment? To what extent do international students’ (new) identities forged through the peer assessment process influence them in their future learning/work?

6. 2 Innovation (1) • New requirements to assessment in HE multiplicities of purposes: employability for lifelong learners, professional development, specialized knowledge creation and global competitiveness • Learning and identity understanding students’ learning as entailing an engagement with identity has considerable implications for assessment.

7. 2 Innovation (2) • Bernstein’s theory (1996) Recognition rules & realization rules • Peer assessment from a social perspective Interpersonal variables in the process of peer assessment have hardly been studied (Van Gennip et al., 2009)

8. 3 Methodology • Mixed methods: Both qualitative & quantitative approaches • Case study: why is the best choice? Recognizing the importance of context

9. Sample (1) • Educational context: a British cosmopolitan university • 3 modules across different disciplines: E-business: 25 postgraduates Computer sciences: 30 undergraduates Education: 8 postgraduates

10. Sample (2) Nationality • South East Asia: China 12, Thailand 2, South Korea 1, Hong Kong 4, Malaysia 3, India 4, Sri Lanka 2 • Middle east: Saudi Arabic 3, Omen 1 • Africa: Angola 1, South Africa 1, Nigeria 2 • UK: 16 • East EU: Russia 1, Kazakhstan 3, Azerbaijan 1, Lithuania 2, Bulgaria 1 • South EU: Cyprus 1, Greece 2

11. Data collection • Questionnaire: pre- & post-questionnaires • Observation:observed teaching sessions • Documents:school/university assessment policy; feedback from peers • Interviews: so far 11 attended individual interviews & 4 focus groups

12. Initial Influential factors of analysis • Biographic factors: • Clear criteria, recognition rules & realization rules, styles of peer assessment, anonymity • Focus factors: • Numbers of home students VS international students, times of using peer assessment, previous experiences, cultural background • Normal factors: • Age, gender, disciplinary differences

13. Initial Quantitative analysis Positive aspects—Q1,Q2,Q3,Q4 Negative aspects—Q6,Q7,Q11,Q14,Q15

14. Initial qualitative data analysis • NVIVO analyzes open answers in question-naires, interviews, observation, & documents. • Early stage codes • Unfair mark • Feedback • Anonymity • Cultural background • Language • Communication • Evaluation

15. 4 Initial results (1) • Quantitative result of perceptions of the relationship between PA & cultural background

16. 4 Initial results (2) Significant findings from qualitative data • Unfair mark • Feedback • Anonymity • Cultural background

17. 5 Limitations • The context • Weak framework • Shortage of time • Practice research design • Small sample, pilot study,& analyzing quantitative data

18. Refernces • Bernstein,B.(1996). Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity: theory, research, critique. London, Taylor and Francis. • Falchikov, N. (1986). Product comparisons and process benefits of collaborative peer group and self assessments. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 11, 146–166. • Li, L. & Steckelberg, A. L. (2005). Impact of technology-mediated peer assessment on student project quality. Paper presented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Orlando, FL. • Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 3, 249–276. • 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 Gennip, N., Segers, M. & Tillema, H. (2009). Peer assessment for learning from a social perspective: The influence of interpersonal variables and structural features. Educational Research Review, 4, 41–54.