Creative Education
2013. Vol.4, No.7A2, 94-104
Published Online July 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ce) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.47A2011
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
94
Creativity in and between Collaborative Peer Assessment
Processes in Higher Distance Education
Lisbeth Amhag
Faculty of Education and Society, Malmö University, Malmö, Sweden
Email: Lisbeth.Amhag@mah.se
Received May 28th, 2013; revised June 29th, 2013; accepted July 6th, 2013
Copyright © 2013 Lisbeth Amhag. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons At-
tribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.
The study investigates in what ways the combination of self-assessment and collaborative peer assessment
can support students’ creative- and critical-abilities, as well as providing opportunities for meta-cognitive
learning. The study is informed by sociocultural theories research traditions and computer supported col-
laborative learning, CSCL. Data were collected from 22 student teachers peer assessment processes, in-
cluding peer feedback and self-assessment during two consecutive 15 credit web-based courses. The ana-
lytical framework was based on Toulmin’s argument model (1958) and Hattie and Timperley’s (2007)
feedback model. The results provide a broader perspective on collaborative peer assessment processes by
distinguishing, identifying and describing the meaning content in the students’ peer feedback and self-
assessment, and the relationships between these. Quality of content and creativity in formulating the
responses can be linked to creativity as “higher order thinking skills”. Peer assessment processes can thus
function as creative exercises or as a tool to support such skills.
Keywords: Creativity; Distance Education; Online Learning; Peer Assessment; Peer Feedback;
Self-Assessment; Self-Efficacy
Introduction
Many students today use online interactions for social pur-
poses, but in higher education students also need to develop
academic reading and writing, inquiry and problem solving to
improve their learning outcomes. Academic assignments such
as reports, articles and project presentations are complex types
of work; accordingly, there is a need for more differentiated
collaborative assessment processes, especially in distance. In
this context peer assessment processes may develop students’
creative- and critical-abilities, and support meta-cognitive
learning. Therefore, one aim of this study is to investigate in
what ways the combination of collaborative peer- and self-
assessment in higher distance education can be a tool for learn-
ing in a formative or creative way (Wiliam, 2011). Another aim
is to determine to which extent students aware of the cognitive
aspects of their learning in their self-assessments? Can collabo-
rative peer assessment processes be one way for students to
identify strengths and weaknesses in their own and others’
work? Can such processes support their creative and critical
ability to reflect and assess in a appropriate ways?
The definition of combined peer- and self-assessment, ac-
cording to Dochy, Segers and Sluijsmans (1999), is when the
students assess peers, but they are simultaneously included as
members of the group and the self must therefore also be as-
sessed. This combination fosters creativity and knowledge
(Dickhut, 2003) as “higher order thinking skills”. Meta-cogni-
tive ability is here related to a wide range of skills, such as
problem solving, interpreting, communicating, reflecting and
evaluating, i.e. a process of creating internal feedback (what
one knows); seeking and dealing with feedback information
(what one can do); evaluating their levels of understanding
(what one knows about one’s own cognitive ability). Assess-
ment processes provide opportunities to practice and combine
such skills in complex environments, strengthening students’
confidence to work constructively, critically and creatively.
A practical benefit of implementing peer feedback, according
to van der Pol, van den Berg and Admiraal (2008), is that the
feedback becomes available faster during the learning process,
and that more approaches are available than the teacher could
ever provide alone. Topping (1998) emphases the learning
benefits deriving from receiving other students’ appreciations
with aspects of each individual’s understanding, as well being
exposed to alternative strategies and solutions based on the
literature. This promotes the ability to give and receive peer
feedback, as well critically review different types of texts. Peer
feedback can also be an intermediated step for self-assessment.
Response ability is here also related to a concrete answer to a
specific text in order to become a more conscious writer. A
previous study (Amhag, 2011) of 30 student teachers’ peer as-
sessment contributions show that the majority of 253 peer feed-
back items (64%) presented their ideas in an understandable
and coherent manner, while the rest lacked convincing evid-
ence.
Self-assessment can be a way to help students to focus their
attention on the meta-cognitive aspects of their learning when
they monitor the meaning content in their own assignment and
the peer assessment process, and compare it with own and fel-
low students. Dochy, Segers and Sluijsmans (1999) describe six
L. AMHAG
main topics of self-assessment: 1) the influence of different
abilities, 2) the time effect, 3) the accuracy, 4) the effect of self-
assessment, 5) methods of self-assessment, and 6) the content
of self-assessment. According to De Wever, Schellens, Valcke
and Van Keer (2006), and Kostons, van Gog and Paas (2010)
these learning processes foster reflection on the quality of the
students’ assignments and the input of others. Students can use
their reflections as input for self-assessment after complement-
ing the assignment, and to support next learning assignment.
Furthermore, the peer assessment processes includes creativity
as “higher order thinking skills” (Meyer, 2003; Schellens &
Valcke, 2005; Wegerif, 2007; Richardson & Ice, 2010) to de-
velop awareness of effective contributions and discussions
online, and perceive the various qualities that make the contri-
butions relevant. It is argued here that this type of creativity is a
central charac teristic of academ ic studies.
Adams and King (1995) suggest a systematic approach with
student activities such as: setting own criteria, assessment exer-
cises, self-assessment and peer assessment. Assessment for
learning, also called formative assessment by Wiliam (2011: pp.
37-39), is regarded as a process or as a tool. The process re-
quires provision of effective feedback, active involvement of
own learning, adjustment of the online teaching to take into
account the result of peer assessment, influence of peer assess-
ment on motivation and self-esteem, and the need for students
to be able to assess themselves and understand how to improve.
These elements, De Wever, Van Keer Schellens and Valcke
(2009) contend, not only help students to make judgments
about their own learning outcomes, but also allow them to con-
sider the characteristics of competent work, and learn how to
apply these criteria to their own and others’ work. In a collabo-
rative context, peer assessment enables reflections on the qual-
ity of personal contributions and the input of others, and de-
velops awareness of creative high quality contributions to the
discussions online. In these respects, peer assessment processes,
conducted individually and in group, can promote students’
learning and development; together with other forms of reflec-
tive interactions that support students’ creative and critical abil-
ity to cooperate, reflect and assess in an effective way.
Previous Research
Increasing numbers of studies on students’ collaborative
learning in web-based environments have used a socio-cultural
approach as their point of departure. The assumption is that
considering language, communication, culture and various as-
pects of the social context for students’ learning and develop-
ment is central for our understanding of learning processes.
This perspective is distin guished fro m other perspectives th rough
the claim that it is not possible to understand learning solely
from individual actions or development. According to Wenger
(1998), the communities of practice are maintained by the par-
ticipants’ mutual engagement, common interests and joint en-
terprise, as well as a shared repertoire with a set of rules, means
and working methods. Learning is not merely internal and con-
ceptual, but is situated in time and space, and mediated through
concrete activ ities. Particip a nt s engage in activities together and
produce something that they share amongst themselves. Learn-
ing activities, can thus take the form of exchanging experiences,
concepts, opinions or differing viewpoints.
Theories of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning
(CSCL), with an emphasis on the importance of the social con-
text for learning, are a relatively well-developed area of re-
search within the sociocultural tradition. According to Suthers
(2006), the research methodology of distance education and the
CSCL enterprise covers experimental, empirical, descriptive
and iterative design approaches with focus on procedural
learning. While many studies have investigated students’ par-
ticipation in asynchronous discussion groups by an overall
categorization of the content, or by examining how different
technical designs of online activities can promote learning (e.g.
Schrire, 2006; Strijbos, Martens, Prins, & Jochems, 2006; Sun,
Tsai, Finger, Chen, & Yeh, 2008; Weinberger & Fischer,
2006;), there are considerably fewer studies that analytically
investigate the quality of collaborative peer assessment proc-
esses. A re- view of 15 content analysis schemes in overall
categories, by De Wever, Schellens, Valcke and Van Keer
(2006), shows that content analysis schemes are seldom reused
or adapted, and the empirical base of the validity of the instru-
ments is often limited. Common theoretical perspectives on the
content examine cog- native presence, instructional exchanges,
critical thinking, know- ledge construction, social constructiv-
ism and social networking presence.
The importance of developing self-reflective learning and
critical thinking has been highlighted in several studies within
the field of distance learning and education (e.g. Finegold &
Cooke, 2006; Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2001; Swann,
2010; Vonderwell, 2003; Wegerif, 2006). The review byvan der
Pol, van den Berg and Admiraal (2008) of online peer feedback
in higher education shows significant relationship between
online feedback containing concrete suggestions and a suc-
cessful uptake of the feedback. Additionally, relationships can
be observed between the reception of feedback and the use of
this feedback by the receiver. However, Hewett (2000) demon-
strates that compared to face-to-face feedback, exchanging peer
feedback online may result more often in the revision of stu-
dents’ concrete writing tasks and use of peer ideas, whereas
face-to-face peer feedback included more frequent intertextual
and self-regulated idea use.
De Wever, Schellens, Valcke and Van Keer (2006) point to
the significant positive impact of paying attention to ways roles
of peer feedback are assigned to students. In their study, the
time when these roles were introduced appeared to be important
was the moment of introduction of these roles. The authors saw
that it worked at the start of the discussions, but faded out to-
wards the end. Their results indicate that peer feedback has no
significant added value when dialogical exchanges are done
voluntarily. It may be that teachers often take for granted that
students are active spontaneously, that they realize the benefits
of peer feedback, and know how to use various peer assessment
processes. Other aspects have been brought to light by Saunders
(1989), who investigated a combination of two factors: 1) what
students do together with the tasks assigned to them as col-
laborators, 2) the roles and responsibilities the students assume
as collaborators and the interactive structure underlying the
activity. Saunders’ study shows that peer assessment is often
more limited than other forms of collaborative learning in the
sense that it generally offers a lower degree of interactivity. He
calls this process “co-responding” and argues that it affects
students’ possibilities for interactive meaning making, and col-
laborative knowledge construction.
When looking for studies on peer learning, Dochy, Segers
and Sluijsmans (1999), and Topping (2005) emphasize that by
assessing the work of fellow students, students also learn to
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 95
L. AMHAG
evaluate their own work. Producing and receiving peer feed-
back result in considerable benefits, which justify the time, and
effort that is required to engage in the learning process of peer
feedback. According to Topping (2005) peer learning can in-
clude various forms of peer assessment processes and critical
review before examinations, but also implies that the social
aspects of learning need to be included in the quality of educa-
tion. This view is also supported by Shekary and Tahririan
(2006), who state that peer assessment in language-related epi-
sodes (LRE) resembles any other form of collaborative learning.
Their study suggests that students benefitted most from the
nature of acceptance, rather than from its mere presence. Other
studies (e.g. Dysthe, 2002; Amhag & Jakobsson, 2009; Amhag,
2010, 2011, 2012) illustrate the potential of online peer feed-
back as the range of meaning-mediating possibilities, which are
providing throughout the process. Peer feedback can thus ide-
ally function as an active tool that allows students to present
with self-reflective and interdependent arguments and thoughts,
where each student can contribute with his or her own expertise
and receive new information and experiences from others. In
order to shed more light on collaborative peer assessment proc-
esses in higher distance education, the present study addresses
the following research questions:
In what way do the students identify the meaning content in
their own and others’ peer feedback?
In what way do the peer assessment processes support stu-
dents’ creative- and critical abilities to reflect and assess in
a formative way?
Method
Data were collected from 22 student teachers’ (women = 15,
men = 7) peer assessment processes during twenty weeks of
participation in the first two consecutive 15 credit web-based
modules in the distance teacher training program, Teacher
Education, 90 credits. One assignment in each module was
executed in an online learning management system (LMS),
where students can share their course assignments, give and
receive peer feedback and evaluate their peer assessment proc-
ess in a self-assessment, both directly and retrospectively. In
both modules the students were divided into the same six
groups, with five to seven individuals in each. Each group in-
cluded both men and women. At the start of the first course the
students had worked with assessment exercises showing how to
provide peer feedback in their groups. The exercise which were
used as a base in this study are grounded on criteria supported
by Dysthe and colleagues (2011) that specify: as they read each
other’s assignments they should start with capturing text focus
or purpose, then indicate interesting or unclear summary and
finally formulate briefly in their own words what they consider
most important, ask questions or provide explanations and
clarifications or suggest alternative solutions and/or advice
and discuss problems on the basis of literature and theories.
The students are not asked to grade the meaning content in the
course assignments.
Implementation
The present study focuses on the second course assignment
in module 1, where the students worked both individually and
in groups with different cases of teacher leadership. One con-
cerned an official case about a pupil who was exposed for
humiliating treatment at school, while the other was the stu-
dents own case—a story that illustrates a situation in which
pupils, parents and/or teachers, felt that they had been badly
treated. In module 2, the students worked both individually and
in groups with their own cases of bilingualism and second lan-
guage learning. They had individually observed teaching situa-
tions in school, and in the assignment they were requested to
describe and analyse one of situations they had observed, ex-
plaining the circumstances and providing their own didactic
suggestions on how to manage this situation.
In both modules the same rules and procedure were followed
with respect to the combination of collaborative peer- and self-
assessment were used. In the first step, the students were asked
to submit their own particular contribution to the course as-
signment in their groups’ discussion forum by a specified dead-
line, where they could either download or read their fellow
students assignments online. In the second step, the students
were requested to think critically about the content of the con-
tributions, as specified in the course syllabus, and write a brief
comment in which they express their own perspective on the
arguments presented in the initial contributions. These com-
ments were submitted to their groups’ discussion forum, also
by a specified deadline. In the third step, in module 1 the stu-
dents were asked to self-assess the quality of both their own
peer feedback and additionally analyse the comments on the
didactic suggestions and summarize their own learning in the
course of these processes. The final compilations of assess-
ments and analyses were submitted in the LMS for assessment
by the teachers.
Analysis of the Combination of Peer- and
Self-Assessment
The analysis was conducted in two phase (Patton, 2002). The
first phase involved identifying the and describing the content
of the 22 students’ collaborative peer feedback, a total of 155
items, using Toulmin’s (1958) argument pattern (TAP). TAP is
based on practical relationships or approaches that refer to cog-
nitive knowledge processes, such as thinking, problem solving,
concept formation, perception, attention, memory and reflection.
Toulmin points out that the argument model is a simplification
of the complexity and diversity of an argument. Nevertheless,
carefully considering the various suggestions and solutions in
the contributions, is a part of the learning process, and is im-
portant to handle the logical relationship between them in writ-
ing. Toulmin describes how writers and readers can deal with
texts, and how they can use the resources of texts to determine
what they mean—or rather, some possible meanings. The de-
scription of these fundamental elements of meaning is achieved
with an argument model containing six elements/objects (1958:
pp. 98, 101, 103). Three elements are mandatory, while the
remaining three are optional, since they are frequently found in
texts, but not always. The basic argument model thus consists
of three mandatory elements: C (claim), D (data) and W (war-
rant). The extended argument model includes the optional ele-
ments; Q (qualifier), R (rebuttal) and B (backing). The task is
to show students how to present their ideas in an understand-
able and coherent manner, based on these data and the claims of
the original opinion, and employing the optional elements to
some extent.
The first mandatory element/object, claim (C), is a superior
standpoint with a relationship to any determination or assertion
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
96
L. AMHAG
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 97
about what exists, or the justification of the norms or values
that people hold, or desire for acceptance of the claim. The
second mandatory element/object, data (D), is the information
which the claim is based on, and may consist of previous re-
search, personal experience, common sense, or statements used
as evidence to support the claim. The third mandatory element/
object, warrant (W), is explicit or implicit argument that ex-
plains the relationship between data and claim, for example,
with words such as because or since. The first optional element/
object, qualifier (Q), is related to the claim and indicates the
degree of strength in the claim of using peculiar comments, for
example, with words such as thus or so. The second optional
element/object, rebuttal (R), is connected to the qualifier (Q),
providing statements or facts that either contradict the claim,
data or rebuttal, or qualify an argument, with words such as but
and unless. The third optional element/object, backing (B), can
be connected directly to the warrant (W), with often implicit
motives underlying claims, expressed with words such as be-
cause of or on account of. According to Toulmin (1958), all
terms of the basic argument model (C, D & W) are required to
describe, or analyze the argument. A revised and developed
version of TAP based on Toulmin (1958); Kneupper (1978);
Simon, Erduran & Osborne (2006) is given in Figure 1.
The second phase of analysis involved discovering and iden-
tifying in what ways the students’ focus on the meta-cognitive
aspects of their learning increased in the process of examining
the meaning content in their own and others peer feedback, and
comparing them in their self-assessments. This phase of the
analysis employed Hattie and Timperley’s (2007: pp. 86-87)
three effective feedback questions: Where am I going? (What
are the goals?); How am I going? (What progress is being made
toward the goal?); and Where to next? (What activities need to
be undertaken to make better progress?). These three questions
correspond to the design of feed up, feed back and feed forward.
How successfully the students answer these questions are, ac-
cording to Hattie and Timperley, partly dependent on the level
at which the feedback operates, to reduce the gap across the
four levels of: addressing the task itself; the main process; the
self-regulated actions; and the self as a person, i.e. where the
students are, and where they are aiming to be. Hattie and Tim-
perley argue that these four levels are linked to the power of
feedback. To be successful is in this model defined as; tackling
more challenging tasks, or appreciating “higher order thinking
skills”; error detection skills; better strategies to complete the
task or obtain more information. A revised version of Hattie
and Timperleys model of effective feedback to enhance learn-
ing is given in Figure 2.
The model of Hattie and Timperley (2007), show in Figure 2
works to reduce the gap between achievement and aims across
the four levels of feedback: the task (FT); the processing (FP);
the self-regulation (FR); and the self-level (FS).
Feedback about the task (FT) is how well the process is
linked to the course assignment, helping the task to be under-
stood or performed. This feedback might concern acquiring
more or different information and/or use of knowledge with
statements and reproductions of information from others, such
as authors, teachers and fellow students. According to Hattie
and Timperley (2007), this is the most common type of feed-
back. It is sometimes called for “corrective feedback” or
“knowledge of results”, and can relate to correctness, broader
Figure 1.
Revised version of Toulmin’s argument pattern.
Figure 2.
Revised version of Ha ttie and Timperleys model (2007: p. 87).
L. AMHAG
literature and formalities, or some other criterion related to task
accomplishment. One of the problems at FT-level is that the
meaning content is often not linked to other tasks or to the use
of own words or reflections.
Feedback about the process level (FP) is more specific to the
processes underlying tasks or relating and extending tasks.
Such feedback shows a clear purpose with underlying motives
and relations that broadens the meaning content. In the present
study this might concern relationships between data and claims
in teacher leadership, or with respect to bilingualism and sec-
ond language learning, how these relations are perceived by the
student, and also the student’s perceptions, or discussions about
different suggestions of alternative solutions, or didactic pro-
posals on the basis of course literature.
Feedback about the self-regulation level (FR) involves self-
monitoring, directing and regulation of actions, such as inter-
play between engagement and meta-cognitive aspects in the
students’ self-assessment, control of and self-confidence re-
garding these processes, and to progress toward the goals. Such
self-regulation creates internal feedback, feelings of self-effi-
cacy, thoughts and reflections and actions that are planned and
adapted to the attainment of personal goals. This in turn can
lead to seeking and dealing with feedback information, evalu-
ating the levels of understanding, or developing strategies and
proficiency at seeking help.
Feedback about the self-level (FS) rarely contributes to more
engagement, improving personal evaluation, and self-efficacy,
increasing participation towards the learning goals, or under-
standing of the task. The effects at the self-level are too weak,
or unhelpful about ways of performing the task, and too preju-
diced by students’ self-concept to be effective. It is here
important to distinguish between praise addressed to the person
or linked to the task. Personal praise may be perceived and
interpreted in different ways, and therefore has low impact on
learning and development, in contrast to the praise that is
directed towards the work, self-regulation, engagement, or
processes related to the task, its performance and the students
critical ability (Hattie & Timperley, 2007: p. 96).
Results
The study led to two main sets of results. The first results,
summarized in Table 1 below, give a picture of the 22 stu-
dents’ collaborative peer feedback items (N = 155, 89 in mod-
ule 1 and 66 in module 2). They show to which extent the
meaning content of these feedback items contained Toulmin’s
(1958) mandatory elements; claim, data and warrant, which are
related more and less to the optional elements; backing, quali-
fier and rebuttal. The results in Table 1 indicate that the stu-
dents principally presented their ideas in an understandable and
coherent manner in both modules, based on these data, claims
and warrants of the original opinions. Two-thirds of the contri-
butions (63%) contained all three of Toulmin’s mandatory ele-
ments/objects (C, D, W), with assertions about the cases of
teacher leadership in module 1, and bilingualism and second
language learning in course 2 with justification of the norms,
values and solutions, confirmations from own experiences
and/or literature, and the relationship between them; combined
with one or two of the optional elements (Q, R, B) with pro-
posals, statements, or facts that either contradict the claim, data,
or rebuttal, or qualifying the argument by underlying motives.
36% contained three of the mandatory or optional elements/
Table 1.
Level of elements in the stu de nt s ’ collaborative peer feedback items.
Level of elements Course 1 Course 2 Total
CD, CW, CR, DR, WB1 (1%) 0 1 (1%)
CDW, CDR, CDQ,
CWR, DWB 33 (37%) 23 (35%) 56 (36%)
CDWB, CDWQ,
CDWR, CDWRB 55 (62%) 43 (65%) 98 (63%)
Total 89 (100%) 66 (100%) 155 (100%)
Note: C, claim; D, data; W, warrant; B, backing; Q, qualifier; R, rebuttal.
objects, and only 1% contained two of these elements. There is
no significant progression between the two modules.
The second set of results, based on the 22 students’ 44 self-
assessments (one in each module) are illustrated in four ex-
cerpts. These give a broader picture of the collaborative peer
assessment processes and show to what extent the students’
focus on the meta-cognitive aspects of their learning may have
improves when they monitor the meaning content in their own
and others peer feedback, and compare the content in their
self-assessments. In module 1, it appears that many students
repeated in their self-assessment what they had written before
in their collaborative peer feedback. This kind of meaning con-
tent was categorized as feedback on the task level (FT), because
the students showed knowledge of results. Nevertheless,
broader literature and formalities, or some other criterion re-
lated to task accomplishment, would have been required as
evaluations and reflections of own learning. In both modules a
third of the 44 self-assessments (17 pcs.) contained feedback on
the task level (FT), but nearly twice as many in module 1 (11
pcs.), as in module 2 (6 pcs.). The first example, in Figure 3,
gives a picture of the task level (FT). The exc erpt is taken from
module 1, where the students worked both individually and
collaboratively with cases of teacher leadership. A student (here
named Laura), gets peer feedback from fellow student Sarah on
her case.
Within this contribution is it possible to describe and identify
the meaning content on the task level (FT), because Sarah’s
meaning content is linked to the course assignment and per-
formed in an adequate manner. Sarah starts with a statement
that teachers must “be careful with the position of power they
have over the pupils”, which also is the claim in this excerpt.
The data are a part of the claim, which is supported in the lit-
erature about the pupil’s intrinsic value and teachers’ treatment
of pupils. The warrant is here explicit; because “they [class-
mates] promised to be a witness to the situation which the boy
was accused of”, and explains the relationship between the data
in Education Law, and the Sarah’s claim about teachers’ power
over pupils. Sarah’s statement: “I am aware that there is a great
responsibility”, is an implicit backing in this case, because of
the following meaning: What I write is highlighted in the lit-
erature and therefore, I write it in my post. But the utterance
does not present Sarah’s own understanding. If we look at the
qualifier of the claim in this excerpt, so there is a connection
concerning unfair treatment of the boy and abusive treatment.
Finally, the peer feedback contains a rebuttal, which could start
with a word like but “the boy has his classmates around him”,
and that the “more-against-one” situation made it difficult for
the boy to be himself and was violating him even more. Sarah
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
98
L. AMHAG
thus used knowledge with statements and reproductions from
other authors and fellow students. However, there is a need for
broader use of literature, and evaluations and reflections on her
own learning. A summary description of the task level (FT) in
the peer assessment processes in Excerpt 1 is given in Figure
3.
The second example is taken from module 2, where the stu-
dents worked both individually and collaboratively with cases
of bilingualism and second language learning. In both modules
nearly a third (14 pcs.) of the 44 self-assessments contained
feedback on the process level (FP), but more than three times as
many assessments in module 2 (11 pcs.) contained this type of
feedback, compared to module 1 (3 pcs.). In Excerpt 2, the
same student Sarah, summarizes the peer assessment process
connected to her own and fellow students’ didactic suggestions
about her case.
In this excerpt, it is possible to describe and identify the
meaning content on the process level (FP), because Sarah cap-
tures the text focus between the data from course literature, and
the claims that pupils could take part of literature in their native
language to gain a deeper understanding how people have lived
and thought in different cultures, and at different times. She
also discusses further, on the basis of the course literature, her
beliefs that teachers can create various opportunities for the
pupils to write, and suggests alternative solutions of teaching
design, as well extending the meaning content about the diffi-
culty for the pupils to focus on both languages.
If we look at the specific elements in this excerpt, the claim
consist of Sarah’s statement with didactic suggestions that the
pupils with Swedish as a second language would be able to read
Swedish literature in their native language. The data is from the
literature of Lindberg (2005, 2011) and the publication of
Swedish National Agency for Education (Skolverket, 2003)
publication about Swedish as a second language. The warrant
Level of pe er assessment
FT, feedback on the
task level
how well a task is understood or performed
acquiring more or different information
corrective feedback or u se of knowle d ge
statements and reproductions from others
lack of own reflections on learning
Figure 3.
Summary description of t he t ask lev el.
Excerpt 1.
Task level of peer assessment and specific elements in the peer feedback.
Excerpts 2.
Process level of peer assessment and specific elements in the self-assessment.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 99
L. AMHAG
is here explicit “since the purpose of literature reading is in
Swedish language”. Sarah’s maintains “that it may be too dif-
ficult for them [the pupils] to focus on both languages”, which
constitutes the backing in this argument because of the difficul-
ties. If we review the qualifier of the claim, there is a connec-
tion; presenting Sarah’s beliefes thus she considers that the
pupils would be able to read Swedish literature in their native
language. Lastly, the self-assessment also contains a rebuttal,
which starts with “But I do believe that teachers…” to qualify
her argument. In summary, Sarah’s contribution is linked in
specific ways to the processes underlying the motives with a
clear purpose and relations between data and claims that
broaden the meaning content. A summary description of the
process level (FP) in the peer assessment processes in Excerpt
2 is given in Figure 4.
The third example is taken from module 1, where the stu-
dents worked both individually and collaboratively with cases
of teacher leadership. Nearly a quarter of the 44 self-assess-
ments (10 pcs.) contained feedback on the self-regulation level
(FR), but where twice as many are found in module 1 (7 pcs.)
as in module 2 (3 pcs.). In the third excerpt, Hannah summa-
rizes the online peer processes from her own peer feedback to
five fellow students’ cases.
In the excerpt it is possible to describe and identify the
meaning content on the self-regulation level (FR), because
Hannah reflects that their group have covered a fairly wide
range of different leadership problems. She has looked for and
dealt with feedback information to bring in the other students’
opinions, although she realises that they do not have an identi-
cal picture of how the school will conduct its leadership. Her
self-efficacy feeling, e.g. the belief in her own ability to perform
course activities successfully about leadership ability, is to be
more active in source references, but she shows proficiency at
seeking help on the issue of how teachers can bring all students
together. Hannah also evaluates her own understanding and
alternative strategies for how to work systematically with pro-
longed equal plans, and how to generate empathic students.
If we look at the specific elements in this excerpt, the claim
consist of Hannah’s statement that their group have covered a
fairly wide range of different leadership problems, though far
from all which is the rebuttal in the argument. The data is from
the literature on children and pupil safety legislation, and the
warrant explains the relation between Hannah’s question why
schools don’t open their eyes about their prolonged equal plans,
as well as in relation to the explicit backing of the warrant be-
cause of the absence of systematic work. Finally, she qualifies
her performance of the course assignments by resolving to be
more active in source references. In summary, Hannah ex-
presses internal feedback through her thoughts and reflections
about different leadership, the schools equality plans and dis-
crimination legislation. She evaluates her literature reading and
source references and is seeking for what is wrong in the
schools systematic work to generate empathic students. A
summary description of the self-regulation level (FR) in the
peer assessment processe s in Excerpt 3 is given in Figure 5.
The fourth example is taken from module 1, by Eric’s com-
ment about his online peer feedback to fellow students’ cases of
teacher leadership and module 2, with Maria’s comment about
her online peer feedback, compared to fellow students’ cases of
bilingualism and second language learning with didactic sug-
gestions. In both modules, only three students’ assessments
(one in module 1 and two in module 2) contained feedback on
the self-level (FS).
Within these two excerpts in Excerpt 4, it is possible to de-
scribe and identify the meaning content on the self-level (FS),
because Eric is only claiming that common to the described
cases on violations in his group has been that there are no con-
crete action plans for how the measures are to be deployed and
when. He qualifies the argument of teacher leadership with a
rebuttal that more prevention efforts are also missing, but
without any concrete suggestions of his own or taken from
course literature for how pupils shall behave towards each other.
The comments contain little task-related information, or visible
improvement of his own personal evaluations and critical abil-
ity, or achievement of learning goals.
If we look at Maria’s contribution, she claims that the
group’s didactic, alternative suggestions on bilingualism and
second language learning are consistent with her own didactic
Level of pe er assessment
FP, feedba ck on the
process level
capturing the text focus or purpose
processes underlying tasks or relating and
extending tasks
perceptions and relations of data and claims
suggestions of alternative solutions
discussing problems on the basis o f literature
Figure 4.
Summary description of th e p rocess level.
Level of pe er assessment
FR, feedback on the
self-regulation level
creating internal feedback, thoughts and reflections
feelings of self-efficacy
seeking and dealing with peer feedback information
evaluating their levels of understanding and
strategies
proficiency at seeking help
Figure 5.
Summary description of th e s el f-regulation level.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
100
L. AMHAG
suggestions concerning a pupil. She only qualifies the argument
with her feelings; therefore, she has no more to add in this sec-
tion. It appears that Marias commitment is lacking, which does
not lead to an improvement of her critical ability, or support
achievement of learning goals. In summary, Eric and Maria’s
contributions do not display increased engagement in their self-
assessment or their understanding and progress in their under-
standing of and participation in the learning goals and peer
assessment processes. A summary description of the self-level
(FS) in the peer assessment processes in Excerpt 4 is given in
Figure 6.
Throughout the two-phase analysis, it has appeared that it is
possible to describe the development of the collaborative peer
assessment processes, not only as an individual appropriation,
but also as an extended, collective competence to collaborate
within the group. In this way, the excerpts only constitute de-
scriptions of the four levels in the collaborative peer assessment
processes (cf Hattie & Timperley, 2007) to the extent that the
students combine peer feedback and self-assessment as a tool
for learning in a formative or creative way (Dickhut, 2003;
Wiliam, 2011). This does not mean that these particular stu-
dents’ contributions displayed all the aspects of these feedback
levels a group of other students might have produced in this
situation. A summary of the four levels in the peer assessment
processes in this study is provided in Figure 7.
Research Contributions and Implications
Previous research on collaborative web-based learning proc-
esses has focused on various aspects summarized by De
Weaver, Schellens, Valcke and Van Keer (2006). The results of
the present study provide a broader and complementing per-
spective on collaborative peer assessment processes by distin-
guishing, identifying and describing the meaning content in the
students’ peer feedback and self-assessment, as well as the
relationships observed within and between their contributions.
Excerpt 3.
Self-regulation level of peer assessment and specific elements in the self-as-
sessment.
Excerpt 4.
Self-level of peer assessment and specific elements in the self-assessment.
Level of pe er assessment
FS, feedback on
self as a person
contains little task-rel ated information
rarely converted into more engagement in learning
rarely improving self-evaluations
rarely developing critical ability
Figure 6.
Summary description of t he s elf -level.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 101
L. AMHAG
Level of peer
assessment
FT, feedback on
the task level
how well a task is understood or performed
acquiring more or different information
corrective feedback o r u se of knowledge
statements and reproductions from other
lack of own reflections on learning
FP, feedback on
the process level
capturing the text focus or purpose
processes underlying tasks or relating and extending tasks
perceptions and relations of data and claims
suggestions of alternative solutions
discussing problems on the basis o f literature
FR, feedback on
the self-regulation
level
creating internal feedback, thoughts and reflections
feelings of self-efficacy
seeking and dealing with peer feedback information
evaluating their levels of understanding and strategies
proficiency at seeking help
FS, feedback on
self as a person
contains little task-rel ated information
rarely converted into more engagement in learning
rarely improving self-evaluations
rarely developing critical ability
Figure 7.
Summary of the four levels in the peer assessments.
The results indicate a potential for deeper learning in and be-
tween collaborative peer assessment processes, including crea-
tivity as “higher order thinking skills” (Shaheen, 2010), both in
terms of the peer process or as use of tools, such as peer feed-
back and self-assessment to solve problems (Dickhut, 2006).
Contributions at the four levels of feedback in the collabora-
tive peer assessment processes profressed between module 1
and module 2. This point of departure is based on Hattie and
Timperley’s (2007) three feedback questions; Where am I go-
ing? (What are the goals?); How am I going? (What progress is
being made toward the goal?); and Where to next? (What ac-
tivities need to be undertaken to make better progress?), which
correspond to the design of feed up, feed back and feed forward.
The three questions are partly dependent on the level at which
the feedback operates; the task level (FT) about how well the
goals of the two assignments were understood; the process level
(FP) about the main processing needed to be understood in the
two assignments, where the students worked both individually
and collaboratively with cases of teacher leadership in module
1, and cases of bilingualism and second language learning in
module 2; the self-regulation level (FR) about self-monitoring,
directing and relating their assignments and the peer assessment
process; and the self-level (FS) about the students’ personal
evaluation and emotions concerning their learning, i.e. where
the students are and where they are aiming to be.
Overall, in both courses, nearly a third (14 pcs.) of the 44
self-assessments contained feedback on the process level (FP),
with more than three times as many in module 2 (11 pcs.) as in
module 1 (3 pcs.), especially the connection to students text
focus or purpose, and relations between own didactic sugges-
tions, and course literature with suggestions of alternative solu-
tions. Likewise the self-assessments on the task level (FT)
dropped from nearly twice as many in module 1 (11 pcs.) as in
module 2 (6 pcs.), evolving to more linking to other tasks and
use of own words or reflections. For example, Sarah’s contribu-
tion develops between module 1 and module 2, from using
reproductions of other authors’ texts to broadening the meaning
content in her own words and using others student´s arguments
and justifications. Few students display self-regulated ability
already in module 1, like Hannah, when she uses her own
thoughts and reflections on various actions and strategies.
However, it appears that most students were unfamiliar with
practice of giving/receiving and integrating peer feedback and
above all, self-assessing their own learning. This result indi-
cates that peer feedback and self-assessment must be trained
and integrated continuously in teaching with different methods
and criteria (Adams & King, 1995) to foster creativity and
knowledge as “higher order thinking skills, which can be seen
at the processes behind creativity (Dickhut, 2003).
The material clearly shows that the valuable effects in and
between the collaborative peer assessment processes with peer
feedback and self-assessment reside above all in two aspects of
the activities; an increasing ability to provide and take in oth-
ers’ peer feedback, as well as an increasing ability to evaluate
their levels of understanding in their self-assessments. The
value of what the students’ write and how creative they are
when formulating the responses, is here measured by to which
extent they use their own words in ways that broaden and
expand other students and writers perceptions. The students can
identify strengths and weaknesses in their work, which also
promotes their critical ability to reflect, assess, evaluate, plan
and take responsibility for their own learning (van der Pol, van
den Berg & Admiraal 2008). Therefore, is it possible to claim
that the impact in and between collaborative peer assessment
processes is connected to the power of feedback, and the inter-
mediate step of qualitative self-assessment can be seen as “wise
thinking” and to some extent “creative thinking” (Craft, 2006).
The second set of evidence suggest that the quality of the
meaning content in the students’ self-assessments (N = 44) also
evolved between the two modules. The majority of the students
(82%) self-assessed others’ peer feedback containing didactic
suggestions, and compared them with their own suggestions in
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
102
L. AMHAG
module 2, compared to module 1, only half of the students
merely repeated what they had written before in their peer
feedback in their self-assessment. A lack of personal thoughts
and reflections could also be observed. These qualitative dif-
ferences could be distinguished, identified and described by
combining Toulmin’s (1958) argument model which shows the
complexity and diversity in an argument, and Hattie and Tim-
perley’s (2007) four levels of feedback that shows the complex-
ity and d iversi ty in and bet ween the dif ferent le vels. The analy-
sis was summarized and described in four clarifying excerpts.
Self-assessment is a self-regulatory proficiency, which is pow-
erful in selecting and interpreting content of knowledge in ways
that provide feedback. The author’s own experiences from
teaching in higher education on distance courses and comments
by students’, shows that they learn more by giving peer feed-
back, than by receiving peer feedback. When they give peer
feedback they must deal with texts, and learn how they can use
the resources of texts to determine what they mean—or rather,
identify some possible meanings. They future learn how the
meaning content can be formulated briefly in their own words
to express what they consider most important, ask questions,
provide explanations and clarifications, or suggest alternative
solutions and/or advice and discuss problems on the basis of
literature and theories. The dimension of students’ apprecia-
tions with aspects of aspects of other students’ understanding of
an issue; as well searching for alternative strategies and solu-
tions based on literature have the potential to expand their crea-
tive and critical abilities to give and receive peer feedback
(Topping, 1998; Dochy, Segers, & Sluijsmans 1999). It can
therefore be argued, that the added value of collaborative peer
assessment process can be encouraged through various creative
exercises (Dickhut, 2003).
The third set of evidence obtained in this study, indicates that
it is not enough to give and receive peer feedback in order to
develop the students’ self-regulating ability to self-assess their
own learning in a qualitative manner. Nearly a quarter of the 44
self-assessments (10 pcs.) contained feedback on the self-
regulation level (FR), notable twice as many in module 1 (7
pcs.) as in module 2 (3 pcs.). Perhaps the students were unsure
of how they would self-assess their own peer feedback in mod-
ule 2 with didactic suggestions relating to bilingualism and
second language learning, compared to how they felt about self-
assessing a discussion of various cases of teacher leadership.
All students have experiences from their own school practice
and different teachers’ leadership, but not all the students had
personal experience about how to teach with respect to bilin-
gualism and second language learning. This uncertainty may
have had effects on students ability to evaluate their levels of
understanding and strategies and/or feelings of self-efficacy, i.e.
the belief in their own ability to perform course activities suc-
cessfully (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). The results thus indicate
that there is a clearly also a need for methods and activities to
teach self-assessment in higher education, in order to better
develop self-regulated aspects and meta-cognitive abilities. Im-
portant learning aims include the ability to consider the charac-
teristics of competent work, and knowing how to apply these
criteria on their own work (Dochy, Segers, & Sluijsmans, 1999).
When students have the meta-cognitive skills of self-as-
sessment, they are able to evaluate their own levels of under-
standing, their efforts and strategies used on course assignments,
others’ peer feedback and alternative solutions, as well as their
progress in relation to their learning goals and expectations.
They are also able to assess their own learning outcome relative
to others’ perceptions and relations of data, claims and warrants
in course literature and own experiences. As students become
more experienced in self-assessment, multiple dimensions of
learning outcome can be assessed. Nevertheless, most impor-
tant is that teachers and students offer insights into “why” and
“where” they shall give and receive peer feedback—as well as
extending their understanding of “how” creativity is important
for self-assessment.
An important implication is related to future research within
the field of online learning, and how we might implement and
understand what is happening in and between collaborative peer
assessment processes. It can be concluded that a larger invest-
ment in supporting the students should be made from the start
of the course, by exposing them frequently to peer feedback
and self-assessment experiences; by implementing peer feed-
back and self-assessment training (De Wever, Van Keer Schel-
lens, & Valcke, 2009).
REFERENCES
Adams, C., & King, K. (1995). Towards a framework for student self-
assessment. Innovations in Education & Training International, 32,
336-343. doi:10.1080/1355800950320405
Amhag, L. (2012). High school students’ argument patterns in online
peer feedback. In E. F. P. M. Pumilia-Gnarini, E. Pacetti, J. Bishop,
& L. Guerra (Eds.), Handbook of research on didactic strategies and
technologies for education: Incorporating advanc e m e n t s, 2, 711-723.
http://www.igi-global.com/chapter/high-school-students-argument-p
atterns/72113
Amhag, L. (2011). Students’ argument patterns in asynchronous dia-
logues for learning. In Research highlights in technology and teacher
education (pp. 13 7-144) Ed/ITLib Digital Library.
http://storefront.acculink.com/aace
Amhag, L. (2010). Between I and other. Web-based student dialogues
with arguments and responses for learning. PhD Thesis, Malmö:
Malmö University, Malmö Studies in Educational Sciences.
Amhag, L., & Jakobsson, A. (2009). Collaborative learning as a collec-
tive competence when students use the potential of meaning in
asynchronous dialo gu e s. Computers & Education, 52, 656-667.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.012
De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Con-
tent analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous
discussion groups: A review. Computers & Education, 46, 6-28.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.005
De Wever, B., Van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2009).
Structuring asynchronous discussion groups: The impact of role as-
signment and self-assessment on students’ levels of knowledge con-
struction through social negotiation. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 25, 177-188. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00292.x
Dickhut, J. E. (2003) . A brief review of creativity.
www.personalityresearch.org/papers/dickhut.html
Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer-
and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher
Education, 24, 331-350. doi:10.1080/03075079912331379935
Dysthe, O. (2002). The learning potential of a web-mediated discussion
in a university course. Studies in Higher Education, 27.
doi:10.1080/03075070220000716
Dysthe, O., Hertzberg, F., & Løkensgard Hoel, T. (2011). Writing to
learn: Writing in Higher Education (2nd ed.). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Erdis, M. (2007). Law for educators. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Finegold, A. R. D., & Cooke, L. (2006). Exploring the attitudes, ex-
periences and dynamics of interaction in online groups. The Internet
and Higher Education, 9, 201-215. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.06.003
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking,
cognitive presence and computer conferencing in distance education.
The American Journal of Distance E d u ca t i o n , 15, 7-23.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. 103
L. AMHAG
Copyright © 2013 SciRes.
104
doi:10.1080/08923640109527071
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of
Educational Research, 77, 81-112.
doi:10.3102/003465430298487
Hewett, B. L. (2000). Characteristics of interactive oral and computer-
mediated peer group talk and its influence on revision. Computers
and Compisition, 17, 265- 288. doi:10.1016/S8755-4615(00)00035-9
Kneupper, C. W. (1978). Teaching argument: An introduction to the
Toulmin model. College Composition and Communication, 29, 237-
241. doi:10.2307/356935
Kostons, D., van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2010). Self-assessment and task
selection in learner-controlled instruction: Differences between ef-
fective and ineffective learners. Computers & Education, 54, 932-
940. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.025
Lindberg, I. (2011). About school's multi-lingual capital (2nd ed.).
Stockholm: Liber,
Meyer, K. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of
time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning
Networks, 7, 55-65.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Lon-
don: Sage Publications.
Richardson, J. C., & Ice, P. (2010). Investigating students’ level of cri-
tical thinking across instructional strategies in online discussions.
Internet and Higher Education, 13 , 52-59.
doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.009
Saunders, W. (1989). Collaborative writing tasks and peer interaction.
International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 101-112.
doi:10.1016/0883-0355(89)90019-0
Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2005). Collaborative learning in asyn-
chronous discussion groups: What about the impact on cognitive pro-
cessing? Computers i n H u m an Behavior, 21, 957-975.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.02.025
Schrire, S. (2006). Knowledge building in asynchronous discussion
groups: Going beyond quantitative analysis. Computers & Education,
46, 49-70. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.006
Shaheen, R. (2010). Creativity and Education. Creative Education, 1,
166-169. doi:10.4236/ce.2010.13026
Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argu-
mentation: Research and development in the science classroom.
International Journa l of Sc i e nc e Education, 28, 235-260.
doi:10.1080/09500690500336957
Skolverket (2003). Swe di s h as a second languag e. In To read and write.
http://www.skolverket.se
Strijbos, J.-W., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Joche ms, W. M. G. (2006).
Content analysis: What are they talking about? Computers & Educa-
tion, 46, 29-48. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.002
Sun, P.-C., Tsa i , R. J., Finger, G., Chen, Y.-Y., & Yeh, D. (2008). What
drives a successful e-Learning? An empirical investigation of the
critical factors influencing learner satisfaction. Computers & Educa-
tion, 50, 1183-1202. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.11.007
Sut hers, D. D. (2006). Technology affordances for intersubjective mean-
ing making: A research agenda for CSCL. International Journal of
Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1.
doi:10.1007/s11412-006-9660-y
Swann, J. (2010). A dialogic approach to online facilitation. Austral-
ian Journal of Educational Technology, 26, 50-62.
Topping, K. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology,
25, 631-645. doi:10.1080/01443410500345172
Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and
universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249-276.
doi:10.3102/00346543068003249
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
van der Pol, J., van den Berg, B. A. M., Admiraal, W. F., & Simons, P.
R. J. (2008). The nature, reception, and use of online peer feedback
in higher education. Computers & Education, 51, 1804-1817.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.001
Wegerif, R. (2006). A dialogic understanding of the relationship be-
tween CSCL and teaching thinking skills. International Journal of
Computer-Supporte d Co lla bo rative Learning, 1, 143-157.
doi:10.1007/s11412-006-6840-8
Weinberger, A., & Fischer, F. (2006). A framework to analyze argu-
mentative knowledge construction in computer-supported collabora-
tive learning. Computers & Education, 46, 71-95.
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.04.003
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington:
Solution Tree Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511794537
Vonderwell, S. (2003). An examination of asynchronous communica-
tion experiences and perspectives of students in an online course: A
case study. The Internet and Higher Education, 6, 77-90.
doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00164-1