Creativity in and between Collaborative Peer Assessment Processes in Higher Distance Education


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 collaborative learning, CSCL. Data were collected from 22 student teachers peer assessment processes, including peer feedback and self-assessment during two consecutive 15 credit web-based courses. The analytical 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.

Share and Cite:

Amhag, L. (2013). Creativity in and between Collaborative Peer Assessment Processes in Higher Distance Education. Creative Education, 4, 94-104. doi: 10.4236/ce.2013.47A2011.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Adams, C., & King, K. (1995). Towards a framework for student self assessment. Innovations in Education & Training International, 32, 336-343. doi:10.1080/1355800950320405
[2] 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 advancements, 2, 711-723.
[3] Amhag, L. (2011). Students’ argument patterns in asynchronous dia logues for learning. In Research highlights in technology and teacher education (pp. 137-144) Ed/ITLib Digital Library.
[4] Amhag, L. (2010). Between I and other. Web-based student dialogues with arguments and responses for learning. PhD Thesis, Malmo: Malmo University, Malmo Studies in Educational Sciences.
[5] Amhag, L., & Jakobsson, A. (2009). Collaborative learning as a collec tive competence when students use the potential of meaning in asynchronous dialogues. Computers & Education, 52, 656-667. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.11.012
[6] 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
[7] 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
[8] Dickhut, J. E. (2003). A brief review of creativity.
[9] 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
[10] Dysthe, O. (2002). The learning potential of a web-mediated discussion in a university course. Studies in Higher Education, 27. doi:10.1080/03075070220000716
[11] Dysthe, O., Hertzberg, F., & Lokensgard Hoel, T. (2011). Writing to learn: Writing in Higher Education (2nd ed.). Lund: Studentlitteratur.
[12] Erdis, M. (2007). Law for educators. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
[13] 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
[14] Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence and computer conferencing in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 15, 7-23. doi:10.1080/08923640109527071
[15] Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77, 81-112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487
[16] 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
[17] Kneupper, C. W. (1978). Teaching argument: An introduction to the Toulmin model. College Composition and Communication, 29, 237-241. doi:10.2307/356935
[18] 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
[19] Lindberg, I. (2011). About school's multi-lingual capital (2nd ed.). Stockholm: Liber,
[20] 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.
[21] Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Lon don: Sage Publications.
[22] 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
[23] 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
[24] Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2005). Collaborative learning in asyn chronous discussion groups: What about the impact on cognitive pro cessing? Computers in Human Behavior, 21, 957-975. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2004.02.025
[25] 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
[26] Shaheen, R. (2010). Creativity and Education. Creative Education, 1, 166-169. doi:10.4236/ce.2010.13026
[27] Simon, S., Erduran, S., & Osborne, J. (2006). Learning to teach argu mentation: Research and development in the science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 28, 235-260. doi:10.1080/09500690500336957
[28] Skolverket (2003). Swedish as a second language. In To read and write.
[29] Strijbos, J.-W., Martens, R. L., Prins, F. J., & Jochems, 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
[30] Sun, P.-C., Tsai, 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
[31] Suthers, 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
[32] Swann, J. (2010). A dialogic approach to online facilitation. Austral ian Journal of Educational Technology, 26, 50-62.
[33] Topping, K. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25, 631-645. doi:10.1080/01443410500345172
[34] Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68, 249-276. doi:10.3102/00346543068003249
[35] Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[36] 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
[37] Wegerif, R. (2006). A dialogic understanding of the relationship be tween CSCL and teaching thinking skills. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1, 143-157. doi:10.1007/s11412-006-6840-8
[38] 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
[39] Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511794537
[40] 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

Copyright © 2021 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.