The Effect of Peer Assessment on Noncognitive Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis

• In Event: Peer Assessment Effects on Student Learning Outcomes With a Focus on Higher Education

Abstract

Peer assessment is increasingly being used as a pedagogical tool in classrooms, especially in higher education. Participating in peer assessment may enhance student learning in both cognitive and non-cognitive aspects. For example, peer assessment can foster students’ evaluative and critical-thinking ability (Sluijsmans, Brand-Gruwel, van Merriënboer, & Bastiaens, 2002), self-regulation (Chen & Tsai, 2009), engagement (Bloxham & West, 2004), metacognitive awareness (Kim & Ryu, 2013), and social-affective development (van Gennip, Segers, & Tillema, 2009). More importantly, researchers have found that peer assessment encourages students to become more autonomous learners (Cheng & Warren, 1999). In this study, we focused on non-cognitive aspects by performing a meta-analysis to synthesize the peer assessment effects on students’ non-cognitive learning outcomes (e.g., learning strategies and academic mindsets). To be inclusive, we include studies in both higher education and K-12 settings. Two research questions are asked: (1) What is the general effect of peer assessment on non-cognitive outcomes? (2) What factors are likely to influence such an effect?
To be included in this meta-analysis, a study had to meet the following criteria: an experimental or quasi-experimental design, at least one measured non-cognitive outcome, and enough information to calculate effect sizes. After a systematic search, 43 effect sizes from 19 studies met our criteria. In addition to coding information for calculating effect sizes, we also coded a series of variables describing different aspects of peer assessment. With a random effect model, we found that students who have participated in peer assessment show a .289 standard deviation unit improvement in non-cognitive outcomes as compared to students who have not participated. Further, we found that the effect of peer assessment on non-cognitive outcomes is significantly larger when both scores and comments are provided to students or when assessors and assessees are matched at random. A few other variables showed noticeable, although not statistically significant, effects. For example, the effect of peer assessment tends to be larger when a quasi-experimental design is used; when the outcome variable is about learning strategies; when students are in K–12 education; when the subject area is science and engineering; when peer raters receive training; when there are explicit rating criteria; and when peer assessment is compulsory.
In summary, our findings can be used as a basis for further investigation into how best to use peer assessment as a learning tool, especially in promoting non-cognitive development. However, the process of peer assessment is complicated such that we cannot reliably code every aspect of peer assessment. Further, only a small proportion of the studies we identified examined the effect of peer-assessment on non-cognitive outcomes. A major reason for the neglect of non-cognitive outcomes is that non-cognitive outcomes are more difficult to operationalize than cognitive outcomes. Additional research, especially with an experimental design, is needed so that more solid evidence relating to the effect of peer assessment on non-cognitive outcomes can be accumulated. It is, therefore, necessary to replicate and/or extend the current meta-analysis when new studies become available.

Authors

• Hongli Li, Georgia State University

• Jacquelyn A Bialo, Georgia State University

• Yao Xiong, Pearson

• Charles Vincent Hunter, Cognia

• Xiuyan Guo, Emory and Henry College