1. A review of two approaches to peer assessment for selected business courses at a tertiary institution in New Zealand
Dr Leonie Menzies

2. Importance of collaborative work
The ability to work in a group is an essential requirement in most professional environments
Collaborative work is a valuable pedagogical strategy in HE
Group assignments stimulate discussion and the development of transferable skills such as communication, problem-solving and leadership
(Spatar, et al., 2015; Onyia, 2014; Jin, 2012)

3. Challenges of collaborative work for educator
For students to take group assignments seriously it needs to contribute to the course mark
Assigning a same mark to all students in the group may demotivate students or encourage free-riders.
Assessment of individual contribution remains highly subjective
So the question that remains is how to successfully and fairly assess group work?
(Onyia, 2014; Jin, 2012)

4. Methods of peer assessment
A popular strategy is to integrate the educator’s assessment with peer assessment to obtain an individual mark.
2 methods that have been implemented in various business courses include:
Base mark + contribution
Individual performance factor (base mark x performance factor)

5. Peer assessment criteria
3 categories:
Interaction (participated in discussion, gave room for others to play to their strengths)
Productivity (attended all group meetings, completed tasks assigned to him/her, team player, the extent to which member took responsibility for the overall quality of the assignment)
Motivation (Initiated action, actively sought to contribute to the team effort)

6. Base mark + contribution
Group is assigned a base mark by the educator for the overall quality of the work submitted.
In addition to the base mark a peer mark can be assigned (individuals are assessed by their peers) based on a set of assessment criteria
E.g. 90% base mark + 10% peer contribution mark
Moodle: Workshop tool

7. Base mark + contribution
Overall the marks for the assignments were quite high.
Students generally gave each other high marks for individual contribution
In cases where students were given a low mark it didn’t significantly affect the individual mark. Thus not solving the problem of free-riders.

8. Individual performance factor
Online tool: SparkPlus developed by the University of Sydney
Each member needs to assess other group members’ contribution as well as their own contribution based on a set of assessment criteria.
Continuous rating scale from WBA to WAA (0-100)

9. Individual performance factor
Base marks multiplied by a relative performance factor (SPA)
E.g. 80 x 1.1 = 88% or
80 x 0.9 = 72%

10. Individual performance factor
2nd factor is calculated – to provide additional information to the educator as well as the student is the SAPA factor
A SAPA factor greater than 1 indicates that the student rated him/herself higher than what the group did.

11. Individual performance factor
Generally yielded a more realistic distribution of marks within a each group.
Free-riders’ marks were significantly impacted by a lower rating from peers

12. Conclusion Group work needs to be assessed
Peer assessment criteria must be clearly explained to students
Base mark + contribution method is not ideal
Individual performance factor method yielded more realistic individual marks
Subjectivity of peer assessment remains an issue
More discussions between educators on how to fairly assess group work.

13. References
Jin, X. (2012). A comparative study of effectiveness of peer assessment of individuals’ contributions to group projects in undergraduate construction management core units. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(5), Onyia, O. P. (2014). Integrating teacher- and peer-assessments of group coursework assignments in business education: Some innovative methods. Research in Higher Education Journal, 22,1-10. SparkPlus (n.a) SparkPlus supporting resources version 3. Retrieved from Spatar, Penna, C.N., Mills, H., Kutija,V. & Cooke, M. (2015). A robust approach for mapping group marks to individual marks using peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(3),

14. QUESTIONS?