Evaluating short-term and long-term peer assessment of student teamwork

Abstract The lack of individual reward for individual effort is a major concern for many university film and video students undertaking group-based projects. Peer assessment is often used to derive individual marks from group projects, and because it goes some way towards mimicking professional practice. However, if there is only one group project that is part of a subject's assessable work, any mismatch of students, in terms of skills, commitment and personality, can result in some students receiving an undeservedly harsh assessment from their peers, which can affect their final grade. Long-term peer assessment, where students undertake several small group projects in a semester, each with a different set of students, has been shown to be a useful instrument for deriving a more moderated peer assessment mark, not least because it acts to counteract the potential pitfalls of mismatched students. Key words: Peer assessment, Team work, Group projects Introduction Small group interactions provide opportunities for every group member to be successful. Members are not competing with one another but are working together to achieve a common goal. (Brown 1996). The benefits of having students work together in teams . [include] . the development of teamwork skills, enhanced student interest and motivation, the potential for students to learn from each other, the opportunity for multicultural experiences, and the opportunity for a student to explore more deeply an aspect of a project of great personal interest (Bacon, Stewart and Stewart-Belle 1998; Dommeyer 1986; Williams, Beard and Rymer 1991). Film and television production is intrinsically collaborative by nature. Production teams of various sizes, sometimes numbering in the hundreds, make the majority of film and television products created around the world, although very small teams or even individuals have made some outstanding films. Within the professional industry, being an efficient and effective team member is essential for career success. Consequently, it is a core responsibility of university film and television production courses not only to teach the theoretical and technical aspects of filmmaking, but also to teach students how to improve their management of the filmmaking process; how to work effectively and efficiently in teams/groups; and how to assess self and peers alike. At the professional level, the work of individuals is commonly peer assessed. The Academy Awards are just another form of peer assessment: 'the situation of the professions . [is] . that most assessment is by peers' (Boud and Tyree, 1995). Research by Holpp and Phillips (1995), and Chapman and van Auken (2001), although conducted in business courses, indicates that students instinctively tend to focus on the product rather than the process, "A common problem for students is that they often overlook the importance of process and instead focus on tasks and outcomes. This is particularly the situation when students work on group projects", (Chapman and van Auken 2001). My own experience with film and television students supports their research. Assessing the process would indicate to students that teachers value the process as much as the end product. It is important to instil in students an appreciation for process, because, sadly, students only seem to appreciate those elements that are assessed. Beatty, Haas, Sciglimpaglia (1996) found that if a group-based project carried a low assessment value, it was of less importance to students, and impacted negatively on their individual contributions. Small group film and television production projects, where group member numbers average somewhere between 4 and 7, are a common way of teaching the production aspects of film and television. However, the assessment of the individual's performance within a group, as apart from the project itself, has long been a contentious issue: "Group performances are inherently difficult to grade, with a major problem being the assignment of grades to individual group members" (Beatty, Haas, Sciglimpaglia, 1996). …