Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

The effectiveness and reliability of peer-marking in first-year medical students.
Med Educ. 2006 Oct; 40(10):965-72.ME

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Peer-marking has been suggested as a method to enhance self-directed learning and reflection, although whether this improves performance is unclear. This study evaluated the impact of peer-marking on examination performance and investigated its reliability and acceptability to students.

METHODS

First-year medical students were randomised to peer-marking using a model answer or no intervention (control arm). Student scores were compared with tutor-marked scores. Two months later, students completed a summative assessment and performance was compared between students randomised to peer-marking and the control arm. A focus group was held with students in the intervention arm to capture their experiences and attitudes.

RESULTS

A total of 289 of 568 students consented to participate and 147 were randomised to peer-marking (142 controls). Students randomised to peer-marking achieved marginally higher examination marks (1.5% difference, 95% CI -0.8% to 3.9%, P = 0.19) than controls (adjusting for year and in-course assessment), although this may have been due to chance. Students were harsher markers than the tutors. Focus group analysis suggested that students valued peer-marking, although concerns about passing judgement on a colleague's work were expressed.

CONCLUSIONS

Peer-marking did not have a substantial effect on examination performance, although a modest effect cannot be excluded. Students gained insight into examination technique but may not have gained deeper knowledge. Given its potential positive educational value, further work is required to understand how peer-marking can be used more effectively to enhance the learning experience.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Surgery, Clinical Sciences, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol, UK.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

16987186

Citation

English, Rachel, et al. "The Effectiveness and Reliability of Peer-marking in First-year Medical Students." Medical Education, vol. 40, no. 10, 2006, pp. 965-72.
English R, Brookes ST, Avery K, et al. The effectiveness and reliability of peer-marking in first-year medical students. Med Educ. 2006;40(10):965-72.
English, R., Brookes, S. T., Avery, K., Blazeby, J. M., & Ben-Shlomo, Y. (2006). The effectiveness and reliability of peer-marking in first-year medical students. Medical Education, 40(10), 965-72.
English R, et al. The Effectiveness and Reliability of Peer-marking in First-year Medical Students. Med Educ. 2006;40(10):965-72. PubMed PMID: 16987186.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - The effectiveness and reliability of peer-marking in first-year medical students. AU - English,Rachel, AU - Brookes,Sara T, AU - Avery,Kerry, AU - Blazeby,Jane M, AU - Ben-Shlomo,Yoav, PY - 2006/9/22/pubmed PY - 2007/1/5/medline PY - 2006/9/22/entrez SP - 965 EP - 72 JF - Medical education JO - Med Educ VL - 40 IS - 10 N2 - BACKGROUND: Peer-marking has been suggested as a method to enhance self-directed learning and reflection, although whether this improves performance is unclear. This study evaluated the impact of peer-marking on examination performance and investigated its reliability and acceptability to students. METHODS: First-year medical students were randomised to peer-marking using a model answer or no intervention (control arm). Student scores were compared with tutor-marked scores. Two months later, students completed a summative assessment and performance was compared between students randomised to peer-marking and the control arm. A focus group was held with students in the intervention arm to capture their experiences and attitudes. RESULTS: A total of 289 of 568 students consented to participate and 147 were randomised to peer-marking (142 controls). Students randomised to peer-marking achieved marginally higher examination marks (1.5% difference, 95% CI -0.8% to 3.9%, P = 0.19) than controls (adjusting for year and in-course assessment), although this may have been due to chance. Students were harsher markers than the tutors. Focus group analysis suggested that students valued peer-marking, although concerns about passing judgement on a colleague's work were expressed. CONCLUSIONS: Peer-marking did not have a substantial effect on examination performance, although a modest effect cannot be excluded. Students gained insight into examination technique but may not have gained deeper knowledge. Given its potential positive educational value, further work is required to understand how peer-marking can be used more effectively to enhance the learning experience. SN - 0308-0110 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/16987186/The_effectiveness_and_reliability_of_peer_marking_in_first_year_medical_students_ L2 - https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02565.x DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -