Abstract
Although peer assessment is widely implemented in higher education, not all students are highly engaged in it. To enhance student engagement in peer assessment, we designed and developed a web-based tool, autonomy-supportive peer assessment (ASPA), to support students’ need for autonomy when they conducted peer assessment. Students’ sense of autonomy, and their behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement in peer assessment were examined via interviews and surveys. We also examined students’ academic performances, including their improvement from initial to revised essays and the quality of feedback they provided. Survey results indicated that the ASPA group (1) experienced a slightly higher sense of autonomy than the non-ASPA group, and (2) spent much more time on each evaluation criterion than the non-ASPA group. Interviews suggested that both the ASPA and non-ASPA groups were engaged in peer assessment. However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in behavioral, emotional, cognitive engagement, and academic performances.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Assor, A., Kaplan, H., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Roth, G. (2005). Directly controlling teacher behaviors as predictors of poor motivation and engagement in girls and boys: The role of anger and anxiety. Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 397–413. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.07.008.
Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students’ engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72(2), 261.
Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K., & Mylonas, A. (2002). Develo** procedures for implementing peer assessment in large classes using an action research process. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 427–441. doi:10.1080/0260293022000009302.
Bannert, M. (2004). Designing metacognitive support for hypermedia learning. In H. Niegemann, D. Leutner, & R. Brunken (Eds.), Instructional design for multimedia learning (pp. 19–30). Erfurt: Waxmann.
Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84(6), 740–756. doi:10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<740:AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-3.
Bryant, D. A., & Carless, D. R. (2010). Peer assessment in a test-dominated setting: Empowering, boring or facilitating examination preparation. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 9(3), 3–15.
Buff, A. (2014). Enjoyment of learning and its personal antecedents: Testing the change–change assumption of the control-value theory of achievement emotions. Learning and Individual Differences, 31, 21–29. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.12.007.
Cartney, P. (2010). Exploring the use of peer assessment as a vehicle for closing the gap between feedback given and feedback used. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 551–564.
Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Hagger, M. S. (2009). Effects of an intervention based on self-determination theory on self-reported leisure-time physical activity participation. Psychology & Health, 24(1), 29–48.
Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (1997). Having second thoughts: Student perceptions before and after a peer assessment exercise. Studies in Higher Education, 22(2), 233.
Cho, K., & Schunn, C. D. (2007). Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education, 48(3), 409–426.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
Creswell, J. W., Clark, V. L. P., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed method research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 119–142. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.ep9406221281.
Deci, E. L., Nezlek, J., & Sheinman, L. (1981a). Characteristics of the rewarder and intrinsic motivation of the rewardee. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(1), 1–10. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.40.1.1.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49(1), 14–23.
Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981b). An instrument to assess adults’ orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(5), 642–650. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.73.5.642.
Edmunds, J., Ntoumanis, N., & Duda, J. L. (2008). Testing a self-determination theory-based teaching style intervention in the exercise domain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(2), 375–388. doi:10.1002/ejsp.463.
Ellman, N. (1975). Peer evaluation and peer grading. The English Journal, 64(3), 79–80. doi:10.2307/815059.
Finn, J. D., & Zimmer, K. S. (2012). Student engagement: What is it? Why does it matter? In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 97–131). New York: Springer.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059.
Fredricks, J. A., & McColskey, W. (2012). The measurement of student engagement: A comparative analysis of various methods and student self-report instruments. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 763–782). New York: Springer.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. doi:10.1002/job.322.
Ge, X., & Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding ill-structured problem-solving processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development, 52(2), 5–22.
Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010a). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 304–315. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007.
Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Smeets, S. (2010b). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback and of various peer feedback forms in a secondary school writing curriculum. British Educational Research Journal, 36(1), 143–162. doi:10.1080/01411920902894070.
Hardré, P. L., & Reeve, J. (2009). Training corporate managers to adopt a more autonomy-supportive motivating style toward employees: An intervention study. International Journal of Training & Development, 13(3), 165–184. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2419.2009.00325.x.
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. London: Routledge.
Honebein, P. C., & Honebein, C. H. (2015). Effectiveness, efficiency, and appeal: Pick any two? The influence of learning domains and learning outcomes on designer judgments of useful instructional methods. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(6), 937–955.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588–600.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., & Kim, A. (2009). Can self-determination theory explain what underlies the productive, satisfying learning experiences of collectivistically oriented Korean students? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 644–661. doi:10.1037/a0014241.
Kali, Y., & Ronen, M. (2008). Assessing the assessors: Added value in web-based multi-cycle peer assessment in higher education. Research & Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 3(1), 3–32.
Kao, G. Y.-M. (2013). Enhancing the quality of peer review by reducing student “free riding”: Peer assessment with positive interdependence. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(1), 112–124.
Kim, C., & Hodges, C. (2012). Effects of an emotion control treatment on academic emotions, motivation and achievement in an online mathematics course. Instructional Science, 40, 173–192. doi:10.1007/s11251-011-9165-6.
Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill, R. B., Doshi, P., & Thai, C. N. (2015a). Robotics to promote elementary education pre-service teachers’ STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Computers & Education, 91, 14–31. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2015.08.005.
Kim, C., Park, S. W., Cozart, J., & Lee, H. (2015b). From motivation to engagement: The role of effort regulation of virtual high school students in mathematics courses. Educational Technology & Society, 18(4), 261–272.
Kim, M., & Ryu, J. (2013). The development and implementation of a web-based formative peer assessment system for enhancing students’ metacognitive awareness and performance in ill-structured tasks. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 549–561.
Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K. (1984). Setting limits on children’s behavior: The differential effects of controlling vs. informational styles on intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal of Personality, 52(3), 233–248. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.ep7390802.
Ley, K., & Young, D. B. (2001). Instructional principles for self-regulation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(2), 93–103.
Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A. L. (2010). Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 525–536. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00968.x.
Li, L., Liu, X., & Zhou, Y. (2012). Give and take: A re-analysis of assessor and assessee’s roles in technology-facilitated peer assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(3), 376–384.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Liou, H.-C., & Peng, Z.-Y. (2009). Training effects on computer-mediated peer review. System, 37, 514–525. doi:10.1016/j.system.2009.01.005.
Lu, J., & Law, N. (2012). Online peer assessment: Effects of cognitive and affective feedback. Instructional Science, 40(2), 257–275. doi:10.1007/s11251-011-9177-2.
Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vojt, G. (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56(2), 429–440. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.004.
Martin, A. J. (2012). Part II commentary: Motivation and engagement: conceptual, operational, and empirical clarity. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 303–311). New York: Springer.
Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J. D. (1996). Engagement in academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and perceived ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(4), 388–422. doi:10.1006/ceps.1996.0028.
Min, H.-T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System, 33(2), 293–308. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003.
Nelson, M., & Schunn, C. (2009). The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science, 37(4), 375–401. doi:10.1007/s11251-008-9053-x.
Newmann, F. M. (1992). Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Orsmond, P., & Merry, S. (1996). The importance of marking criteria in the use of peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 21(3), 239.
Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2005). Biology students’ utilization of tutors’ formative feedback: A qualitative interview study. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 369–386. doi:10.1080/02602930500099177.
Ozogul, G., Olina, Z., & Sullivan, H. (2008). Teacher, self and peer evaluation of lesson plans written by preservice teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 181–201.
Papadopoulos, P. M., Lagkas, T. D., & Demetriadis, S. N. (2012). How to improve the peer review method: Free-selection vs assigned-pair protocol evaluated in a computer networking course. Computers & Education, 59, 182–195. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.005.
Park, S., & Kim, C. (2014). Virtual Tutee System: a potential tool for enhancing academic reading engagement. Education Tech Research and Development, 62, 71–97. doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9326-1.
Park, S., & Kim, C. (2015). Boosting learning-by-teaching in virtual tutoring. Computers & Education, 82, 129–140. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.006.
Park, S., & Kim, C. (2016). The effects of a virtual tutee system on academic reading engagement in a college classroom. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(2), 195–218.
Patall, E. A., Dent, A. L., Oyer, M., & Wynn, S. R. (2013). Student autonomy and course value: The unique and cumulative roles of various teacher practices. Motivation and Emotion, 37(1), 14–32. doi:10.1007/s11031-012-9305-6.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., & Frenzel, A. C. (2007). Academic emotions questionnarie—Mathematics (AEQ-M): User’s manual. Munich: University of Munich.
Pintrich, P. R., & de Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.82.1.33.
Prins, F. J., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Feedback for general practitioners in training: Quality, styles, and preferences. Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice, 11(3), 289–303.
Reeve, J. (1998). Autonomy support as an interpersonal motivating style: Is it teachable? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23(3), 312–330. doi:10.1006/ceps.1997.0975.
Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149–172). New York: Springer.
Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 209–218.
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation & Emotion, 28(2), 147–169.
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Hardre, P., & Omura, M. (2002). Providing a rationale in an autonomy-supportive way as a strategy to motivate others during an uninteresting activity. Motivation & Emotion, 26(3), 183–207.
Reigeluth, C. M. (1983). Instructional design: What is it and why is it? In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp. 3–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. A. (2009). Understanding instructional theory. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instrctional-design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. III, pp. 3–26). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ruona, W. E. A. (2005). Analyzing qualitative data. In R. A. Swanson & E. F. Holton (Eds.), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry (pp. 223–263). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). New York: The University of Rochester Press.
Schunk, D. H. (2001). Social cognitive theory and self-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Skinner, E., Furrer, C., Marchand, G., & Kindermann, T. (2008). Engagement and disaffection in the classroom: Part of a larger motivational dynamic? Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 765–781. doi:10.1037/a0012840.
Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2002). Peer assessment training in teacher education: Effects on performance and perceptions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27(5), 443–454. doi:10.1080/0260293022000009311.
Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S., van Merrienboer, J. J. G., & Martens, R. L. (2004). Training teachers in peer-assessment skills: Effects on performance and perceptions. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 41(1), 60–78.
Steele, J. P., & Fullagar, C. J. (2009). Facilitators and outcomes of student engagement in a college setting. Journal of Psychology, 143(1), 5–27.
Stefani, L. A. J. (1994). Peer, self, and tutor assessment: Relative reliabilities. Studies in Higher Education, 19(1), 69.
Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39(2), 97–110.
Strijbos, J.-W., Narciss, S., & Dunnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback content and sender’s competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 291–303.
Su, Y.-L., & Reeve, J. (2011). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intervention programs designed to support autonomy. Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 159–188. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9142-7.
Tessier, D., Sarrazin, P., & Ntoumanis, N. (2008). The effects of an experimental programme to support students’ autonomy on the overt behaviours of physical education teachers. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 23(3), 239–253.
Top**, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276. doi:10.2307/1170598.
Top**, K. J. (2003). Self and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity, and utility. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 55–87). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Trautmann, N. M. (2009). Interactive learning through web-mediated peer review of student science reports. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57(5), 685–704.
Van den Berg, I., Admiraal, W., & Pilot, A. (2006). Design principles and outcomes of peer assessment in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 31(3), 341–356.
van Gennip, N. A. E., Segers, M. S. R., & Tillema, H. H. (2010). Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity: The role of interpersonal variables and conceptions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 280–290. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.010.
van Loon, A.-M., Ros, A., & Martens, R. (2012). Motivated learning with digital learning tasks: What about autonomy and structure? Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(6), 1015–1032.
Van Steendam, E., Rijlaarsdam, G., Sercu, L., & Van den Bergh, H. (2010). The effect of instruction type and dyadic or individual emulation on the quality of higher-order peer feedback in EFL. Learning and Instruction, 20, 316–327. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.009.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Matos, L. (2005). Examining the motivational impact of intrinsic versus extrinsic goal framing and autonomy-supportive versus internally controlling communication style on early adolescents’ academic achievement. Child Development, 76(2), 483. doi:10.2307/3696516.
Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Wen, M. L., & Tsai, C.-C. (2008). Online peer assessmnet in an inservice science and mathematics teacher education course. Teaching in Higher Education, 13(1), 55–67. doi:10.1080/13562510701794050.
Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 767–779. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.767.
**ao, Y., & Lucking, R. (2008). The impact of two types of peer assessment on students’ performance and satisfaction within a Wiki environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 11, 186–193. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.005.
Yang, Y.-F., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Conceptions of and approaches to learning through online peer assessment. Learning and Instruction, 20, 72–83. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.01.003.
Yuan, J., & Kim, C. (2015). Effective feedback design using free technologies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 52(3), 408–434.
Zimmerman, B. J. (1990). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: An overview. Educational Psychologist, 25(1), 3.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Research involving human participants
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yuan, J., Kim, C. The effects of autonomy support on student engagement in peer assessment. Education Tech Research Dev 66, 25–52 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9538-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-017-9538-x