An investigation of the motivational aspects of peer and self-assessment tasks to enhance teamwork outcomes

Teamwork and cooperative learning models are based on the premise that learning is best achieved interactively rather than through a one-way transmission process. In this study, the relationship between students' motivational orientation and the quality of learning in collaborative teams is investigated. A self-report measure of student self-efficacy and self-regulation was administered to students working on team-based assessment tasks, and correlated with performance data obtained from classroom assignments. The results showed that motivational beliefs were the best predictor of academic performance.

Introduction

In addition, there is a growing emphasis in higher education institutions that students should be developing content knowledge as well as professional skills that can be directly applied in the workplace such as teamwork, problem solving skills, decision-making skills, communicative strategies and information literacy skills (Australian National Training Authority, 1998; Bennett, Dunne, & Carre, 1999; Candy, Crebert, & O'Leary, 1994; Dearing, 1997). Contemporary educational theory indicates that using self-regulation and self/peer assessment strategies in the learning settings are important elements needed to develop these skills (Boud, 1992; Loughram, 1996). These strategies in conjunction with online asynchronous communication tools can provide ideal motivational settings to help promote learning as well as professional skill development.

Peer review and self assessment tasks are alternative forms of assessment that involve individuals deciding what value their own, and each of their colleagues has contributed to a process or project, and enables students to engage in self-regulated activity. While positive finding have emerged from studies of peer assessment conducted in technology rich learning environments, there remains a need to investigate not only the cognitive aspects of such tasks and environments, rather than assuming that they provide optimal conditions for all learners (Jarvela, 1998). This study presents a teaching-learning environment that integrates teamwork with self/peer assessment strategies supported with an online application designed to motivate students and assist in supporting self-regulated learning. Two instruments are then used to assess students' metamotivational states (i.e. their awareness of their own goals, efficacy and motivational attitudes). Two major research questions are identified for investigation: First, whether there was a relationship between students' perceptions of teamwork and their performance on team assessment tasks, and second, whether there was any correlation between their motivational state and actual academic performance. In the investigation two questionnaires were designed to analyse the links between motivational orientation, impressions of teamwork and achievement scores.

Theoretical underpinnings of motivation and collaborative learning

The literature also acknowledges that cognitive achievement and metacognitive strategies are not sufficient to promote student achievement, and that students must also be motivated to learn intentionally and in a self-regulated manner (Pintrich, 1989). Student motivation is underpinned by a number of theoretical models and theories. The most commonly applied is the expectancy value model of motivation (Schunk, 1994)). According to Pintrich & De Groot (1990), there are three motivational components that may be linked to the different models of self-regulated learning:

1. An expectancy component: this includes students' beliefs about their ability to perform a task
2. A value component: This includes students' goals and belief about the importance of the task
3. An affective component: This includes students' emotional reactions to the task.

Linking motivation with self and peer assessment

A review of the literature on self and peer assessment indicates that in order to promote the development of these skills, the environment should be designed to encourage participants to:

• Have a clear understanding of the objectives (Orsmond, Merry, & Reiling, 1996; Stefani, 1994);
• Identify valid assessment criteria (Falchikov, 1995; Ford, 1997; Klenowski, 1995; Sluijsmans, Dochy, & Moerkerke, 1999; Sullivan & Hall, 1997; Topping, Smith, & Swanson, 2000); and
• Accurately and objectively judge success or failure (Oldfield & MacAlpine, 1995; Woolhouse, 1999).
• Become self-regulated and self-motivated.

Self-assessment refers to people being involved in making judgements about their own learning and progress, which contributes to the development of autonomous, responsible and reflective individuals (Sambell, McDowell, & Brown, 1998; Schon, 1987). This is also supported by Boud (1992), who has expressed the defining characteristics of self-assessment as: "The involvement of students in identifying standards and/or criteria to apply to their work and making judgements about the extent to which they have met these criteria." (p. 5)

Both self and peer assessment can be used to help inform the design of the learning environment while building on motivational goals and improving self-regulation skills. The investigation centered on establishing links and possible correlations that might exist between achievement on the assessment tasks and the 3 motivational elements of assessment i.e., expectancy (self-efficacy beliefs), learners' goals and emotional reactions to the task.

Design of the learning environment

Figure 1: Design of the learning environment

Context of the study

Students are required to develop a project proposal (needs analysis, feasibility, scope and legal contract), design specification (storyboards, concept maps and rapid prototypes), metrics for costing the project, a product evaluation and address copyright/intellectual property issues. Students are also required to integrate and practice graduate attributes such teamwork and leadership skills.

The unit consists of 13, three-hour sessions over one full semester. Each session consists of a one-hour lecture followed by a two-hour tutorial. Team skills and collaboration are continually promoted with teams of four students working together to develop project management and generic skills. Student learning outcomes include:

• Applying a range of project management and generic skills appropriate including time management, collaboration, communication, self-assessment, peer-assessment, task management, problem solving, information management and teamwork skills;
• Making a significant contribution to a team-based multimedia project;
• Demonstrating an understanding of project management models, feasibility studies, needs analysis, design specifications, timesheets, categories, planning, scheduling, costing, metrics;
• Creating and applying quality assurance procedures for testing, formative/summative evaluation strategies, procedures, file naming and templates development; and
• Demonstrating an understanding of the nature of the specialist roles of instructional designers, content experts, programmers, graphics designers, project managers, and others

Assessment includes the following:

• A project proposal, design specification and rapid prototype;
• The development of a web product, with a presentation to a large audience;
• Completing eight online tasks and giving feedback to other students. Students are required to research and produce a solution that is assessed by three other teams, as well as the tutor;
• A self and peer assessment score, negotiated with the team. This encourages students to carefully consider their role and contribution in relation to the others while working in a team; and
• An individual exam worth 50% of the overall assessment.

A custom built online courseware management system was used to help deliver the coursework (see http://www.scam.ecu.edu.au/) and the unit was delivered in blended mode, combining face-to-face seminars with online learning tasks.

Methodology

• The first instrument focused on Impressions of teamwork and sought their views on the dynamics, interaction and support offered by peers in the teamwork tasks. The results were positive, indicating that students did feel supported by peers, and offered and received help within teams. A similar instrument was used by Yu (2003) to investigate student perceptions of classroom climate in a competitive environment and;
• The second instrument was also a self-report questionnaire adapted from the Motivational Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) developed by Pintrich & De Groot (1990). This instrument included was termed Motivational Orientation and included items on self-efficacy, anxiety, strategy use and self regulation.

How the data was processed

Table 1 shows the results for 'Impressions of Teamwork' obtained for team 1. Note that the responses were averaged to one decimal place (shown in the last row) using numeric values from the Likert scale:

Student Number		1	2	3	4
1.	The information and assistance provided by my peers during the semester was useful	1	1	1	1
2.	The communication between me and my peers was positive and open	1	1	-1	-1
3.	My team-mates and I discussed our answers to the online questions to reach consensus	1	1	2	1
4.	I would always ask my peers for assistance when I could not clearly understand a team activity or the online questions	1	-1	1	-2
5.	My peers valued my point of view and the information I rendered	1	2	1	1
6.	I interacted with my peers to share my thoughts and ideas while completing the online activities	1	-1	-1	-1
7.	I paid attention to what my peers were saying during discussions	1	1	1	1
8.	Whenever my team-mates had trouble understanding how to do team based activities or the posted question, I would help them	1	1	1	1
9.	There was much feedback provided within the group (by my peers)	1	-1	-1	-1
10.	Overall, the teamwork activities complemented this unit	-1	1	1	1
Average =		0.8	0.5	0.5	0.1

Table 2 shows the results for 'Motivational Orientation' obtained from team 1, using the same Likert scale.

These averages shown at the bottom of table 1 and 2 were then tabulated against the team assignment mark as well as individual student exam marks (Table 3).

Stud No.	Teamwork Impressions	Motivational Orientation	Team Assignment /50	Individual Exam /50
1.	0.8	0.3	29	35
2.	0.5	0.3	29	31
3.	0.5	-0.2	29	28
4.	0.1	0.3	29	15
Avg	0.48	0.17	29	27

Results and discussion

A Pearson product moment correlation coefficient was calculated between 'Teamwork Impressions' and 'Team Assignment' mark as well as 'Individual Exam' mark. This was also performed for 'Motivational Orientation'. The following significant results were obtained:

• A strong correlation coefficient of 0.9 was found between 'Motivational Orientation' and 'Team Assignment' mark;
• A strong correlation coefficient of 0.84 was found between 'Motivational Orientation' and 'Individual Exam' scores; and
• A weak correlation coefficient of 0.28 was found between 'Teamwork Impressions' and 'Team Assignment' mark.

Team No.	Teamwork Impressions	Motivational Orientation	Team Assignment /50	Individual Exam /50
3	0.18	0.67	42	38
7	0.30	0.64	40	34
9	0.43	0.52	39	35
2	0.23	0.63	37	34
6	-0.03	0.62	37	34
4	0.22	0.33	33	31
8	0.30	0.44	31	28
5	0.23	0.18	30	29
1	0.48	0.17	29	27

These results in this case study illustrate that 'Motivational Orientation' was a strong predictor of team assignment and individual exam scores. This implies that students who work in a self-motivated way will have a greater chance of getting better marks. For example, results from the motivational orientation questionnaire showed that in teams where there were high levels of self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation, there was also high achievement in team assignments and individual exam scores.

The 'impressions of teamwork' questionnaire responses showed that not all aspects of the team processes were positive. For example, items 6 and 9 received negative ratings, indicating that some students found the inter-team feedback and communication processes to be less than satisfactory. This result was reflected in the weak correlation between the questionnaire responses and team assignment marks. This contrasts with the positive motivational attitudes displayed by students in the 'Motivational Orientation' instrument.

Overall the results show that indicators of positive emotional states did have an impact on academic performance. For example, students who believed they were capable learners also reported the utilisation of positive team behaviours. The results are supported by previous work in the area of motivational orientation and cognitive achievement (Zimmerman, 2000). In addition, the focus on motivation in context, as depicted in the present study, highlights the significance of mutual reciprocal influences of individuals and contextual variables, and how the dynamics of self-perceptions and goals affect motivation and performance.

Conclusion

References

Bennett, N., Dunne, E. & Carre, C. (1999). Patterns of core and generic skill provision in higher education. Higher Education, 37(1), 71-93.

Biggs, J. (1999). Teaching for quality learning at university. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Boekaerts, M. (1997). Self-regulated learning: A new concept embraced by researchers, policy makers, educators, teachers, and students. Learning and Instruction, 7(2), 161-186.

Bonk, C. J. & Kim, K. A. (1998). Extending socio-cultural theory to adult learning. In M. C. Smith & T. Pourchot (Eds), Adult learning and development: Perspectives from educational psychology (pp. 67-88). Mawah: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Boud, D. (1992). The use of self assessment schedules in negotiated learning. Studies in Higher Education, 17(2), 185-200.

Candy, P., Crebert, G. & O'Leary, J. (1994). Developing lifelong learners through undergraduate education. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Collis, B. (1998). WWW-based environments for collaborative group work. Education and Information Technologies, 3, 231-245.

Dearing, R. (1997). Higher education in the learning society. London: HMSO. [verified 31 Oct 2004] http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/ncihe/

English, S. & Yazdani, M. (1999). Computer-supported cooperative learning in a virtual university. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 15(2), 2-13.

Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: Developing peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 32, 175-187.

Ford, A. (1997). Peer group assessment: Its application to a vocational modular degree course. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 21(3), 285-298.

Ge, X., Yamashiro, K. A. & Lee, J. (2000). Pre-class planning to scaffold students for online collaborative learning. Educational Technology and Society, 3(3), 159-167. http://www.ifets.info/journals/3_3/b02.html

Harasim, L. (Ed.). (1990). Online Education: an environment for collaboration and intellectual amplification. New York: Praeger.

Jarvela, S. (1998). Socioemotional aspects of students learning in a cognitive apprenticeship environment. Instructional Science, 26, 439-471.

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1996). Cooperation and the use of technology. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed), Handbook of research for educational telecommunications and technology (pp. 1017-1044). New York: Simon & Schuster.

Klemm, W. R. & Snell, J. R. (1996). Enriching computer-mediated group learning by coupling constructivism with collaborative learning. Electronic Journal of Instructional Technology, 1(2). http://www.usq.edu.au/electpub/e-jist/docs/old/vol1no2/article1.htm

Klenowski, V. (1995). Students' self-evaluation processes in student-centred teaching and learning contexts in Australia and England. Assessment in Education, 2(2), 145-163.

Loughram, J. (1996). Developing reflective practice: Learning about teaching and learning through modelling. London: Falmer Press.

Oldfield, K. A., & MacAlpine, M. K. (1995). Peer and self assessment at tertiary level-an experiential report. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 20(1), 125-132.

Orsmond, P., Merry, S. & Reiling, K. (1996). The importance of marking criteria in the use of peer assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 21(3), 239-250.

Pintrich, P. R. (1989). The dynamic interplay of student motivation and cognition in the college classroom. In C. Ames & M. Maehr (Eds), Advances in motivation and achievement: Vol 6 (pp. 117-160). Greenwich; CT: JAI Press.

Pintrich, P. R. & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.

Sambell, K., McDowell, L. & Brown, S. (1998). "But is it fair?": An exploratory study of student perceptions of the consequential validity of assessment. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23, 349-371.

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207-231.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Towards a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Sluijsmans, D., Dochy, F. & Moerkerke, G. (1999). Creating a learning environment by using self- peer- and co- assessment. Learning Environments Research, 1, 293-319.

Stefani, L. A. J. (1994). Peer, self, and tutor assessment: Relative reliabilities. Studies in Higher Education, 19(1), 69-75.

Sullivan, K. & Hall, C. (1997). Introducing students to self-assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 22(3), 289-305.

Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276.

Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F. & Swanson, I. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 149-166.

Vygotsky, L. (1998). Mind in Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yu, F. Y. (2003). The motivating effects of anonymity and proximity in an online sychhronised competitive learning environment. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29(2), 153-167.

Woolhouse, M. (1999). Peer assessment: The participants' perception of two activities on a further education teacher education course. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 23(2), 211-219.

Zimmerman, B. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich & M. Zeidner (Eds), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego CA: Academic Press.

Authors: Catherine McLoughlin, Australian Catholic University, Australia. c.mcloughlin@signadou.acu.edu.au Joe Luca, School of Communications and Multimedia, Edith Cowan University. j.luca@ecu.edu.au Please cite as: McLoughlin, C. & Luca, J. (2004). An investigation of the motivational aspects of peer and self-assessment tasks to enhance teamwork outcomes. In R. Atkinson, C. McBeath, D. Jonas-Dwyer & R. Phillips (Eds), Beyond the comfort zone: Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference (pp. 629-636). Perth, 5-8 December. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/mcloughlin.html

© 2004 Catherine McLoughlin & Joe Luca
The authors assign to ASCILITE and educational non-profit institutions a non-exclusive licence to use this document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. The authors also grant a non-exclusive licence to ASCILITE to publish this document on the ASCILITE web site (including any mirror or archival sites that may be developed) and in printed form within the ASCILITE 2004 Conference Proceedings. Any other usage is prohibited without the express permission of the authors.