The assessment process draws the attention of students, which, in turn offers a chance to encourage their participation and engagement. One way to engage students in the assessment process is through participative assessment practices such as self-assessment, peer-assessment and co-assessment. Of these three participative assessment modalities, co-assessment is the least used and the one that teachers feel most insecure to implement (Rodríguez Gómez et al., 2012; Quesada, Rodríguez & Ibarra, 2016).

            In this paper we present the perceptions of students and teachers participating in co-assessment practices. These practices involved dialogical meetings where both undergraduates and lecturers reflected and discussed about the submitted task, it served to provide feedback and to reach consensus on the grades.

Co-assessment was initially defined by Falchikov (1986) as a modality where students and faculty negotiate and discuss the assessment criteria as well as the final grade. From a broader perspective we can understand co-assessment as a participative assessment modality where the teacher and student share the responsibility of assessment, with a joint, dialogued and negotiated assessment of the student’s task (Gómez & Quesada, 2017).

Some of the benefits attributed to co-assessment are (Dochy, Segers & Sluijsmans, 1999; Knight & Yorke, 2003; Boud & Falchikov, 2006; Deeley, 2014; Gómez & Quesada, 2017, Hawe and Dixon 2017): (a) It promotes reflection of one’s performances; (b) It stimulates self-regulated learning by improving understanding of performance and results; (c) It develops assessment skills; (d) It enhances self-esteem and self-confidence; (e) It increases participant’s effort, motivation and engagement; (f) It enriches communication, negotiation and reasoning skills; (g) It promotes greater collaboration and communication between teacher and students; and (h) it can also foster empathy among participants.

These training possibilities are particularly promoted when the co-assessment is used progressively (Gómez and Quesada 2017), producing ‘the knock-on effect of one assessment advancing on the next’ (Lynam an Cachia 2018, 231).

Thus, this paper seeks to answer the following research questions:

• What strengths and drawbacks related to co-assessment do the students involved in a co-assessment process perceive?
• What are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats revealed by the teachers involved in the co-assessment process?

The empirical research presented in this paper occurred in a university based in Spain. A mixed research methods approach was adopted. Three instruments were used: Students’ Survey. It comprised 27 items organized in four categories: (1) General Information, (2) Potencies and limitations of the co-assessment experience, (3) My perspective on the co-assessment experience, and (4) co-assessment in my future as a teacher. 349 students completed the questionnaire, 281 women (80.52%) and 68 men (19.48%), which represents 74.26% of the students involved. Focus groups with students. The focus groups cover the same topics of the student’s survey, deepening/going into detail on the satisfaction, potencies and drawbacks perceived about co-assessment during their experience. A total of 7 focus groups were carried out, one for each class group -with the exception of Group A of the ‘Counselling and Family’ module -. Each one of them had from 5 to 10 participants and lasted between 40 and 50 minutes. Teachers’ Survey. It contained 14 items, structured in three categories (1) Identification data; (2) Assessment procedure; (3) Appraisal of the co-assessment process and performance. Its purpose was to analyse the individual experiences and reflect on Strenghts, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats identified during the experience (SWOT analysis). Co-assessment practices were developed with first and second-year undergraduate students and teachers who were enrolled or taught in an Elementary Education degree or/and Early-Childhood Education degree at the University of Cádiz. Four teachers and 470 students participated, distributed in 8 class groups, and participatin in one of the following modules: Systematic Observation and Context Analysis, Didactics on Early-childhood Education, Counselling and Family, or Innovation and Research in Education.

What potencies and drawbacks do the participating students perceive? The positive aspects of co-assessment that were highlighted to a greater extent by the students in the questionnaire included feedback, communication and collaboration and learning followed by participation, grading and assessment criteria. These topics were also analysed and appeared in the focus groups. The majority of the students reported that they did not perceive any drawbacks (F = 149) or did not indicate any (F = 91). Of the drawbacks perceived, the most prominent were those related to the grading and the organization of the process and, to a lesser extent, the lack of training and some negative feelings. The area most frequently mentioned by the students was the lack of adjustment of the grade due to over- or under-assessment; the next most frequent was that co-assessment requires more time and greater dedication. What are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats revealed by the teachers involved in the co-assessment process? The main strengths of the co-assessment indicated by the participating teachers coincided with some positive aspects noted by their students. Faculty reflected that co-assessment had helped students to become more aware of their errors by providing feedback. They also considered that developing co-assessment practices, especially the meetings where dialogue and interrelation took place, had improved the classroom atmosphere. As to the weaknesses, teachers emphasised the time restrictions when organising co-assessment, the need to train students in how to assess, as well as the management of some conflicts that appeared during implementation.

Boud, D. y Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), 399–413. doi:10.1080/02602930600679050 Deeley, S. (2014). Summative co-assessment: A deep learning approach to enhancing employability skills and attributes. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(1) 39-51. doi:10.1177/1469787413514649 Dochy, F., Segers M. y Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331-350. doi:10.1080/03075079912331379935 Falchikov, N. (1986). Product comparisons and process benefits of collaborative peer group and self-assessments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 11(2), 144-166. doi:10.1080/0260293860110206. Gómez Ruiz, M.A. y Quesada Serra, V. (2017). Coevaluación o evaluación compartida en el contexto universitario: la percepción del alumnado de primer curso. Revista Iberoamericana de Evaluación Educativa, 10(2), 9-30. doi:10.15366/riee2017.10.2.001. Hawe, E. and H. Dixon. 2017. “Assessment for learning: a catalyst for student self-regulation”. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 42 (8): 1181-1192, doi: 10.1080/02602938.2016.1236360 Knight, P. T. & Yorke, M. (2003). Assessment, learning and employability. Maidenhead: SRHE/Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education. Quesada Serra, V., Rodríguez Gómez, G. e Ibarra Sáiz, M.S. What are we missing? Spanish lecturers’ perceptions of their assessment practices. (2016). Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(1), 48-59. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2014.930353. Rodríguez Gómez, G., Ibarra Sáiz, M.S., Gallego Noche, B., Gómez Ruiz, M.A. & Quesada Serra, V. (2012). La voz del estudiante en la evaluación del aprendizaje: Un camino por recorrer en la universidad. RELIEVE, 18(2), 1-21. doi:10.7203/relieve.18.2.1985.