Peer Assessment (PA) is a learning opportunity (Carless & Boud, 2018) since allow students to gain valuable information on their learning progress and achievements. With this information, they can plan their next steps to improve their knowledge construction, which has long-term effects on their academic performance (Agricla, et al, 2019). Furthermore, PA strategies create a favourable environment to promote interpersonal interaction, put in practice their previous knowledge and activate them to deeply understand the tasks (Ion, Sanchez & Agud, 2019). PA is also good to develop transversal competences such as communication, teamwork and self-regulation (Dochy & McDowell, 1997).

Even though a lot of previous research analysed the benefits of PA on individuals learning, there is still a lack of knowledge on how PA using collaborative methodologies benefits not only the individual learning but collaborative learning and relational dynamics (Panadero, 2016). Van Gennip, Segers and Tillema (2010) also highlight the lack of studies that analyse which is the real impact of PA in interpersonal contexts and they recognize that PA offers the most favourable context to set authentic collaborative learning.

The review conducted by Panadero (2017) identifies 10 social and interpersonal variables impacted by PA: motivation; affectivity; social factors, such as social connections, friendship, self-confidence when offering feedback or evaluating their colleagues; trust in evaluators; a sense of justice and comfort in PA situations; psychological security; valuing diversity; and interdependence between assessor and assessee. Panadero’s review also show that the interactions that occur in PA can also have consequences for intrapersonal elements, such as the emotional responses that PA can generate in those who receive it (Hwang, Hung & Chen, 2014). Contextual factors, such as group configuration and size, interdependence among members, conflict or sense of security might affect the motivation generated by PA.

Elements like the creation of an environment of trust, with open and positive relationships, increase the feeling of a fairer PA and more effective learning (Dochy, Segers & Sluijsmans, 1999). However, Topping, Smith, Swanson, and Elliot (2000) show that being involved in PA processes can generate negative emotions and stress for the students involved since they can have difficulties and feel uncomfortable when evaluating the work of their peers-

We see that PA influences collaborative learning, we will like to know if these effects appear in all types of groups. For example, there are studies that show that friendship contributes to improving feelings of trust, interdependence, and group belonging, which directly influence learning (Wang & Imbrie, 2010), and others studies show that students don’t like to evaluate their friends (Cheng & Warren, 1997).

With our paper we analyse the university students’ perceptions on how the PA influence collaborative learning. Our findings will reveal, from the point of view of the students, how PA contributes to the interpersonal and intrapersonal dimensions of collaborative learning and how PA can contribute to improve collaborative learning.

To pursue the study objective, a self-administrated survey was administrated to the students after they participation in a PA activity implemented at the end of a collaborative learning activity implemented in the Education Bachelors’ Degree Programmes.

This study shows the results of a PA process where 240 students were involved. The students had been working in collaboratively projects, in teams of 4 to 6 subjects which had been formed using different strategies such as friendship, alphabetical order or randomly. The project was carried out during 9 months (the whole course) and the students worked partially during seminary classes, where they received guidance from their professors, and partially outside the class. At the end of the course they were asked to deliver the completed project, which was evaluated by their professor, and they were asked to fill a rubric to peer-assess their group colleagues. The rubric was designed by the teachers and presented to the students at the beginning of the experience, so while they were performing their project they knew they will be assessed by their peers. At the end of the experience of PA, the students (N: 177) answered a self-administrated questionnaire to give their point of view about the PA experience. The questionnaire included 37 questions divided in two sections: first section, with 10 questions related to organizational variables such as subject, course, process to build the groups, etc…; the second section, with 27 questions, asked students about variables linked to collaborative learning construct, comprising interpersonal and intrapersonal factors (9 questions) and variables linked to the group aspects involved in the PA process (18 variables). Students had to rank the questions of the second section in a Likert scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). The questionnaire was completed by students from first year (N:127) and second year (N: 50) courses, of the degrees of Primary Education (42.9%), Social Education (38.3%), Pedagogy (10.3) and Early childhood education (8.6%). From them, 78.5% were female, 16.4% male and 5.1% undefined with an average age of 20,8 y.o.

The first results indicate that students feel that PA favours the development of collaborative learning, as previous studies have already indicated (Gielen et al., 2010, Van Gennip et al, 2010). Regarding the interpersonal dimension, the participants felt that the greatest benefit is the increase in students’ involvement in and commitment to the group task (F (3) = 17.885, p < .001, W = .034). Regarding the intrapersonal dimension, students feel that PA helps them to realize that their judgement counts within the group framework, which is characteristic of participatory evaluation (Gielen et al., 2010), without necessarily entailing an increase in tension among group members (F (4, 175) = 53.502, p < .001, W = .076). It should be noted that the students perceive that their evaluation of their own judgement is related to being able to identify their own strengths and weaknesses and to improving the limitations in group relationships. Similarly, the results suggest that the generation of stress in the evaluation of group members is related to the existence of tensions among group members. Therefore, as previous studies have indicated (Strijbos et al., 2009; Topping et al., 2000), peer evaluation is conditioned by existing interpersonal relationships, which can affect individual learning. The results of the questionnaire also indicate a positive correlation between how students believe the PA experience impacted their understanding of assessment and the development of both the interpersonal (Spearman’s r = .662, p < .001, R2 = .438) and intrapersonal (Spearman’s r = .563, p < .001, R2 = .317) dimensions of collaborative learning. The study confirm that PA promotes interpersonal and intrapersonal skills that can facilitate collaborative learning. However, it is necessary to teach students how to work collaboratively in addition to teaching them about assessment, developing their assessment literacy.

Agricla, B., F.J. Prins, & Sluijsmans, D. (2019). Impact of feedback request forms and verbal feedback on higher education students’ feedback perception, self-efficacy, and motivation. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 27(1):6-25. Carless, D. & Boud, D. (2018). The Development of Student Feedback Literacy: Enabling Uptake of Feedback. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8):1315–1325. Cheng, W., & Warren M. (1997). Having second thoughts: Student perceptions before and after a peer assessment exercise. Studies in Higher Education 22(2): 233–239. Dochy, F. J. R. C., & McDowell, L. (1997). Assessment as a tool for learning. Studies in Educational Evaluation 23(4): 279-298. Dochy, F., Segers, M. & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer-, and co-assessment in higher education: a review. Studies in Higher Education 24(3): 331-350. Gielen, S., et al (2010). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction 20(4): 304-315. Hwang, G.J., Hung, C.M. & Chen, N.S. (2014). Improving learning achievements, motivations and problem-solving skills through a peer assessment-based game development approach. Educational Technology Research and Development 62(2): 129-145. Ion, G., Sanchez, A. & Agud, I. (2019). Giving or receiving feedback: which is more beneficial to student’ learning? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 44(1): 124-138. Panadero, E. (2016). Is it safe? Social, interpersonal, and human effects of peer assessment: A review and future directions. In G.T.L. Brown and L.R. Harris (eds) Handbook of Social and Human Conditions in Assessment (pp.247-266). Routledge. Panadero, E. (2017). A Review of Self-regulated Learning: Six Models and Four Directions for Research. Front. Psychol. Stanier, L. (1997). Peer assessment and group work as vehicles for student empowerment: a module evaluation. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 21: 95-98. Strijbos, J. W., et al. (2009). Fostering interactivity through formative peer assessment in (web-based) collaborative learning environments. In C. Mourlas, N. Tsianos, & P. Germanakos (eds) Cognitive and emotional processes in web-based education: Integrating human factors and personalization. (pp. 375–395). IGIGlobal. Topping, K. J., et al. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25:146-169. Van Gennip, N., et al. (2010). Peer assessment as a collaborative learning activity: The role of interpersonal variables and conceptions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4):280-290. Wang, J., & Imbrie, P.K. (2010). Students’ peer evaluation calibration through the administration of vignettes. Paper presented at the 2010 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition in Louisville,USA.