Peer Learning through Adaptive Comparative Judgement in Higher and Further Education

By Mark House

Globe

Adaptive Comparative Judgement (ACJ) has been increasingly recognized as a valuable tool for peer learning in higher and further education contexts. The methodological use of ACJ facilitates a learning process where students are actively involved in the assessment of their peers' work, which can lead to a deeper understanding of the subject matter and the criteria for high-quality work.

Peer Learning Through ACJ

ACJ can be used for peer learning by integrating learners into the assessment process. This integration can occur in several ways:

  • Exposure to a Variety of Work: When students act as judges in ACJ, they are exposed to a range of peer submissions. This exposure helps them understand the diversity of possible responses to a given task and appreciate different approaches to problem-solving.
  • Development of Critical Thinking: As students compare and critique the work of their peers, they engage in higher-order thinking. This process helps them to develop their evaluative skills and understand the characteristics of high-quality work.
  • Formulation of Standards: By participating in ACJ, students can develop a better capacity to discriminate between different levels of work quality. This experience can help them formulate internal standards and benchmarks for their own work.
  • Feedback Quality: Research indicates that students engaged in comparative judgment provide more feedback on higher-order aspects of work. This type of feedback is valuable for learning as it focuses on conceptual understanding and the application of knowledge.
  • Improved Performance: Studies have shown that students who participate in peer assessment through ACJ demonstrate improved performance. This improvement is likely due to the reflective nature of the process and the insights gained from evaluating others' work.
  • Learning from Comparison: The act of comparing work can lead to learning gains, as students identify similarities and differences that make certain aspects of the work stand out. This process helps them understand what constitutes good work and apply these insights to their own submissions

Challenges and Considerations

While ACJ offers significant benefits for peer learning, there are challenges to consider:

  • Training: To ensure consistency and reliability in evaluations, students may require training on how to use ACJ effectively.
  • Cultural Shift: Integrating ACJ into existing assessment frameworks may require changes in the educational culture and practices within institutions

The RM Compare Team has extensive experience working with Higher and Further Education organisations of all shapes and sizes. You can get in touch with us at any time to discuss your own requirements.

RM Compare

RM Compare is the world leading Adaptive Comparative Judgement system used and trusted by Higher and Further Education establishments across the world. It is simple to get started and the comprehensive Help Centre offers guides, tips, help and support.

We have developed specific functionality to support the needs of the HE and FE sector including,

Students as Contributing Judges

The Contributing Judges approach is most commonly used in a Peer Learning scenario. Aside from the obvious time saving element of getting students to add their own items, it also encourages more ownership of the entire process helping them to better understand the underlying benefits.

However, the most significant benefits take place in the reporting where Students can get instant feedback about their Item in the form of an anonymized rank order and comments.

Conclusion

ACJ presents a highly promising approach to peer learning in higher and further education. By involving students in the assessment process, ACJ not only enhances their understanding of quality work but also contributes to the development of critical evaluative skills. As educational institutions continue to explore innovative assessment methods, ACJ stands out as a method that supports learning while also providing a reliable measure of student performance.

Research

  • Bartholomew, S. R., Mentzer, N., & Lynch, W. (2021). Examining the Validity of Adaptive Comparative Judgment for Peer Evaluation in a Design Thinking Course. Frontiers in Education, 6.
  • Jones, I., & Sirl, D. (2017). Peer assessment of mathematical understanding using comparative judgement. Studies in Higher Education, 39(10), 1774–1787.
  • Ellison, C. (2023). 'Effects of adaptive comparative judgement on student engagement with peer formative feedback'. Practitioner Research In Higher Education, 15(1), pp. 24-35.