Get access

Students' perception of peer-assessment in the context of a treatment planning course

Authors

  • S. T. Teich,

    Corresponding author
    1. Department of Comprehensive Care, Case Western Reserve University School of Dental Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA
    • Correspondence

      Sorin T. Teich

      Associate professor and Assistant Dean of Clinical Operations

      Case Western Reserve School of Dental Medicine

      2124 Cornell Rd., Cleveland

      Ohio 44106, USA

      Tel: +1 216-368-6161

      Fax: +1 216-368-0617

      e-mail: sorin@case.edu

    Search for more papers by this author
  • C. A. Demko,

    1. Department of Community Dentistry, Case Western Reserve University School of Dental Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • L. A. Lang

    1. Department of Comprehensive Care, Case Western Reserve University School of Dental Medicine, Cleveland, OH, USA
    Search for more papers by this author

Abstract

Objective

Peer assessment is grounded in philosophies of active learning, and it would seem that this tool is a viable method for critical thinking development. The purpose of this article was to present how junior students at Case Western Reserve University School of Dental Medicine (CWRU) perceive the value of a peer-assessment activity in the context of a treatment planning course.

Methodology

As a part of the final exam for the junior year Treatment Planning course, students were requested to evaluate a de-identified assignment submitted by one of their peers. Following the exam, a survey was sent to the students to determine how they perceived the peer-assessment activity and how this relates to other learning experiences in the course.

Results

Our results show that students' perception of the benefit of peer grading was not associated with any individual peer-assignment characteristics, or course characteristics. Similar results were obtained regarding the perceived benefit of identifying evidence. Moderate correlations were observed between peer evaluation characteristics.

Conclusions

It was concluded that: (i) junior dental students are not homogenous in their opinions regarding the value of an activity related to evaluation of a peer's assignment and (ii) student's perceptions regarding the peer-grading component of peer assessment were not correlated with perceptions related to other learning processes in the treatment planning course.

Ancillary