IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jjrfmx/v15y2022i11p503-d959404.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Students’ Perception of the Use of a Rubric and Peer Reviews in an Online Learning Environment

Author

Listed:
  • Letebele Mphahlele

    (Department of Accountancy, College of Business and Economics, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2092, South Africa)

Abstract

Moving towards online learning during the coronavirus pandemic presented challenges, such as identifying assessments for learning. Assessments for learning involve using assessments as part of the learning process. Alternative assessments, as opposed to traditional assessments, are favoured for promoting for learning. These assessments include peer assessments and using criteria-referenced tools such as a rubric. Online learning environments often favour automated grading tools such as multiple choice. However, essay-type probing questions help students adopt a deep learning approach. Peer assessments and rubrics can help with grading essay-type questions. However, while the benefits of rubrics and peer assessments are well documented, there is limited research on students’ perceptions in South Africa on the use of rubrics and peer assessments in online environments to facilitate a deep approach to learning. A mixed method approach using a Likert scale and an online qualitative questionnaire was undertaken to explore students’ perceptions of the use of peer assessments with a rubric in an undergraduate module at the University of Johannesburg. Despite a low response rate, four main themes emerged: a clear performance criterion, structured writing, and a deep approach to learning and critical thinking. However, the study also showed limitations of the peer rubric and peer assessments in helping students prepare for formal summative assessment. The results suggest that the rubric and peer assessments, with amendments, could help students adopt a deep approach in online learning environments.

Suggested Citation

  • Letebele Mphahlele, 2022. "Students’ Perception of the Use of a Rubric and Peer Reviews in an Online Learning Environment," JRFM, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-17, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:15:y:2022:i:11:p:503-:d:959404
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/15/11/503/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1911-8074/15/11/503/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Byron W. Brown & Carl E. Liedholm, 2002. "Can Web Courses Replace the Classroom in Principles of Microeconomics?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(2), pages 444-448, May.
    2. Peter Booth & Peter Luckett & Rosina Mladenovic, 1999. "The quality of learning in accounting education: the impact of approaches to learning on academic performance," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(4), pages 277-300.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John Cullen & Sue Richardson & Rona O'Brien, 2004. "Exploring the teaching potential of empirically-based case studies," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 251-266.
    2. Wen-Chi Liao, 2005. "Outsourcing, Inequality, and Cities," 2005 Meeting Papers 904, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    3. M Paula Cacault & Christian Hildebrand & Jérémy Laurent-Lucchetti & Michele Pellizzari, 2021. "Distance Learning in Higher Education: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment [A Randomized Assessment of Online Learning]," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 19(4), pages 2322-2372.
    4. Adel Ben Youssef & Ludovic Ragni, 2008. "Uses of Information and Communication Technologies in Europe's Higher Education Institutions: From Digital Divides to Digital Trajectories," Post-Print halshs-00937212, HAL.
    5. Josep Amer-Mestre & Alaitz Ayarza-Astigarraga & Marta C. Lopes, 2024. "E-learning engagement gap during school closures: differences by academic performance," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(3), pages 337-359, January.
    6. David Figlio & Mark Rush & Lu Yin, 2013. "Is It Live or Is It Internet? Experimental Estimates of the Effects of Online Instruction on Student Learning," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(4), pages 763-784.
    7. Li, Yi & Zhang, Wei & Wang, Pengfei, 2021. "Working online or offline: Which is more effective?," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    8. Christina Chiang & Paul K. Wells & Peter Fieger & Divesh S. Sharma, 2021. "An investigation into student satisfaction, approaches to learning and the learning context in Auditing," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 61(1), pages 913-936, March.
    9. Eric P. Bettinger & Lindsay Fox & Susanna Loeb & Eric S. Taylor, 2017. "Virtual Classrooms: How Online College Courses Affect Student Success," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(9), pages 2855-2875, September.
    10. Richard B. Dull & Lydia L. F. Schleifer & Jeffrey J. McMillan, 2015. "Achievement Goal Theory: The Relationship of Accounting Students' Goal Orientations with Self-efficacy, Anxiety, and Achievement," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(2), pages 152-174, April.
    11. Mouhcine Tallaki & Enrico Bracci & Monia Castellini, 2015. "Accounting learning preferences: the role of visualisation," Working Papers 2015094, University of Ferrara, Department of Economics.
    12. Coates, Dennis & Humphreys, Brad R. & Kane, John & Vachris, Michelle A., 2004. ""No significant distance" between face-to-face and online instruction: evidence from principles of economics," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 533-546, October.
    13. Duncan Watson & Louise Parker, 2016. "The hullaballoo over e-learning? Technology and pluralism in economics," Cogent Economics & Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(1), pages 1159813-115, December.
    14. Gordon Boyce & Sarah Williams & Andrea Kelly & Helen Yee, 2001. "Fostering deep and elaborative learning and generic (soft) skill development: the strategic use of case studies in accounting education," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(1), pages 37-60.
    15. Cheryl J. Wachenheim, 2009. "Final Exam Scores in Introductory Economics Courses: Effect of Course Delivery Method and Proctoring," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 31(3), pages 640-652, September.
    16. Paul Wells & Paul De Lange & Peter Fieger, 2008. "Integrating a virtual learning environment into a second‐year accounting course: determinants of overall student perception," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 48(3), pages 503-518, September.
    17. Cassandra DiRienzo & Gregory Lilly, 2014. "Online Versus Face-To-Face: Does Delivery Method Matter For Undergraduate Business School Learning?," Business Education and Accreditation, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11.
    18. Hardt, David & Nagler, Markus & Rincke, Johannes, 2022. "Can peer mentoring improve online teaching effectiveness? An RCT during the COVID-19 pandemic," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    19. Vasiliki Brinia & Panagiotis Kavaliarakis, 2016. "Educational results from blended learning: Using an educational platform in teaching Economics," International Journal of Learning and Development, Macrothink Institute, vol. 6(1), pages 136-148, March.
    20. Mann, John T. & Henneberry, Shida Rastegari, 2012. "Undergraduate Students’ Preferences and Willingness to Pay for College Course Attributes," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124946, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jjrfmx:v:15:y:2022:i:11:p:503-:d:959404. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.