sustainability
Review
Peer Assessment in Physical Education: A Systematic
Review of the Last Five Years
Daniel Bores-García
1
, David Hortigüela-Alcalá
2,
* , Gustavo González-Calvo
3
and
Raúl Barba-Martín
4
1
Department of Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Rehabilitation and Physical Medicine, Faculty of
Health Sciences, Rey Juan Carlos University, 28922 Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain; daniel.bor[email protected]
2
Department of Specific Didactics, Faculty of Education, University of Burgos, 09001 Burgos, Spain
3
Department of Didactics of Musical, Artistic and Body Expression, Faculty of Education of Palencia,
University of Valladolid, 34004 Palencia, Spain; [email protected]
4
Department of Physical Education and Sport, University of Le
ó
n, 24007 Le
ó
n, Spain; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +34-947-259-517
Received: 24 September 2020; Accepted: 4 November 2020; Published: 6 November 2020
Abstract:
Purpose: A systematic review of the use of peer assessment in Physical Education in
the last five years (2016–2020). Method: Four databases were used to select those articles that
included information on peer assessment in Physical Education in the different educational stages.
According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)
guidelines, including the PICO (participants, intervention, comparators, and outcomes) strategy,
after the exclusion criteria, 13 articles were fully assessed based on seven criteria: (1) year and
author; (2) country; (3) educational stage; (4) type of paper; (5) purpose; (6) content; and (7) outcomes.
Results: the results show that the research was geographically dispersed, although Spain and the
USA had half of the articles reviewed. The research was carried out at all educational stages,
although a greater focus was observed in higher education than in primary and secondary education.
Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed research was almost equally represented, and dealt mainly with
sports and games. Regarding the goals of the studies, a diversity of research so great that it produced
a lack of continuity and coherence in the literature on the subject was found. The research results
on the use of peer assessment showed an increase in the level of motivation, perceived teaching
confidence and competence, and teaching self-efficacy. More research is needed on the benefits of the
use of peer assessment on the self-regulation of learning and the critical thinking of students.
Keywords:
formative assessment; peer assessment; physical education; systematic review;
educational research
1. Introduction
The role of assessment has increased in recent years in the field of education [
1
]. There have been
many publications, scientific conferences, and training sessions on it, but the transfer to the educational
reality is not always easy and the truth is that certain conceptual errors still exist, such as, for example,
the indiscriminate use of the concepts of assessment and scoring as if they were one and the same
thing [
2
]. One of the skills expected of a teacher is his or her ability to evaluate the teaching-learning
process [
3
,
4
], necessarily relating assessment activities to planned activities in order to give meaning
to the whole pedagogical process [
5
]. Such is the importance given to evaluation that some authors
consider that the first and most important change to be made at the methodological level for a global
transformation of the teaching-learning process has to do with the implementation of formative
assessment [6,7] in substitution of the more traditional assessment with a summative approach.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9233; doi:10.3390/su12219233 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9233 2 of 15
1.1. Formative Assessment: A Key Element for Learning
Formative assessment is any evaluative process that aims to improve the teaching-learning process
in its three lines of intervention: improving learning and evidence of student learning, improving the
teaching process of the teacher, and, finally, improving the teaching-learning process in a progressive
way, correcting and refining the procedures carried out in it [
8
–
10
]. Brown and Pickford [
11
] define
it as the process used to recognize and respond to student learning and thus reinforce it during the
teaching-learning process. In this way, assessment acts as a tool for student self-knowledge and
the improvement of all educational processes [
12
]. However, assessment in itself does not produce
beneficial effects if it is not given special treatment, so it has to be approached in an intentional
pedagogical way in the classroom in order to generate competences in the students [
13
]. To do
this, and in order to incorporate assessment into action structures based on the motivation of the
students, it is essential to involve them actively in the assessment procedure [
14
]. In this sense,
the implementation of formative and shared assessment processes has shown a greater awareness of
what students learn, as well as a greater capacity to self-regulate their tasks over time [
15
]. Here the
concept of triadic assessment arises, understood as a triple assessment approach which combines
self-assessment, peer assessment, and teacher assessment, in the same instrument, before a final grade,
and on a given assessment procedure [16].
The formative assessment processes are shown to be ideal for the use of assessment as a tool which
favors self-regulation and awareness of learning by the student and the extrapolation of learning to a
variety of contexts [
17
]. Hortigüela-Alcal
á
, P
é
rez-Pueyo, and Gonz
á
lez-Calvo [
2
] highlight five reasons
for applying formative assessment: Firstly, the student improves his/her awareness of learning when
he/she participates in the assessment process. Secondly, it favors the self-regulation of learning by
influencing the organizational capacities of the students, as already pointed out by Meusen-Beekman,
Joosten-ten Brinke, and Boshuizen [
18
]. Thirdly, it makes it possible to apply learning to other different
contexts outside the classroom since, as Joughin, Dawson, and Boud [
19
] comment, knowing in depth
personal limitations and possibilities facilitates the transfer of learning from knowledge to know-how.
Fourthly, there is an increase in feedback channels, which enriches the information that reaches the
student as it comes from different sources and not only from the teacher [
20
]. Finally, the use of
formative assessment improves teaching practice, since, as Wei [
21
] points out, the teacher reflects
on the impact that teaching is having on students and, therefore, what they should do to improve
the process.
1.2. Peer Assessment: Giving Students Responsibility in the Assessment Process
In addition to the need for evaluation to be formative, many authors point out that it should
be shared [
22
–
25
], thus encouraging student participation throughout the process and increasing
their awareness of what they are learning. As is the case with educational assessment in general,
peer assessment only makes sense when it is learning-oriented; hence authors such as Kepell et al. [
26
]
use the concept of learning-oriented peer assessment. Assessment must stop being an individual and
imposed process and become a dialogue in which students play an important role from the point
of view of decision-making [
27
]. According to these authors, the three most common techniques
for carrying out shared assessment processes are self-assessment, dialogue evaluation, and peer
assessment. Peer assessment is a very useful learning strategy to improve the feedback process in
students [
28
], encouraging critical thinking [
29
]. This concept, coined at the end of the last century [
30
],
gives students the role of evaluator and advisor at the same time as the peers are carrying out the
proposed activities.
Numerous articles have been published in recent years showing some of the advantages of
this evaluation strategy. Studies show the effectiveness of peer assessment in increasing students’
active participation, motivation level, and improvement in learning attitudes [
31
,
32
]. Furthermore,
the use of peer assessment improves students’ capacity for reflection and commitment and reduces the
teacher’s burden, thus allowing teachers to pay more attention to other important factors [
33
],
as well as
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9233 3 of 15
facilitating a better use of time when students participate in assessment processes in large classes [
34
].
According to Chetcuti and Cutajar [
35
], it also favors processes of self-assessment, self-government,
and enhances the higher-level thinking skills. Authors such as Nicol, Thomson, and Breslin [
36
] add
that providing feedback to classmates generates even greater benefit than just receiving it, as it triggers
higher-order processes from a cognitive point of view, such as diagnosing problems and suggesting
solutions. A recent systematic review concludes that the use of peer assessment has a positive impact
on academic performance, over and above traditional teacher assessment, although with levels similar
to self-assessment [
37
]. However, another recent meta-analysis [
38
] shows that, from a learning point of
view, there are only significant benefits in the use of peer assessment when both teachers and students
have been previously trained in such a way that the essential procedures and mechanisms of this type
of assessment are known.
1.3. Peer Assessment in Physical Education: A Gap in Literature
In recent years, successful practices on the use of formative and shared assessment in the area of
Physical Education (PE) have been disseminated [
10
] within the framework of the international concept
of alternative assessment [
23
], as opposed to traditional assessment. The emphasis is on assessment
which contributes to the generation of significant learning by allowing the participation of students
throughout the teaching-learning process [7].
Nevertheless, from the area of PE little research has been carried out that deals with peer assessment
as an evaluation procedure integrated into the current of formative evaluation. Peer assessment is
presented as a shared evaluation mechanism that encourages student participation and promotes
learning by allowing greater awareness of the evaluation criteria and even participation in their
elaboration [
2
]. Students evaluate their peers, acquiring a role of observer and evaluator that broadens
their vision of the teaching-learning process. Guidelines have been proposed for the implementation
of peer assessment in the subject of PE in the educational context [
39
,
40
], and field research has
been carried out in which positive results have been obtained, such as the increase in motivation
for content [
41
], in the level of confidence in secondary education students [
42
], and in the initial
training of future teachers [
43
]. However, the vast majority of articles published in the last twenty
years deals with formative and shared assessment together, integrating peer-assessment processes
within other more general ones and coexisting in almost all cases with self-assessment [
44
–
49
], in such
a way that it is difficult to establish to which specific assessment procedure the results obtained in all
this research are due. It is for this reason that we believe it is essential to analyze the real impact on
learning that the use of peer assessment has on PE students, isolating this type of shared assessment
from other associated mechanisms such as self-assessment or teacher assessment. Although some
reviews on assessment in the general educational context have been published in recent years [
50
–
54
],
including a systematic review on the use of alternative assessment in PE [
23
], to date, as far as we have
been able to ascertain, there is no systematic review addressing peer assessment in the context of PE,
so the aim of this paper is to conduct a review of the scientific literature published over the last five
years (2016–2020) on peer assessment in PE. Therefore, this research focuses specifically on student
evaluation and student involvement in it, contributing directly both to the concept of sustainability
of the journal itself and to the thematic line of the Special Issue on evaluation in education from a
sustainability perspective.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Search Sources
The present paper consists of a systematic review of articles published in the last five years
on the use of peer assessment in PE. Papers published between January 2016 and September 2020
were searched in four electronic databases: SCOPUS, ERIC, Web of Science, and Taylor and Francis.
The descriptors “Peer assessment” and “Physical education” were used with the search operator AND.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9233 4 of 15
2.2. Exclusion Criteria
The exclusion criteria used were as follows: (1) Duplicated articles, (2) Articles not published in
journals indexed in the Journal Citation Report (JCR) or the Scimago Journal Rank (SJR), (3) Articles
in languages other than English or Spanish, and (4) Articles using peer assessment in contexts other
than PE.
2.3. Limits and Methodology of the Search
The search was conducted following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [
55
], including the PICO strategy: Participants (e.g., primary,
secondary, country), Intervention (e.g., content, type of research), Comparators (e.g., Peer Assessment,
Physical Education), and Outcomes.
2.4. Procedure
The research began on 10 September 2020 and ended on 30 September 2020. Firstly, the criteria
for selecting the articles that could be part of the review were drawn up, as well as the selection of
exclusions and the databases in which to carry out the bibliographic search. As for the inclusion criteria,
after a review of the scientific literature on the subject, we found that the term “peer assessment”
is fully accepted and widespread. Since the focus of the review was not on formative assessment
procedures in general, but on peer assessment, it was decided to use this term. To this was added the
term “physical education” to limit the search to that context only. Those articles that dealt with peer
assessment in areas other than physical education were discarded. After completing the process of
defining the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the selection of the databases for the bibliographic search
was carried out. Four databases were selected for the following reasons. ERIC was chosen because it is
the online database with the most articles in the field of education. SCOPUS and WEB OF SCIENCE
are the two most important citation databases in the world and are highly regarded by the scientific
community, so researchers considered it essential to include them in the review. Taylor and Francis
was selected for its strong worldwide presence and for having over 2600 journals in its database.
All articles were extracted from the databases and analyzed through the MEDELEY software.
With the inclusion criteria, initially, 104 publications were found using the mentioned descriptors:
68 articles from Taylor and Francis, 20 articles from ERIC, 7 articles from SCOPUS, and 9 articles from
Web of Science (Figure 1). The analysis of the articles was carried out by two researchers, who worked
independently, respecting the criteria of inclusion and exclusion. At the end of the work they shared
the results. After the second phase of exclusion, in which those articles that dealt in a general way
with formative or shared assessment, but without explicitly naming peer assessment, were discarded,
only 13 articles remained. The most complex phase was this second one, since in the databases there
were several articles that contained the concept of peer assessment in their abstract or keywords but,
after a careful reading of the whole text, it was found that they did not refer to this type of assessment
in particular, but rather dealt with assessment for learning, formative assessment, or self-assessment in
a generic way, without going into detail or quoting peer assessment in particular. This is the reason
why 18 other articles were discarded, leaving only 13.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9233 5 of 15
Sustainability 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15
field research in which the peer assessment process has been implemented and concrete results are
obtained. (5) Purpose: the objective of the study. (6) Content: it details the curricular content around
which the research is developed when it has a more limited duration, or it states that it is research
that covers a complete school year in which many contents are developed. (7) Outcomes: this last
category describes the main results of the research. It should be noted that this last category does not
make sense for articles with a theoretical focus, as they do not show the results of research.
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the systematic search process.
2.5. Quality Assessment
To ensure that the selected articles, following the inclusion and exclusion criteria, were of
sufficient quality to be considered in the present review, three procedures were carried out. First, the
review was included in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) register, an
international database for systematic reviews. This database records and maintains permanently the
key features of the review protocol. Second, the PRISMA guidelines [55] were used to assess the
quality of this systematic review. PRISMA includes an evidence-based set of items to report the
quality of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. In addition, the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess
systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews [58] was used. Third,
the criteria for assessing the quality of the selected studies were based on the Consolidated Standards
of Reporting Trials Statement [59], the Checklist for Measuring Study Quality [60], and the
Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies Statement [61].
Figure 1. Flow diagram of the systematic search process.
Table 1 was drawn up with the 13 final articles selected, following a systematic and thorough review
process, in which each was described on the basis of the following categories, taken from previous
systematic reviews [
56
,
57
]. (1) Author and year of publication: this category shows information about
the authors of each article and the years in which the publications were made, over the last five years.
(2) Country of application of the model: it shows the countries in which the research was carried
out, regardless of the country of origin of the authors or the place where the publisher of the journal
in which the article is published is located. (3) Educational stage: this category details whether the
article is contextualized for the primary education, secondary education, or higher education stage,
or whether it has a general orientation for any stage. (4) Type of paper: includes information about the
type of article, as it can be an article with a theoretical approach or a field research in which the peer
assessment process has been implemented and concrete results are obtained. (5) Purpose: the objective
of the study. (6) Content: it details the curricular content around which the research is developed
when it has a more limited duration, or it states that it is research that covers a complete school year in
which many contents are developed. (7) Outcomes: this last category describes the main results of the
research. It should be noted that this last category does not make sense for articles with a theoretical
focus, as they do not show the results of research.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9233 6 of 15
Table 1. Summary of articles about peer assessment in PE published between 2016 and 2020.
Author and Year Country Educational Stage Type of Paper Purpose Content Outcomes
Aarskog (2020) Norway
Primary and
Secondary
Theoretical
To investigate the process of student
participation in PE assessment.
All the curricular
contents, in general
No research results as it is an article with a
theoretical approach.
Alstot (2020) USA Primary Education
Research paper: qualitative
approach. Video recording
To determine the extent to which
primary school students correctly
carry out evaluation processes of
different launches.
Throwing skills
Students are able to carry out a fairly
accurate peer review process after having
had the opportunity to receive training even
if it is for short duration.
Asun-Dieste, Romero-Martin,
Aparicio-Herguedas,
and Fraile-Aranda (2020)
Spain Higher Education
Research paper: qualitative
approach. Self-reports
To examine proxemic difficulties
when leading physical
activity sessions.
General
physical activities
Four categories: Teacher orientation and
position; group position and organization;
teacher movement; and physical and
affective distance-immediacy established
between teacher and students.
Canadas, Castejon,
and Santos-Pastor (2018)
Spain Higher Education
Research paper: qualitative
approach. Questionnaire
To assess the perception of
participants about assessment
applied in initial training and the
participation in grading.
All the contents in
a college year
(a) Primary Teaching in Physical Education
Degree participants perceive they have a
greater previous knowledge of the
assessment system and assessment tasks,
greater participation in the development of
assessment tests, and a greater use of
participatory grading forms than Physical
Activity and Sport Sciences participants;
(b) in both Degrees, university teachers
show higher values for all the participatory
grading forms than graduates; and
(c) participatory grading forms are directly
related to most of the assessment items
studied in both Degrees.
Eather, Riley, Miller,
and Bradley (2017)
Australia Higher Education
Research paper: qualitative
approach. Questionnaire
To explore the use of peer dialogue
assessment as a learning resource
with students studying Physical
Education at university.
Invasion games
Students show significant development in
the perception of confidence, self-efficacy,
and their level of competence in teaching.
Eather, Riley,
and Miller (2019)
Australia Higher Education
Research paper: quantitative
approach. Two-arm randomized
controlled trial
To test the effectiveness of two
different methods of feedback from
dialogue: peer dialogue assessment
and dialogical feedback carried out
by a university teacher with students
of PE in higher education.
Several games
and sports
Both groups showed the same significant
improvement in teaching competence and
confidence, as well as in the perception of
self-efficacy.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9233 7 of 15
Table 1. Cont.
Author and Year Country Educational Stage Type of Paper Purpose Content Outcomes
Flynn, Duell, Dehaven,
and Heidorn (2017)
USA All the stages Theoretical
To provide techniques, strategies,
and ideas for physical educators and
swim instructors to engage
swimmers at all levels using the Kick,
Stroke, and Swim (KSS) program.
Swimming
No research results as it is an article with a
theoretical approach.
Kuo, Chen, Chu, Yang,
and Chen (2017)
Taiwan
Primary and
Secondary
Research paper: quantitative
approach. Tests
To develop a mobile learning system
for a Kung Fu Tai-Chi PE course
through a peer-assessment mobile
PE approach.
Kung Fu Tai-Chi
Promotion of students’ learning interest and
motivation and improvement of their
learning self-efficacy and socialization.
López-Pastor,
Pérez-Pueyo, Barba,
and Lorente-Catalán (2016)
Spain Higher Education
Research paper: qualitative
approach. Questionnaire
and interviews
To learn the importance and
functionality that assessment rubrics
used in written group tasks have for
teachers in initial training.
Written group
assignments
(a) it is easier to perform the task in a better
way when the assessment criteria is known
in advance; (b) there were significant
differences in the students’ previous
experiences of peer assessment; and
(c) students showed their will to use
formative assessment in the future.
Macken, MacPhail,
and Calderon (2020)
Ireland Primary
Research paper: qualitative
approach. Field notes, reflective
journals, and interviews
To examine the extent that primary
PSTs demonstrate assessment
literacy in their enactment of AfL
while teaching PE.
All the curricular
contents, in general
The use of teacher educator modelling,
mentoring, and scaffolding with primary
school students, during upskill sessions and
in-situ during the PST school placements,
enhanced the PSTs’ assessment literacy in
the enactment of AfL in primary PE to a
greater extent than when implemented
during the module with their PST peer.
Martos-García, Usabiaga,
and Valencia-Peris (2018)
Spain Higher Education
Research paper: mixed approach.
Questionnaire and test
To analyze the differences of
perception between two groups
of students when undergoing a
formative and peer assessment
process through the use of
the blogosphere.
Basque pelota and
Valencian pilota
Basque students were more satisfied with
the assessment tool used than the Valencian
students. In both groups they point to the
motivating and functional component of the
blogosphere in contrast to other more
traditional evaluation systems.
Michael and Webster (2020) USA
Primary and
Secondary
Theoretical
To introduce the Pickleball
Assessment of Skill and
Tactics (PAST).
Pickleball
No research results as it is an article with a
theoretical approach.
Soytürk (2019) Turkey Higher Education
Research papers: quantitative
approach. Observation forms
To analyze efficiency of teacher
candidates in movement analysis,
self-evaluation, and peer evaluation
for four basic volleyball skills.
Volleyball
The teacher candidates’ scores for
self-evaluation of their skills and their peers’
scores were found to be correlated.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9233 8 of 15
2.5. Quality Assessment
To ensure that the selected articles, following the inclusion and exclusion criteria, were of sufficient
quality to be considered in the present review, three procedures were carried out. First, the review was
included in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) register, an international
database for systematic reviews. This database records and maintains permanently the key features
of the review protocol. Second, the PRISMA guidelines [
55
] were used to assess the quality of
this systematic review. PRISMA includes an evidence-based set of items to report the quality of
meta-analyses and systematic reviews. In addition, the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic
Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews [
58
] was used. Third, the criteria for
assessing the quality of the selected studies were based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting
Trials Statement [
59
], the Checklist for Measuring Study Quality [
60
], and the Strengthening the
Reporting of Observational Studies Statement [61].
3. Results and Discussion
The 13 articles selected between January 2016 and September 2020 are discussed around the seven
elements used in the categorization set out in Table 1. The year is not included in the discussion as
they are all from the last five years.
3.1. Country
In order to know the degree of dissemination of the peer assessment in PE throughout the world,
this category has been included in the analysis. The results show a variety in the countries where
research has been carried out on the use of peer assessment in PE. Four continents are represented,
although more than half of the publications have been made in the USA (three articles) and Spain
(four articles). The amount of research carried out in these two countries is significant, as it is carried
out by different research groups belonging to different universities all over the countries. However,
the volume of articles on this subject published in Spain and in the USA is not surprising, as both
countries have been working on educational assessment in PE for more than twenty years. In 2007,
an article was published in which the path followed in Spain towards the construction of quality
formative assessment in PE since the end of the 20th century was described [
62
], and in the USA there
is a long tradition of the use of assessment for learning influenced to a great extent by the policies of
the Welsh government exported to the other side of the ocean [
63
]. Australia has two publications by
the same research team with a very similar focus, with only two years’ difference between one article
and the other. Norway, Taiwan, Ireland, and Turkey complete the remaining four articles.
3.2. Educational Stage
In terms of the educational stage on which the publications reviewed focus, the results are
heterogeneous. Except for the article by Flynn, Duell, Dehaven, and Heidorn [
64
], whose focus is on
swimmers of any age, the rest of the publications explicitly express the educational stage to which
they refer. Seven of the thirteen articles are contextualized in higher education, geared towards future
PE teachers or sports coaches. This result is the consequence of a wide dissemination of research on
formative assessment in higher education in recent years, both online [
65
,
66
] and face-to-face [
67
–
69
],
and greater facility for researchers to investigate in the context in which they work on a daily basis.
The remaining five articles focus on PE practice at the primary (6–11 years old) and secondary
(12–18 years old) stages. Traditionally, assessment methods that allow for objective measurement,
such as tests and physical protocols, have been very present in PE, showing a lack of understanding of
the objective associated with learning that any evaluation process should have [
11
,
12
] and generating
a certain reluctance on the part of teachers to apply assessment procedures that are less simple to
quantify or measure [
70
,
71
], although in recent years an approach to alternative methods has been
observed [
72
]. The inclusion of this category of analysis supports the argument that there is a need
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9233 9 of 15
to broaden and deepen research on the use of peer assessment in the school context, as there is little
research on the early stages of education.
3.3. Type of Paper
In the inclusion and exclusion criteria, it was decided not to limit the review to research articles,
as it was considered interesting to explore the methodological orientation of publications on peer
assessment in PE. The results show that three of the thirteen articles have a theoretical approach, so they
do not use a sample from which an experiment is carried out and from which results are extracted to be
analyzed. It is surprising how few theoretical articles exist given the importance of the subject matter
and its direct influence on learning [
12
]. The article by Aarskog [
73
] deals with student participation in
shared assessment processes, based on the theory of Black and William [
74
] and comparing it with the
educational reality of Norway. Michael and Webster [
75
] propose a shared assessment instrument for
Pickleball content (Pickleball Assessment of Skill and Tactics (PAST)), while Flynn, Duell, Dehaven,
and Heidorn [
64
] present a program called Kick, Stroke, and Swim (KSS) for teaching swimming,
giving practical ideas for assessing learning in a shared way. As for the eleven research articles included
in the review, six of them have a qualitative approach, using various data collection instruments such as
questionnaires [
76
–
78
], semi-structured interviews [
78
,
79
], self-reports, and reflective journals [
79
,
80
]
or video-recording [
81
]. Three articles use a quantitative methodology through the application of
tests [
28
], observation forms [
82
], and self-reports whose data were treated quantitatively in a two-arm
randomized trial design [
83
]. Martos-Garc
í
a, Usabiaga, and Valencia-Peris [
84
] propose a mixed design
for which they use both questionnaires and tests. The fact that there are more qualitative articles
than quantitative ones points to a trend towards the use of less positivist approaches in the world of
educational research, traditionally taken up by quantitative approaches [
85
,
86
] in which the aim is to
find evidence rather than to understand the phenomena that take place in the educational context.
3.4. Purpose and Content
The heterogeneity present in the articles included in the review is also shown in the purpose they
pursue and the content in which they develop the discourse. On the one hand, we find several articles in
which the central content is a sport or a set of sports, pursuing for each of them very different purposes.
The article by Michael and Webster [
75
] aims to present an assessment instrument, to be used among
students, of the technical-tactical aspects of Pickleball. Flynn, Duell, Dehaven, and Heidorn [
64
] focus
on providing strategies and techniques to increase swimmers’ commitment using the Kick, Stroke, and
Swim program, as the benefits of using shared assessment on motivation have been demonstrated [
41
].
Kuo, Chen, Chu, Yang, and Chen [
28
] have as their main objective to develop a mobile learning system
for a Kung Fu Tai-Chi PE course through a peer-assessment mobile PE approach. Martos-Garc
í
a,
Usabiaga, and Valencia-Peris [
84
] compare the perception of two groups of students from two different
universities about the use of formative and shared assessment strategies through the blogosphere to
evaluate the learning of the essential aspects of two traditional sports in the cities where the research
was carried out: Basque pelota and Valencian pilota. Soytürk’s paper [
82
] analyzes the efficiency of the
use of formative assessment and peer assessment by future PE teachers to evaluate the learning of four
volleyball techniques. Research by Eather, Riley, Miller, and Bradley [
76
] seeks to explore the benefits
of using peer dialogue assessment in different invasion games. Two years later, these same authors [
83
]
compare the effects of the use of peer dialogue assessment with those of dialogical feedback provided by
an academic in different sports games. The works of Asun-Dieste, Romero-Mart
í
n, Aparicio-Herguedas,
and Fraile-Aranda [
80
], of Aarskog [
73
], and of Macken, MacPhail, and Calder
ó
n [
79
] are not based on
a specific content either, but deal with different contents of the curriculum, although with different
purposes: while the first article seeks to detect the difficulties from a proxemic point of view that
occur when leading physical activity classes, the other two focus on how students participate in the
assessment of their own learning as a starting point, since only a correct use of shared assessment
can produce beneficial effects on learning [
38
]. The fact that some articles deal with the use of peer
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9233 10 of 15
assessment in all curricular content shows the great transversality and applicability of the use of
formative assessment [2].
3.5. Outcomes
Although the thirteen articles included in the review include peer assessment in PE in one form
or another, not all of them have assessment as their main subject. This is the case with the article
by Asun-Dieste, Romero-Mart
í
n, Aparicio-Herguedas, and Fraile-Aranda [
80
], whose purpose is to
identify the spatial difficulties generated in the development of the direction of a physical activity
session, categorizing the results into four groups: teacher orientation and position, group position and
organization, teacher movement, and physical and affective distance-immediacy established between
teacher and students. Therefore, in this paper the peer assessment is used as an instrument to achieve
the objectives of the research, not as an end of it. The three articles with a theoretical focus have
not been included in this category, since they do not generate results from field research. The other
nine articles do generate results related to formative assessment in general and to peer assessment
in particular. Two articles [
28
,
84
] show among their results an increase in student motivation after
the use of peer assessment processes, in line with Santana, Bedoya, and Robles [
41
]. The two works
from Australia [
76
–
83
] show that the use of peer assessment produces an improvement in perceived
teaching confidence and competence, and teaching self-efficacy, coinciding with the results of previous
research [
42
,
43
]. As reflected in the scientific literature, peer assessment produces an improvement
in learning awareness [
2
,
19
]. Similar results were obtained in the article by Canadas, Castej
ó
n,
and Santos-Pastor [
77
], whose participants were able to culminate the peer-assessment process with the
rating of their peers. In the research by L
ó
pez-Pastor, P
é
rez-Pueyo, Barba, and Lorente-Catal
á
n [
78
],
it is concluded that previous knowledge of the assessment instrument is essential, since, although the
use of rubrics or other instruments favors the development of the process, the previous experiences
of the students with the formative and shared assessment are decisive, in line with the work of Li,
Xiong, Hunter, Guo, and Tywoniw [
38
], as the students expand their awareness of learning by being
responsible for it [
2
]. This is precisely the conclusion reached by Alstot [
81
] in his work, showing that the
students are capable of making a correct evaluation of the learning of their peers after a sufficiently long
process of training in the formative and shared-assessment procedures. Soytürk’s [
82
] research shows
a high correlation between the results obtained through peer assessment and through self-assessment,
coinciding with Krause, O’Neil, and Dauenhauer [
49
] and with Chr
ó
in
í
n and Cosgrave [
48
], since both
procedures depend largely on previous training and experience [
38
]. This result is particularly favorable
for time management by the teacher, since, if students participate in the assessment process, it can
facilitate the teacher’s work and allow more time to be spent on the most pressing issues [
33
,
34
].
Another result of the application of peer assessment is the increase of socialization, as detailed in two of
the research studies reviewed [
28
,
84
], since dialogue between students is required [
27
] and interaction
between all participants in the process is increased [
25
]. No results have been found that refer to the
self-regulation of learning through the use of peer assessment [
15
,
17
,
18
] or to the development of
critical thinking [29].
4. Conclusions
The review carried out shows that little research has been done in recent years on the use of
peer assessment in PE. The existing bibliography on the use of formative or alternative assessment
is extensive and includes the shared-assessment approaches within which peer assessment is found.
However, as seen in this review, few articles address peer assessment in PE specifically, making it
difficult to identify to which of all formative assessment processes the results shown in the research
are due. Only thirteen articles have been published and only ten of them are field research. The two
countries that have done most research on the subject are the USA and Spain, with more than half of
the total publications in the last five years. This shows the need to further internationalize research on
formative and shared evaluation. There is an effort to investigate the benefits of shared assessment
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9233 11 of 15
at the university level, but much more research is needed in the primary and secondary school
context. It is essential that the university approaches the school context in order to obtain the most
reliable information possible on what is happening in the teaching-learning process. Only through
a real transfer from theory to educational practice can the desired dynamics be changed, and it is
essential that research efforts are directed towards a transformation of educational reality throughout all
stages. The methodological approach is quite heterogeneous, with qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
research, and with much diversity in the purposes of the studies. This lack of continuity in research
results in a great variety of results that cannot be compared with other similar studies, in addition to
generating gaps in knowledge that have not been covered until now, such as the effects of the use of
peer assessment on the self-regulation of learning and the development of critical thinking or motor
skills. There are studies that show these benefits in other areas of knowledge, but there is a lack of
scientific evidence applied to PE.
The main contribution of this work is to provide the scientific literature with the first review on the
use of peer assessment in PE, since until now none existed. Furthermore, a very complete information
is offered, divided into different categories, which can serve as an aid for future reviews on assessment
in PE.
As a line of future research and given the large number of unaddressed aspects in the scientific
literature that this review has left in evidence, it would be interesting to carry out research in schools in
which the benefits of the use of peer assessment on self-regulation of learning, on critical thinking,
and on learning by students are proven. It is essential that teachers can research and reflect on their
own practice in order to increase scientific and practical evidence on formative assessment in general
and peer assessment in particular in the context of PE. Research on the use of formative and shared
assessment in general and on peer assessment in particular shows the great impact that these processes
have on learning, so it is essential to explore the extent to which these benefits occur when peer
assessment is applied in school PE. Students cannot simply be receiving agents of contents but must be
part of the teaching-learning process in order to be able to self-regulate their progress, to know the
reason for the activities they carry out, and to understand the evaluation criteria that will verify the
learning and contribute to improve the process to achieve an optimal development of their physical,
cognitive, affective, and social potential.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, D.B.-G. and D.H.-A.; methodology, D.B.-G., D.H.-A., and R.B.-M.;
software, G.G.-C.; validation, D.H.-A., R.B.-M., and G.G.-C.; formal analysis, D.B.-G.; investigation, D.B.-G. and
D.H.-A.; writing—original draft preparation, D.B.-G.; writing—review and editing, D.H.-A., R.B.-M., and G.G.-C.;
supervision, R.B.-M. and G.G.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
DeLuca, C.; Valiquette, A.; Coombs, A.; LaPointe-McEwan, D.; Luhanga, U. Teachers’ approaches to
classroom assessment: A large-scale survey. Assess. Educ. Princ. Policy Pract. 2018, 25, 355–375. [CrossRef]
2.
Hortigüela-Alcal
á
, D.; P
é
rez-Pueyo,
Á
.; Gonz
á
lez-Calvo, G. Pero
. . .
¿a qu
é
nos referimos realmente con
evaluaci
ó
n formativa y compartida? Confusiones habituales y reflexiones pr
á
cticas. Rev. Iberoam. Eval. Educ.
2019, 12, 13–27.
3. Perrenoud, P. Diez Nuevas Competencias Para Enseñar; Grao: Barcelona, Spain, 2004.
4. Murchan, D.; Shiel, G. Understanding and Applying Assessment in Education; Sage: London, UK, 2017.
5.
Brevik, L.; Blikstad-Balas, M.; Lyngvær-Engelien, K. Integrating assessment for learning in the teacher
education programme at the University of Oslo. Assess. Educ. Princ. Policy Pract.
2017
, 24, 164–184. [CrossRef]
6.
P
é
rez-Pueyo, A.; Hortigüela-Alcal
á
, D.; Guti
é
rrez-Garc
í
a, C. ¿Y si reflexionamos sobre si toda la innovaci
ó
n
es educativa? Cuad. Pedagog. 2019, 500, 87–91.
7.
P
é
rez-Pueyo, A.; Hortigüela-Alcal
á
, D. ¿Y si toda la innovaci
ó
n no es positiva en Educaci
ó
n F
í
sica?
Reflexiones y consideraciones prácticas. Retos 2020, 37, 579–587.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9233 12 of 15
8.
L
ó
pez-Pastor, V.M. La Evaluaci
ó
n Formativa y Compartida en Educaci
ó
n Superior: Propuestas, T
é
cnicas, Instrumentos
y Experiencias; Narcea: Madrid, Spain, 2009.
9.
L
ó
pez-Pastor, V.M.; P
é
rez-Pueyo,
Á
. Buenas Pr
á
cticas Docentes: Evaluaci
ó
n Formativa y Compartida en Educaci
ó
n:
Experiencias de Éxito en todas las Etapas Educativas; Universidad de León: León, Spain, 2017.
10.
L
ó
pez-Pastor, V.M.; Hamodi, C.; L
ó
pez, A.T. Evaluaci
ó
n formativa y compartida en educaci
ó
n:
Buenas pr
á
cticas y experiencias y experiencias desarrolladas por la Red de Evaluaci
ó
n Formativa. In
Buenas Pr
á
cticas de Evaluaci
ó
n de Aprendizajes en Educaci
ó
n Superior; Pavi
é
, A., Casas, M., Eds.; Ministerio de
Educación: Santiago de Chile, Chile, 2016; pp. 13–43.
11.
Brown, S.; Pickford, R. Evaluaci
ó
n de Habilidades y Competencias en Educaci
ó
n Superior; Narcea:
Madrid, Spain, 2013.
12.
Calkins, A.; Conley, D.; Heritage, M.; Merino, N.; Pecheone, R.; Pittenger, L.; Udall, D.; Wells, J. Five Elements
for Assessment Design and Use to Support Student Autonomy. Students at the Center: Deeper Learning
Research Serie. Jobs Future 2018, 25, 12–14.
13.
Hortigüela-Alcal
á
, D.; Palacios, A.; L
ó
pez-Pastor, V. The impact of formative and shared or coassessment
on the acquisition of transversal competences in higher education. Assess. Eval. High. Educ.
2019
, 44,
933–945. [CrossRef]
14.
Tolgfors, B. Transformative Assessment in Physical Education. Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev.
2019
, 25,
1211–1225. [CrossRef]
15.
Jing, M. Using Formative Assessment to Facilitate Learner Self-Regulation: A Case Study of Assessment
Practices and Student Perceptions in Hong Kong. Taiwan J. TESOL 2017, 14, 87–118.
16.
P
é
rez-Pueyo, A.; Hortigüela-Alcal
á
, D.; Guti
é
rrez, C.; Hernando-Garijo, A. ¿Andamiaje y evaluaci
ó
n
formativa: Dos caras de la misma moneda? Inf. Educ. Aprendiz. 2019, 5, 559–565. [CrossRef]
17.
Chng, L.S.; Lund, J. Assessment for Learning in Physical Education: The What, Why and How. J. Phys. Educ.
Recreat. Danc. 2018, 89, 29–34. [CrossRef]
18.
Meusen-Beekman, K.D.; Joosten-ten Brinke, D.; Boshuizen, H. Developing Young Adolescents’ Self-Regulation
by Means of Formative Assessment: A Theoretical Perspective. Cogent Educ. 2015, 2, 107–123. [CrossRef]
19.
Joughin, G.; Dawson, P.; Boud, D. Improving Assessment Tasks through Addressing Our Unconscious Limits
to Change. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2017, 42, 1221–1232. [CrossRef]
20.
Wanner, T.; Palmer, E. Formative Self- and Peer Assessment for Improved Student Learning: The Crucial
Factors of Design, Teacher Participation and Feedback. Assess. Eval. High. Educ.
2018
, 43,
1032–1047. [CrossRef]
21.
Wei, W. Using summative and formative assessments to evaluate EFL teachers’ teaching performance.
Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2014, 40, 611–623. [CrossRef]
22.
L
ó
pez-Pastor, V.M. Desarrollando sistemas de evaluaci
ó
n formativa y compartida en la docencia universitaria.
An
á
lisis de resultados de su puesta en pr
á
ctica en la formaci
ó
n inicial del profesorado. Eur. J. Teach. Educ.
2008, 31, 293–311. [CrossRef]
23.
L
ó
pez-Pastor, V.M.; Kirk, D.; Lorente-Catal
á
n, E.; MacPhail, A.; Macdonald, D. Alternative Assessment in
Physical Education: A Review of International Literature. Sport Educ. Soc. 2013, 18, 57–76. [CrossRef]
24.
MacPhail, A.; Murphy, F. Too much freedom and autonomy in the enactment of assessment? Assessment in
physical education in Ireland. Ir. Educ. Stud. 2017, 36, 237–252. [CrossRef]
25.
Tolgfors, B.; Ohman, M. The Implications of Assessment for Learning in Physical Education and Health.
Eur. Phys. Educ. Rev. 2015, 22, 150–166. [CrossRef]
26.
Keppell, M.; Au, E.; Ma, A.; Chan, C. Peer learning and learning-oriented assessment in technology-enhanced
environments. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2006, 31, 453–464. [CrossRef]
27.
Barrientos-Hern
á
n, E.; L
ó
pez-Pastor, V.M.; P
é
rez-Brunicardi, D. Why do I do formative and shared assessment
and/or assessment for learning in physical education? Retos 2019, 36, 37–43.
28.
Kuo, F.C.; Chen, J.M.; Chu, H.C.; Yang, K.H.; Chen, Y.H. A peer-assessment mobile Kung Fu education
approach to improving students’ Affective performance. Int. J. Dist. Educ. Technol.
2017
, 15, 1–14. [CrossRef]
29. Topping, K.J. Peer assessment. Theory Pract. 2009, 48, 20–27. [CrossRef]
30.
Topping, K.J. Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Rev. Educ. Res.
1998
, 68,
249–276. [CrossRef]
31.
Tsuei, M. Using synchronous peer tutoring system to promote elementary students’ learning in mathematics.
Comput. Educ. 2012, 58, 1171–1182. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9233 13 of 15
32.
Van Zundert, M.; Sluijsmans, D.M.A.; Van Merrienboer, J.J.G. Effective peer assessment processes:
Research findings and future directions. Learn. Instr. 2010, 20, 270–279. [CrossRef]
33.
Cho, K.; Schunn, C.; Wilson, R. Validity and Reliability of Scaffolded Peer Assessment of Writing from
Instructor and Student Perspectives. J. Educ. Psychol. 2006, 98, 891–901. [CrossRef]
34.
Vickerman, P. Student perspectives on formative peer assessment: An attempt to deepen learning? Assess. Eval.
High. Educ. 2009, 34, 221–230. [CrossRef]
35.
Chetcuti, D.C.; Cutajar, C. Implementing peer assessment in a post-secondary physics classroom. Int. J. Sci.
Educ. 2014, 36, 3101–3124. [CrossRef]
36.
Nicol, D.; Thomson, A.; Breslin, C. Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review
perspective. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2014, 39, 102–122. [CrossRef]
37.
Double, K.; McGrane, J.; Hopfenbeck, T. The impact of peer assessment on academic performance:
A meta-analysis of control group studies. Educ. Psych. Rev. 2020, 32, 481–509. [CrossRef]
38.
Li, H.; Xiong, Y.; Hunter, C.V.; Guo, X.; Tywoniw, R. Does peer assessment promote student learning?
A meta-analysis. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2020, 45, 193–211. [CrossRef]
39.
Johnson, R. Peer Assessments in Physical Education. J. Phys. Educ. Recreat. Danc.
2004
, 75, 33–40. [CrossRef]
40.
Ward, P.; Lee, M. Peer-assisted learning in physical education: A review of theory and research. J. Teach.
Phys. Educ. 2005, 24, 205–225. [CrossRef]
41. Santana, M.; Bedoya, J.; Robles, A. Evaluación compartida con fichas de observación durante el proceso de
aprendizaje de las habilidades gimnásticas. Un estudio experimental. Rev. Iberoam. Educ. 2009, 50, 7.
42.
Butler, S.; Hodge, S. Enhancing students trust through peer assessment in physical education. Phys. Educ.
2001, 58, 30–42.
43.
Atienza, R.; Valencia-Peris, A.; Martos-Garc
í
a, D.; L
ó
pez-Pastor, V.M.; Dev
í
s-Dev
í
s, J. La percepci
ó
n del
alumnado universitario de educaci
ó
n f
í
sica sobre la evaluaci
ó
n formativa: Ventajas, dificultades y satisfacci
ó
n.
Movimento 2016, 22, 1033–1048. [CrossRef]
44.
L
ó
pez-Pastor, V.M.; Monjas, R.; Manrique, J.C.; Barba, J.J.; Gonz
á
lez, M. Assessment implications in
cooperative physical education approaches: The role of formative and shared assessment in the necessary
search for coherence. Cult. Educ. 2008, 20, 457–477. [CrossRef]
45.
Castej
ó
n-Oliva, F.J.; L
ó
pez-Pastor, V.M.; Juli
á
n-Clemente, J.A.; Zaragoza-Casterad, J. Evaluaci
ó
n formativa y
rendimiento acad
é
mico en la formaci
ó
n inicial del profesorado de Educaci
ó
n F
í
sica. Rev. Int. Med. Sci. Act.
Sports 2011, 11, 328–346.
46.
MacPhail, A.; Halbert, J. ‘We had to do intelligent thinking during recent PE’: Students’ and teachers’
experiences of assessment for learning in post-primary physical education. Assess. Educ. Princ. Policy Pract.
2010, 17, 23–39. [CrossRef]
47.
Fisette, J.; Franck, M. How Teachers Can Use PE Metrics for Formative Assessment. J. Phys. Educ. Recreat.
Danc. 2012, 83, 23–34. [CrossRef]
48.
Chr
ó
in
í
n, D.; Cosgrave, C. Implementing formative assessment in primary physical education: Teacher
perspectives and experiences. Phys. Educ. Sports Pedagog. 2013, 18, 219–233. [CrossRef]
49.
Krause, J.; O’Neil, K.; Dauenhauer, B. Plickers: A Formative Assessment Tool for K–12 and PETE Professionals.
Strategies 2017, 30, 30–36. [CrossRef]
50.
Pereira, D.; Flores, M.A.; Niklasson, L. Assessment revisited: A review of research in Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2016, 41, 1008–1032. [CrossRef]
51.
Man, A. ‘Formative good, summative bad?’—A review of the dichotomy in assessment literature. J. Furth.
High. Educ. 2016, 40, 509–525. [CrossRef]
52.
Heitink, M.C.; Van der Kleij, F.M.; Veldkamp, B.P.; Schildkamp, K.; Kippers, W.B. A systematic review of
prerequisites for implementing assessment for learning in classroom practice. Educ. Res. Rev.
2016
, 17,
50–62. [CrossRef]
53.
Gerritsen-van Leeuwenkamp, K.; Joosten-ten Brinke, D.; Kester, L. Assessment quality in tertiary education:
An integrative literature review. Stud. Educ. Eval. 2017, 55, 94–116. [CrossRef]
54.
Cocket, A.; Kackson, C. The use of assessment rubrics to enhance feedback in higher education: An integrative
literature review. Nurse Educ. Today 2018, 69, 8–13. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55.
Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic
reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, 339. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9233 14 of 15
56.
Bores-Garc
í
a, D.; Hortigüela-Alcal
á
, D.; Fern
á
ndez-Rio, F.J.; Gonz
á
lez-Calvo, G.; Barba-Mart
í
n, R. Research
on Cooperative Learning in Physical Education. Systematic Review of the Last Five Years. Res. Quart. Exerc.
Sports 2020. [CrossRef]
57.
Barba-Mart
í
n, R.; Bores-Garc
í
a, D.; Hortigüela-Alcal
á
, D.; Gonz
á
lez-Calvo, G. The application of the teaching
games for understanding in physical education. Systematic review of the last six years. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 2020, 17, 3330. [CrossRef]
58.
Shea, B.; Reeves, B.; Wells, G.; Thuku, M.; Hamel, C.; Moran, J.; Henry, D. AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal
tool for systematic reviews that include randomized or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions,
or both. BMJ 2017, 358, j4008. [CrossRef]
59.
Moher, D.; Schulz, K.F.; Altman, D. The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the
quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 2001, 285, 1987–1991. [CrossRef]
60.
Downs, S.H.; Black, N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality
both of randomized and non-randomized studies of health care interventions. J. Epidemiol. Community Health
1998, 52, 377–384. [CrossRef]
61.
Von-Elm, E.; Altman, D.G.; Egger, M.; Pocock, S.J.; Gotzsch, P.C.; Vandenbroucke, J.P. The strengthening
the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting
observational studies. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2008, 61, 344–349. [CrossRef]
62.
L
ó
pez-Pastor, V.M.; Barba-Mart
í
n, J.J.; Monjas-Aguado, R.; Manrique-Arribas, J.C.; Heras-Bernardino, C.;
Gonz
á
lez-Pascual, M.; G
ó
mez-Garc
í
a, J.M. Trece años de evaluaci
ó
n compartida en Educaci
ó
n F
í
sica. Rev. Int.
Med. Sci. Phys. Act. Sport 2007, 7, 69–86.
63.
Taras, M. Summative assessment: The missing link for formative assessment. J. Furth. High. Educ.
2009
, 33,
57–69. [CrossRef]
64.
Flynn, S.; Duell, K.; Dehaven, C.; Heidorn, B. Kick, Stroke and Swim: Complement Your Swimming Program
by Engaging the Whole Body on Dry Land and in the Pool. Strategies 2017, 30, 33–38. [CrossRef]
65.
Gikandi, J.W.; Morrow, D.; Davis, N.E. Online formative assessment in higher education: A review of the
literature. Comput. Educ. 2011, 57, 2333–2351. [CrossRef]
66.
Baleni, Z.G. Online Formative Assessment in Higher Education: Its Pros and Cons. Electron. J. e-Learn.
2015
,
13, 228–236.
67.
Yorke, M. Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of
pedagogic practice. High. Educ. 2003, 45, 477–501. [CrossRef]
68.
Nicol, D.; Macfarlane-Dick, D. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven
principles of good feedback practice. Stud. High. Educ. 2006, 31, 199–218. [CrossRef]
69.
Tempelaar, D. Supporting the less-adaptive student: The role of learning analytics, formative assessment
and blended learning. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 2020, 45, 579–593. [CrossRef]
70. Kirk, D. Educación Física y Currículum; Universidad de Valencia: Valencia, Spain, 1990.
71.
Hern
á
ndez, J.L.; Vel
á
zquez, R. La Evaluaci
ó
n en Educaci
ó
n F
í
sica. Investigaci
ó
n y Pr
á
ctica en el
Á
mbito Escolar;
Grao: Barcelona, Spain, 2004.
72.
Rodr
í
guez, J.; Zulaika, L.M. Evaluaci
ó
n en Educaci
ó
n F
í
sica. An
á
lisis comparativo entre la teor
í
a oficial y la
praxis cotidiana. Sport. Sci. J. 2016, 3, 421–438. [CrossRef]
73.
Aarskog, E. ‘No assessment, no learning’ exploring student participation in assessment in Norwegian
physical education (PE). Sports Educ. Soc. 2020. [CrossRef]
74.
Black, P.; Wiliam, D. Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educ. Assess. Eval. Access.
2009
,
21, 5. [CrossRef]
75. Michael, R.; Webster, C. Pickleball Assessment of Skill and Tactics. Strategies 2020, 33, 18–24. [CrossRef]
76. Eather, N.; Riley, N.; Miller, D.; Bradley, J. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Using Peer-Dialogue Assessment
(PDA) for Improving Pre-Service Teachers’ Perceived Confidence and Competence to Teach Physical
Education. Aust. J. Teach. Educ. 2017, 42, 69–83. [CrossRef]
77.
Canadas, L.; Castejon, J.; Santos-Pastor, M.L. Relationship between students’ participation in assessment and
grading in physical education teachers’ initial training. Cult. Cienc. Deporte 2018, 13, 290–300. [CrossRef]
78.
L
ó
pez-Pastor, V.M.; P
é
rez-Pueyo,
Á
.; Barba, J.J.; Lorente-Catal
á
n, E. Students’ perceptions of a graduated
scale used for self-assessment and peer-assessment of written work in pre-service physical education teacher
education (PETE). Cult. Cienc. Deporte 2016, 11, 37–50. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2020, 12, 9233 15 of 15
79.
Macken, S.; MacPhail, A.; Calderon, A. Exploring primary pre-service teachers’ use of ‘assessment for
learning’ while teaching primary physical education during school placement. Phys. Educ. Sports Pedagog.
2020, 25, 539–554. [CrossRef]
80.
Asun-Dieste, S.; Romero-Martin, M.R.; Aparicio-Herguedas, J.L.; Fraile-Aranda, A. Proxemic Behaviour in
Pre-service Teacher Training in Physical Education. Apunts 2020, 141, 41–48. [CrossRef]
81.
Alstot, A. Accuracy of a Peer Process Assessment Performed by Elementary Physical Education Students.
Phys. Educ. 2020, 75, 739–755. [CrossRef]
82.
Soytürk, M. Analysis of Self and Peer Evaluation in Basic Volleyball Skills of Physical Education Teacher
Candidates. J. Educ. Learn. 2019, 8, 256–263. [CrossRef]
83.
Eather, N.; Riley, N.; Miller, D. Evaluating the Impact of Two Dialogical Feedback Methods for Improving
Pre-Service Teacher’s Perceived Confidence and Competence to Teach Physical Education within Authentic
Learning Environments. J. Educ. Train. Stud. 2019, 7, 32–46. [CrossRef]
84.
Martos-Garcia, D.; Usabiaga, O.; Valencia-Peris, A. Students’ Perception on Formative and Shared Assessment:
Connecting two Universities through the Blogosphere. J. New Approaches Educ. Res.
2018
, 6, 64–70. [CrossRef]
85. Denzin, N.K. Critical Qualitative Inquiry. Qual. Inq. 2017, 23, 8–16. [CrossRef]
86.
Fern
á
ndez-Navas, M.; Postigo-Fuentes, A. The situation of qualitative research in Education: Paradigm Wars
again? Márgenes 2020, 1, 45–68.
Publisher’s Note:
MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.
©
2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
