Evaluation of Peer Assessment Training: How Do We Know It Works?

Imagine attending a training that promises to transform how you teach, but how do you actually know it delivered on that promise? This is the question at the heart of PeerCollab's approach to evaluating its Peer Assessment (PA) trainings. Rather than simply collecting a post-session feedback form and moving on, the project has invested in a rigorous, multi-layered evaluation methodology designed to capture not just satisfaction, but real impact.

A Framework Built on Evidence

The evaluation of the Lecturers' Peer Assessment Training, delivered across Spain, Poland, Italy, and Belgium as part of Work Package 3, is grounded in the six OECD Evaluation Criteria: Relevance, Coherence, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact, and Sustainability. These are not just theoretical labels. They translate into concrete questions: Was this training aligned with what lecturers actually needed? Did it change how they think and teach? And will its effects last beyond the final session?

This framework was developed by ACEEU, the partner responsible for evaluation methodology across the project, and was applied consistently across all partner institutions to allow for meaningful cross-national comparison.

Listening to Lecturers: Before, During, and After

One of the most thoughtful aspects of the evaluation design is that it mirrors the very pedagogical principles being taught. Just as peer assessment is most powerful when it spans the full learning journey, including diagnostic, formative, and summative stages, the evaluation instrument captures lecturers' experiences at all three stages within a single, streamlined survey.

Before the training, lecturers reflected on their prior familiarity with peer assessment, their expectations, and any anticipated challenges. During the training, they assessed the clarity of materials, the quality of facilitation, and the relevance of activities to their teaching contexts. And after the training, they were asked to consider their confidence, motivation, and readiness to apply what they had learned and to share it with colleagues.

Responses are gathered using a 5-point Likert scale, supplemented by open-ended questions inviting richer, narrative reflections. This blend of quantitative and qualitative data ensures that numbers tell a story and that the story is heard in participants' own words.

Beyond the Survey: Trainer Perspectives Matter Too

Lecturer surveys alone can only tell part of the story. That is why each partner institution also completed a structured training report after each session. These reports documented the practical context, dates, locations, participant profiles, session format, but also captured something harder to quantify: the lived experience of delivery. What challenges did trainers encounter? What moments sparked engagement? What would they do differently?

Together, these complementary data sources offer a 360-degree view of each training session, making it possible to identify not just what worked, but why.

From Training Rooms to Real Classrooms: The Pilot Evaluation

The evaluation does not stop at the training itself. In Work Package 4, the same spirit of rigorous inquiry extends into the Pilot Implementation, the phase where lecturers bring peer assessment into their actual courses with real students.

Here, the evaluation widens its lens to include student voices too. Both lecturers and students complete surveys. In-depth interviews are held with at least eight lecturers, ensuring diversity across institutions and disciplines, and deliberately including educators who have experience working with students with special educational needs. Student focus groups bring additional depth, creating space for open conversation about what peer assessment actually felt like from the receiving end.

All findings are then triangulated to ensure that conclusions rest on solid, multi-source evidence rather than isolated impressions.

Evaluation as a Learning Culture

What makes PeerCollab's approach particularly compelling is not just its methodological rigour, it is its spirit.

Evaluation here is not a bureaucratic requirement tacked onto the end of an activity. It is treated as a genuine learning opportunity, mirroring the project's broader philosophy that assessment, when designed well, deepens understanding rather than just measuring it.

The insights gathered will directly shape the ongoing refinement of the PA Handbook, training materials, and implementation strategies, ensuring that what was learned in the training rooms of Lodz, Madrid, Bologna, Verona and Brussels genuinely improves the learning experiences of students across Europe.