Open Access Peer-reviewed Case Study

Procedures for online peer assessment: Assessing algorithm problems in school mathematics for future teachers

Main Article Content

Niroj Dahal corresponding author
Bal Chandra Luitel
Binod Prasad Pant
Indra Mani Shrestha
Netra Kumar Manandhar
Laxman Luitel


This action research study explored how peer assessment can help students and teachers evaluate algorithm problem-solving skills in mathematics. The study used a self- and peer-assessment activity in Moodle to assess 18 out of 40 Grade X students (10 boys and eight girls) from a school at Kathmandu Valley, Nepal. The students solved algorithm problems in arithmetic, algebra, statistics, and geometry. The study followed the action research methodology of planning, implementing, assessing, and discussing the interventions and outcomes. The results show that workshop activity can engage students in solving algorithm problems in mathematics. The study also discusses how cognitive and constructivist theories can explain some of this activity's unique aspects and potential uses. Moreover, the study highlights the benefits and challenges of self- and peer-assessment in mathematics for enhancing students' interest and abilities in the classroom. The study suggests students can develop analytical and evaluative skills using evaluation criteria to assess their peers' work. The study also implies that students are proactive, critical, and collaborative learners who can use self-and peer assessment to improve their mathematical abilities to solve algorithm problems in the classroom.

assessment abilities, school mathematics, action research

Article Details

How to Cite
Dahal, N., Luitel, B. C., Pant, B. P., Shrestha, I. M., Manandhar, N. K., & Luitel, L. (2023). Procedures for online peer assessment: Assessing algorithm problems in school mathematics for future teachers. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 3(1), 739-747.


  1. Alcarria, R., Bordel, B., Martín de Andrés, D., & Robles, T. (2018). Enhanced peer assessment in MOOC evaluation through assignment and review analysis. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 13(1), 206-219.
  2. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
  3. Ayalon, M., & Wilkie, K. J. (2021). Investigating peer-assessment strategies for mathematics pre-service teacher learning on formative assessment. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 24(4), 399-426.
  4. Baiduri, B. (2022). Effect of self and peer assessments on mathematics learning achievement. Al-jabar: Jurnal Pendidikan Matematika, 13(1), 13-21.
  5. Belbase, A., & Sanzenbacher, G. T. (2016). Cognitive aging: A primer.
  6. Beltozar-Clemente, S., Sierra-Liñan, F., Zapata-Paulini, J., & Cabanillas-Carbonell, M. (2022). Augmented reality mobile application to improve the astronomy teaching-learning process. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 2(2), 464-474.
  7. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability,21, 5-31.
  8. Boud, D. (1995). Enhancing learning through self-assessment. Kogan Page.
  9. Brignell, C., Wicks, T., Tomas, C., & Halls, J. (2019). The impact of peer assessment on mathematics students' understanding of marking criteria and their ability to self-regulate learning. MSOR Connections, 18(1), 46-55.
  10. Campos-Pajuelo, E., Vargas-Hernandez, L., Sierra-Liñan, F., Zapata-Paulini, J., & Cabanillas-Carbonell, M. (2022). Learning the chemical elements through an augmented reality application for elementary school children. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 2(2), 493-501.
  11. Can, Y., & Bardakci, S. (2022). Teachers' opinions on (urgent) distance education activities during the pandemic period. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 2(2), 351-374.
  12. Conway, P. (2022). Who am I to judge? The six (or so) dimensions of critique. International Politics Reviews, 10, 102-112.
  13. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson.
  14. Dahal, N. (2019). Online assessment through Moodle platform in higher education. ICT integration in education: Access, quality and equity Education, ICT in Education Conference, 19-21, September 2019, Nepal.
  15. Dahal, N. (2022). Understanding and uses of collaborative tools for online courses in higher education. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 2(2), 435-442.
  16. Dahal, N., & Pangeni, S. K. (2019). Workshopping in online courses: Insights for learning and assessment in higher education. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Perspectives in Higher Education, 4(1), 89-110.
  17. Dahal, N., Luitel, B. C., & Pant, B. P. (2022a). Exploration of the Workshop activity for peer assessment in online courses of mathematics. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 2(2), 475-482.
  18. Dahal, N., Luitel, B. C., Pant, B. P., & Rajbanshi, R. (2022b). Enhancing student-teachers assessment skills: A self-and peer-assessment tool in higher education. International Journal of Education and Practice, 10(4), 313-321.
  19. Dahal, N., Luitel, B. C., Pant, B. P., Shrestha, I. M., & Manandhar, N. K. (2020). Emerging ICT tools, techniques and methodologies for online collaborative teaching and learning mathematics. Mathematics Education Forum Chitwan, 5(5), 17-21.
  20. Dahal, N., Manandhar, N. K., Luitel, L., Luitel, B. C., Pant, B. P., & Shrestha, I. M. (2022c). ICT tools for remote teaching and learning mathematics: A proposal for autonomy and engagements. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 2(1), 289-296.
  21. David, J. N., & Debra, M. (2016). Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199-218.
  22. de-Armas-González, P., Perdomo-Díaz, J., & Sosa-Martín, D. (2023). Peer assessment processes in a problem-solving activity with future teachers. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 19(4), em2245.
  23. Dimitrić, R. (2018). Feedback from students' errors as a tool in teaching. Mathematics Teaching-Research Journal, 10(1), 64-91.
  24. Dominguez, C., Nascimento, M. da S., Maia, A., Pedrosa, D., & Cruz, G. (2014). Come together: peer review with energy engineering students. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 4(5), 34-41.
  25. Freire, P. (1970). The adult literacy process as cultural action for freedom. Harvard educational review, 40(2), 205-225.
  26. Gözüm, A. İ. C., Papadakis, S., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2022). Preschool teachers' STEM pedagogical content knowledge: A comparative study of teachers in Greece and Turkey. Frontiers in Psychology, 13.
  27. Habiyaremye, H. T., Ntivuguruzwa, C., & Ntawiha, P. (2022). Assessment of teaching methods in mathematical simplicity and complexity in Rwandan schools via pedagogical content knowledge. Mathematics Teaching-Research Journal, 4(4), 129-147.
  28. Handayani, R. D., Genisa, M. U., & Triyanto, T. (2019). Empowering physics students' performance in a group discussion through two types of peer assessment. International Journal of Instruction, 12(1), 655-668.
  29. Kalogiannakis, M., & Papadakis, S. (2022). Preparing Greek Pre-service Kindergarten Teachers to Promote Creativity: Opportunities Using Scratch and Makey Makey. In Children's Creative Inquiry in STEM (pp. 347-364). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  30. Kalogiannakis, M., & Papadakis, St. (Eds). (2020). Handbook of Research on Tools for Teaching Computational Thinking in P-12 Education. USA-PA: IGI Global.
  31. Karakose, T., & Malkoc, N. (2021). Behavioral and interpersonal effects of the COVID-19 epidemic on frontline physicians working in Emergency Departments (EDs) and Intensive Care Units (ICUs). Acta Medica Mediterranea, 37, 437-444.
  32. Karakose, T., Tülübaş, T., & Papadakis, S. (2022). Revealing the Intellectual Structure and Evolution of Digital Addiction Research: An Integrated Bibliometric and Science Mapping Approach. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(22), 14883.
  33. Kearney, S. (2013). Improving engagement: the use of 'Authentic self-and peer-assessment for learning' to enhance the student learning experience. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 38(7), 875-891.
  34. Khonbi, Z. A., & Sadeghi, K. (2012). The effect of assessment type (self vs. peer vs. teacher) on Iranian University EFL students' course achievement. Language Testing in Asia, 2(4), 47-74.
  35. Lavidas, K., Apostolou, Z., & Papadakis, S. (2022). Challenges and opportunities of mathematics in digital times: Preschool teachers' views. Education Sciences, 12(7), 459.
  36. Lavidas, K., Papadakis, S., Manesis, D., Grigoriadou, A. S., & Gialamas, V. (2022). The Effects of Social Desirability on Students' Self-Reports in Two Social Contexts: Lectures vs. Lectures and Lab Classes. Information, 13(10), 491.
  37. Lavy, I., & Shriki, A. (2014). Engaging prospective teachers in peer assessment as both assessors and assesses: The case of geometrical proofs. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 1-32.
  38. Mamolo, L. A. (2022). Students' evaluation and learning experience on the utilization of Digital Interactive Math Comics (DIMaC) mobile app. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 2(2), 375-388.
  39. Marciniak, M. (2017). Active learning in developmental classes of mathematics. Mathematics Teaching-Research Journal, 9(1-2), 2.
  40. McMillan, J. H., & Hearn, J. (2008). Student self-assessment: The key to stronger student motivation and higher achievement. Educational Horizons, 87(1), 40-49.
  41. Mertler, C. A. (2009). Action research: Teachers as researchers in the classroom. Sage.
  42. Pantiwati, Y., & Husamah, H. (2017). Self and Peer Assessments in Active Learning Model to Increase Metacognitive Awareness and Cognitive Abilities. International Journal of Instruction, 10(4), 185-202.
  43. Petousi, V., & Sifaki, E. (2020). Contextualizing harm in the framework of research misconduct. Findings from a discourse analysis of scientific publications. International Journal of Sustainable Development, 23(3/4), 149-174.
  44. Qureshi, A., & Qureshi, N. (2021). Challenges and issues of STEM education. Advances in Mobile Learning Educational Research, 1(2), 146-161.
  45. Ratminingsih, N. M., Artini, L. P., & Padmadewi, N. N. (2017). Incorporating self and peer assessment in reflective teaching practices. International Journal of Instruction, 10(4), 165-184.
  46. Shiba, Y., & Sugawara, T. (2014). A fair assessment of group work by mutual evaluation based on trust network. In 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings, 1-7.
  47. Silver, E. A., & Mills, V. L. (Eds.) (2018). A fresh look at formative assessment in mathematics teaching. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  48. Spiller, D. (2009). Assessment matters: Self-assessment and peer assessment. Technical report. Universidade de Waikato, Nova Zelândia.
  49. Thomas, G., Martin, D., & Pleasants, K. (2011). Using self-and peer-assessment to enhance students’ future-learning in higher education. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 8(1), 52-69.
  50. Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory into Practice, 48(1), 20-27.
  51. Tousignant, M., & DesMarchais, J. E. (2002). Accuracy of student self-assessment ability compared to their own performance in a problem-based learning medical program: A correlation study. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 7(1), 19-27.
  52. Tzagaraki, E., Papadakis, S., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2022). Teachers' Attitudes on the Use of Educational Robotics in Primary School. In STEM, Robotics, Mobile Apps in Early Childhood and Primary Education: Technology to Promote Teaching and Learning (pp. 257-283). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.
  53. Wang, Y., Liang, Y., Liu, L., & Liu, Y. (2014). A motivation model of peer assessment in programming language learning. Department of Information Systems, College of Business Administration, California State University Long Beach, USA.
  54. Wasson, R. J. (2022). Learning by doing, reflecting, and teaching. In Emerging Pedagogies for Policy Education (pp. 61-80). Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore.
  55. Welsh, M. (2012). Student perceptions of using the PebblePad e-portfolio system to support self-and peer-based formative assessment. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 21(1), 57-83.
  56. Yirci, R., Karakose, T., Uygun, H., & Ozdemir, T. Y. (2016). Turkish Adaptation of the Mentorship Effectiveness Scale: A validity and Reliability Study. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 12(4), 821-832.
  57. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64-70.
  58. Zourmpakis, A. I., Papadakis, S., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2022). Education of preschool and elementary teachers on the use of adaptive gamification in science education. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 14(1), 1-16.
  59. Zulliger, S., Buholzer, A., & Ruelmann, M. (2022). Observed quality of formative peer and self-assessment in everyday mathematics teaching and its effects on student performance. European Journal of Educational Research, 11(2), 663-680.