The above specific suggestions correlate well with Langan and Wheater's response to the common concern that peer assessment is unreliable: it depends very much upon how it is handled within the classroom. The authors also suggest that, before students are empowered by peer assessment, there needs to be an open dialogue between educators and students. As Johnson mentions, it is vital that close monitoring take place, if not throughout the peer assessment process, then at least in its early stages. When this is done correctly, enormous benefits can be derived from the process.

Another problem associated with peer assessment, even when done for the maximum benefit of students, is that it requires a large amount of preparation to implement. The teacher needs to take time to thoroughly prepare documents such as the assessment rubric and instructions, and class time is often taken up to a large extent by training assessor students to perform their tasks. Johnson (40) is however of the opinion that the benefits of peer assessment far outweigh its potential problems, drawbacks and risks.

Some additional advantages to the ones mentioned above include the fact that students receive the opportunity to take responsibility for their own learning, and for that of their peers. This, as Langan and Wheater mention, serves an empowering function in an environment where students are often at the mercy of their schooling system and/or teachers. Furthermore, the enjoyment of the learning experience can be enhanced by peer assessment activities. On an educational level, the assessor students are cognitively engaged in their tasks of estimating the performance of their classmates. Performing students on the other hand receive individual feedback on specific problem areas, where an educator is not always able to provide this. Furthermore, the lack of improvement opportunities is mitigated by the fact that feedback is focused upon improvement, and students receive the opportunity to prepare and practice their performance before the final assessment. In general, the teaching experience is greatly enhanced and also more enjoyable for students....

According to Johnson's conclusion, therefore, the benefits of peer assessment are weighty enough to mitigate any drawbacks or criticism.
Langan and Wheater appear to agree with this point-of-view. Benefits that they identify for peer assessment include: student autonomy and empowerment; development of learner confidence in both peer and self-evaluation; an understanding of the assessment paradigm; and a clear understanding of what is required to improve upon performance.

Langan and Wheater do however emphasize that peer assessment should not be the sole assessment method for all educational situations. However, it is a very useful addition to any classroom, for the benefits mentioned above. While Johnson's article then emphasizes the benefits of peer assessment, he hardly suggests that it should replace all other forms of grading. Instead, the intention appears to be to use the obvious benefits of the method to promote it in the physical education context.

Student involvement and reflection are vital parts of learning development. To optimize the student experience, especially during the secondary and tertiary phases of education. It is therefore the educator's responsibility to do everything possible to ensure that students enjoy their educational experiences as much as possible. Indeed, enjoyment is one of the elements that enhances the success of the learning process. In physical education, peer assessment is one of the ways to increase student performance and involvement in a class set-up that otherwise might result in students "vanishing" behind the better performers.

With peer assessment, each students is provided with an equal chance for performing their best and improving themselves.

Sources

Johnson, Randall. "Peer Assessments in Physical Education." October, 2004.

Langan, a. Mark & Wheater, C. Philip. "Can students assess students effectively?." Learning & Teaching in Action. Vol. 2, Iss 1: Assessment. Feb, 2003.