Dancing with the devil: formative peer assessment and academic performance

Peer assessment can be important in developing active and independent learners, as well as providing more and faster feedback in large classes, compared to marking done by tutors. In addition, the evaluative, critical stance required by students in order to assess their peers' work encourages the development of higher-order cognitive skills. Changing roles from being assessed to being an assessor can also improve students' ability to judge and improve on their own work. However, peer assessment does have potential problems and there is some debate as to the appropriate academic level at which to implement it, the kinds of feedback that are given and the ways in which students respond. In addition, there is little evidence that peer assessment has an impact on academic performance. This research reports the results of an online peer assessment exercise for a macroeconomics essay conducted in a large Economics 1 class at Rhodes University. Of the 800 students, about half participated in the peer assessment exercise. Data were collected from students via a formal course evaluation. In addition, a sample of 50 essays was evaluated in terms of the relationship between peer marks and final (tutor) marks received and the impact that peer assessment had on the quality of the final essay submitted. An Ordinary Least Squares regression was used to investigate the impact of peer assessment participation on marks. Results showed that peer marks tended to ‘bunch’ in the 60–68% range, indicating the reluctance of peers to give very high or low marks. In general, peers gave more useful feedback on technical aspects, such as presentation and referencing (which were also the categories in which students most often made improvements), than on content. Regression analysis showed that peer assessment participation was not a significant determinant of final essay mark, but that economics ability and English language proficiency were.     

Redefining Normal: A Critical Analysis of (Dis)ability in Young Adult Literature

This literary analysis examines constructions of normalcy and disability within contemporary young adult literature, including Jerk, California (Friesen, 2008), Marcelo in the Real World (Stork, 2009), and Five Flavors of Dumb (John, 2010). As recent winners of the Schneider Family Book Award from the American Library Association, these novels offer complex and realistic portrayals of characters with disabilities. Drawing on critical discourse analysis, this paper explores how identity, agency, and power shape the novels’ plots and themes. The growing prevalence of characters with disabilities in young adult literature offers an opportunity for students to consider how disability is constructed in society and represented in literary works. By taking a critical approach to literary analysis, teachers can emphasize social justice within the English curriculum.     

Prevalence and Predictors of Cyberbullying Perpetration by High School Seniors

Cyberbullying is the deliberate and repeated misuse of communication technology by an individual or group to threaten or harm others. Guided largely by the communication skills deficiency model and previous research on cyberbullying, this study examins the effects of several predictor variables (i.e., verbal aggression, sex, risky behaviors, parental monitoring, parental limits, technology use, and scope of Internet activities) on cyberbullying perpetration. A total of 1,606 incoming freshmen at a large southwestern university completed an online survey measuring all predictor and dependent variables under investigation. Overall, 35% of these individuals reported that they had cyberbullied at least one person during their senior year of high school. Results indicated that verbal aggression, risky behaviors, and cyberbullying victimization emerged as significant predictors of cyberbullying perpetration. These results have important theoretical and practical implications for those interested in developing cyberbullying prevention interventions.     

Shifting the blame in higher education – social inclusion and deficit discourses

The principles of social inclusion have been embraced by institutions across the higher education sector but their translation into practice through pedagogy is not readily apparent. This paper examines perceptions of social inclusion and inclusive pedagogies held by academic staff at an Australian university. Of specific interest were the perceptions of teaching staff with regard to diverse student populations, particularly students from low socio-economic (LSES) backgrounds, given the institution's reasonably high proportion of LSES student enrolment (14%). A mixed-method approach was utilised: (i) in-depth interviews with a representative sample of academic staff and (ii) an online survey targeting all academic staff across the institution. The results point to the dual responsibilities of students and institutions in enacting inclusivity in order to move beyond reductive standpoints that simply apportion blame.     

Multidimensional motivation and engagement for writing: construct validation with a sample of boys

Given recent concerns around boys’ literacy, this study examined multidimensional writing motivation and engagement among boys. We explored internal and external validity of 11 adaptive (e.g. self-efficacy for writing) and maladaptive (e.g. disengagement from writing) factors of writing motivation and engagement. The sample comprised 781 male Australian high school students (aged 11–18 years). We used confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling to conduct our analyses. Results confirmed the internal structure of the factors and revealed that parent education, and to a lesser degree language background, predicted several motivation and engagement factors. In addition, the adaptive motivation and engagement factors were associated positively with several writing (e.g. enjoyment of writing) and literacy outcomes (e.g. literacy achievement), whereas the maladaptive factors tended to be negatively associated. Invariance was found in the associations among the motivation and engagement factors and the outcomes across several participant subgroups (e.g. by gender, language background). There was also measurement invariance between the study’s sample and five randomly drawn samples of students from archived data on domain-general academic motivation and engagement. Combined, our analyses shed light on a domain-specific area of motivation and engagement – writing – that could benefit from an integrative multidimensional examination.     

Cracking with affect: relationality in young people’s movements in and out of mainstream schooling

This paper focusses on the schooling stories of two young women who moved from mainstream schooling into alternative learning program set up for Indigenous students and back into mainstream schooling to complete their Year 12 education. The manner in which these young women narrated their stories is understood through the prism of Indigenous notions of relatedness and affect theory and is as revealing as the actual reporting of the events and rationales in these young women’s schooling trajectories. Young people’s insights into the challenges of mainstream pedagogies and promises of relational pedagogies invite us to consider what could be different in structures and processes which aim to deliver educational equity. We argue there is a need for more research which offers rich accounts of the emotional and relational fields which underpin student subjectivities and engagement.     

Femininity,science, and the denigration of the girly girl

Hyper-femininity and the construction of the ‘girly girl’ label have been documented widely, but there has been less attention to their content (or any distinctions between these constructs). Indeed, it can be argued that the content of femininity remains a controversial and somewhat under-researched topic in feminist scholarship. This is also the case in relation to science, which has been widely characterised as a masculine terrain, but there has been less attention to why femininity is excluded from/by science. This article attempts to unpick some of these issues, with a particular focus on the construct of the ‘girly girl’, in relation to access to science. Drawing on qualitative data from the Economic and Social Research Council-funded ASPIRES 2 project, we analyse the discourses used by young people and parents in discussion of ‘girly girls’ and physics. We show the misogynist and excluding discourses projected onto the ‘girly girl’, and indeed that are used to interpolate femininity more broadly. We found that in discussions of science and (hyper-)femininity, even potentially positive feminine attributes were denigrated. Hyper-femininity was produced as ‘more than lack’: vacuous, but also a risible presence. In reflecting on our findings we consider whether femininity may be more derided in some discursive contexts (e.g. science discourse) than others, and whether femininity can or should be conceived as more than lack.