Kamratbedömning kan ha en positiv effekt på elevers lärande. För att uppnå denna positiva effekt måste elever kunna ge återkoppling till sina kamrater och även ta emot återkoppling från sina kamrater. Elever måste också kunna använda den återkoppling som de får. Återkoppling kan ges på fyra olika nivåer, uppgiftsnivå, processnivå, självregleringsnivå och personnivå. Att använda elever som lärande resurser för varandra, är en av nyckelstrategierna inom formativ bedömning. Fokus på formativ bedömning och användning av den samma har ökat inom skolan. Det, tillsammans med att det inte finns många studier som undersöker formativ bedömning med ett ämnesinnehåll i svensk kontext, är exempel på vad som ligger till grund för studien. Det övergripande syftet med denna studie var att öka kunskapen om hur kamratbedömning genomförs i naturvetenskap på mellanstadiet. Fokus riktades dels mot hur lärare implementerar kamratbedömning, men framförallt mot hur elever ger varandra återkoppling. För att undersöka hur och på vilka nivåer som 11-åriga elever ger varandra återkoppling, genomförde elever kamratbedömning i mindre grupp efter att enskilt ha besvarat uppgifter med ett naturvetenskapligt innehåll. Insamling av data skedde i flera steg. När läraren gav eleverna instruktioner kring bedömningsmatrisen, uppgifterna och den kamratbedömning som de skulle genomföra, observerades och videofilmades detta. Elevernas kamratbedömningssamtal i grupp, videofilmades också. Därefter intervjuades eleverna enskilt.Studiens resultat visade att eleverna fick återkoppling på olika nivåer av sina kamrater. Den återkoppling som var mest förekommande, var på uppgiftsnivå. Det fanns exempel på återkoppling på andra nivåer också i materialet, samt exempel där det inte förekom någon återkoppling alls. När eleverna bedömde varandras svar, fokuserade de på mängden naturvetenskapliga begrepp i kamraternas svar. Slutsatser som dragits utifrån studiens resultat var bland andra att elever behöver träna både på kamratbedömning och på att ge användbar återkoppling, samt att lärare bör vara medvetna om att deras instruktioner är betydelsefulla när det gäller hur kamratbedömningen faller ut. En annan slutsats är att kamratbedömning med ämnesinnehåll, kräver både bedömarfärdighet och ämneskunskap. / Peer assessment may have a positive effect on student learning. In order to have these positive effect students have to be able to give feedback to their peer and also to receive feedback from their peer. The students also have to be able to use the given feedback. Using students as learning resources to each other is a key strategy within formative assessment. The feedback that is given can be directed at four different levels, task level, process level, self-regulation level and self-level. Using peers as learning resources, is one of the key strategies within formative assessment. Focus on formative assessment and the use of it, have increased within school. That, and the fact that there are not many studies that examines formative assessment with science content, are a part of the background to the conducted study.The overall purpose of the study was to contributed to the field concerning peer assessment in science with 11-year old students. The focus was partly how teachers implement peer assessment, but above all how students give feedback. In order to examine how and in what different levels student give each other feedback, students conducted peer assessment in small groups, after they had answered questions concerning science. Data collection was done in the following steps. At first, the teacher gave the students instructions about the tasks, the scoring rubric, how to assess and so on. While doing that, the teacher was observed and video recorded. Next step concerned the students. They answered the questions and then had peer assessment in small groups. This was also video recorded. Later on the students were interviewed. The students received different kinds of feedback, mostly at task level, from their peer. Some examples of feedback at other levels were also discovered. When students assessed each other’s answers, they looked at the amount of science concepts that were used in their peer’s answers. The results suggest that students need to practice peer assessment, how to give useful feedback and that the teacher need to be aware of that given instruction may turn out differently from what is expected. The results also show that students believe that peer assessment is useful and that feedback is given. This was contradictory from what was seen in some of the observations of the peer assessment. Conclusions are for example that students need both assessment skills and scientific knowledge.

Concept maps provide a way to assess how well students have developed an organized understanding of how the concepts taught in a unit are interrelated and fit together. However, concept maps are challenging to score because of the idiosyncratic ways in which students organize their knowledge (McClure, Sonak, & Suen, 1999). The construct a map or C-mapping" task has been shown to capture students' organized understanding. This "C-mapping" task involves giving students a list of concepts and asking them to produce a map showing how these concepts are interrelated. The purpose of this study was twofold: (a) to determine to what extent the use of the restricted C-mapping technique coupled with the threefold scoring rubric produced reliable ratings of students conceptual understanding from two examinations, and (b) to project how the reliability of the mean ratings for individual students would likely vary as a function of the average number of raters and rating occasions from two examinations. Nearly three-fourths (73%) of the variability in the ratings for one exam and (43 %) of the variability for the other exam were due to dependable differences in the students' understanding detected by the raters. The rater inconsistencies were higher for one exam and somewhat lower for the other exam. The person-to-rater interaction was relatively small for one exam and somewhat higher for the other exam. The rater-by-occasion variance components were zero for both exams. The unexplained variance accounted for 19% on one exam and 14% on the other. The size of the reliability coefficient of student concept map scores varied across the two examinations. A reliability of .95 and .93 for relative and absolute decision was obtained for one exam. A reliability of .88 and .78. for absolute and relative decision was obtained for the other exam. Increasing the number of raters from one to two on one rating occasion would yield a greater increase in the reliability of the ratings at a lower cost than increasing the number of rating occasions. The same pattern holds for both exams.