Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 262

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Online peer assessment: effects of cognitive and affective feedback

Open access
Lu, Jingyan, Law, Nancy·2012·Instructional Science
DOI 10.1007/s11251-011-9177-2
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study reports the effects of online peer assessment, in the form of peer grading and peer feedback, on students’ learning. One hundred and eighty one high school students engaged in peer assessment via an online system—iLap. The number of grade-giving and grade-receiving experiences was examined and the peer feedback was coded according to different cognitive and affective dimensions. The effects, on both assessors and assessees, were analyzed using multiple regression. The results indicate that the provision by student assessors of feedback that identified problems and gave suggestions was a significant predictor of the performance of the assessors themselves, and that positive affective feedback was related to the performance of assessees. However, peer grading behaviors were not a significant predictor of project performance. This study explains the benefits of online peer assessment in general and highlights the importance of specific types of feedback. Moreover, it expands our understanding of how peer assessment affects the different parties involved.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11251-011-9177-2

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. Andrade, H. G. (2000). Using rubrics to promote thinking and learning. Educational Leadership, 57(5), 13–19.
  2. Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14(3), 191–205. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Brindley, C., & Scoffield, S. (1998). Peer assessment in undergraduate programmes. Teaching in Higher Education, 3(1), 79–90. · DOI
  4. Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher praise: A functional analysis. Review of Educational Research, 51(1), 5–32. · doi:10.3102/00346543051001005 · Paper page
  5. Burnett, P. C. (2002). Teacher praise and feedback and students’ perceptions of the classroom environment. Educational Psychology, 22, 5–16. · DOI
  6. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 245–281. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Chen, Y.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2009). An educational research course facilitated by online peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46(1), 105–117. · DOI
  8. Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (1999). Peer and teacher assessment of the oral and written tasks of a group project. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 24(3), 301–304. · DOI
  9. Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Charney, D. (2006). Commenting on writing: Typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. Written Communication, 23(3), 260–294. · DOI · Paper page
  10. Elawar, M. C., & Corno, L. (1985). A factorial experiment in teachers written feedback on students homework: Changing teachers behavior a little rather than a lot. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 162–173. · DOI
  11. Ellman, N. (1975). Peer evaluation and peer grading. The English Journal, 64(3), 79–80. · doi:10.2307/815059
  12. Elwell, W. C., & Tiberio, J. (1994). Teacher praise: What students want. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 21(4), 322.
  13. Falchikov, N. (1986). Product comparisons and process benefits of collaborative peer group and self assessments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 11(2), 146–166. · DOI · Paper page
  14. Falchikov, N., & Blythman, M. (2001). Learning together: Peer tutoring in higher education (1st ed.). New York: Routledge.
  15. Henderlong, J., & Lepper, M. R. (2002). The effects of praise on children’s intrinsic motivation: A review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 128(5), 774–795. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Hughes, I. E. (1995). Peer assessment. Capability, 1, 39–43.
  17. Kwok, R. C. W., & Ma, J. (1999). Use of a group support system for collaborative assessment. Computers & Education, 32(2), 109–125. · DOI
  18. Law, N. W. Y., Lee, Y., van Aalst, J., Chan, C. K. K., Kwan, A., Lu, J., et al. (2009). Using Web 2.0 technology to support learning, teaching and assessment in the NSS Liberal Studies subject. Hong Kong Teachers’ Centre Journal, 8, 43–51.
  19. Li, L., Liu, X., & Steckelberg, A. L. (2010). Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 525–536. · DOI · Paper page
  20. Lin, S., Liu, E., & Yuan, S. (2001). Web-based peer assessment: Feedback for students with various thinking styles. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 17(4), 420–432. · DOI · Paper page
  21. Liu, N.-F., & Carless, D. (2006). Peer feedback: The learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education, 11(3), 279–290. · DOI · Paper page
  22. Liu, E. Z. F., Lin, S. S. J., Chiu, C. H., & Yuan, S. M. (2001). Web-based peer review: The learner as both adapter and reviewer. IEEE Transactions on Education, 44(3), 246–251. · DOI · Paper page
  23. Nilson, L. B. (2003). Improving student peer feedback. College Teaching, 51(1), 34–38. · DOI · Paper page
  24. Olson, V. L. B. (1990). The revising processes of sixth-grade writers with and without peer feedback. Journal of Educational Research, 84(1), 22. · DOI
  25. Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (1996). The importance of marking criteria in the use of peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 21(3), 239–250. · DOI · Paper page
  26. Page, E. B. (1958). Teacher comments and student performance: A seventy-four classroom experiment in school motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 49(4), 173–181. · DOI
  27. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis method (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  28. Reuse-Durham, N. (2005). Peer evaluation as an active learning technique. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 32(4), 328–345.
  29. Stefani, L. A. J. (1994). Peer, self and tutor assessment: Relative reliabilities. Studies in Higher Education, 19(1), 69–75. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment for learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758–765. · DOI · Paper page
  31. Straub, R. (1997). Students’ reactions to teacher comments: An exploratory study. Research in the Teaching of English, 31(1), 91–119. · DOI
  32. Strijbos, J.-W., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback content and sender’s competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 291–303. · DOI · Paper page
  33. Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–277. · doi:10.3102/00346543068003249 · Paper page
  34. Topping, K. (2003). Self and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity and utility. In M. Segers, F. Dochy, & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (pp. 55–87). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer. · DOI · Paper page
  35. Topping, K. J., & Ehly, S. W. (2001). Peer assisted learning: A framework for consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12(2), 113–132. · DOI · Paper page
  36. Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 149–169. · DOI · Paper page
  37. Tsai, C.-C. (2009). Internet-based peer assessment in high school settings. In L. T. W. Hin & R. Subramaniam (Eds.), Handbook of research on new media literacy at the K-12 level: Issues and challenges (pp. 743–754). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. · DOI
  38. Tsai, C.-C., & Liang, J.-C. (2009). The development of science activities via on-line peer assessment: The role of scientific epistemological views. Instructional Science, 37(3), 293–310. · DOI · Paper page
  39. Van Lehn, K. A., Chi, M. T. H., Baggett, W., & Murray, R. C. (1995). Progress report: Towards a theory of learning during tutoring. Pittsburgh, PA: Learning Research and Development Centre, University of Pittsburgh. · DOI
  40. Wen, M. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2006). University students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward (online) peer assessment. Higher Education, 51(1), 27–44. · DOI · Paper page
  41. White, K. J., & Jones, K. (2000). Effects of teacher feedback on the reputations and peer perceptions of children with behavior problems. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 76(4), 302–326. · DOI
  42. Wilkinson, S. S. (1981). The relationship of teacher praise and student achievement: A meta-analysis of selected research. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41(9-A), 3998.
  43. Yang, Y.-F. (2010). A reciprocal peer review system to support college students’ writing. British Journal of Educational Technology. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01059.x. · DOI
  44. Yang, Y.-F., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010). Conceptions of and approaches to learning through online peer assessment. Learning and Instruction, 20(1), 72–83. · DOI

Cited by

See all 262

Metadata

Authors
Lu, J., & Law, N.
Venue
Instructional Science
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2011-07-05
Volume
40
Issue
2
Pages
257-275
ISSN
  • 0020-4277 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-1952
DOI
10.1007/s11251-011-9177-2
OpenAlex
W2084974067
Cited by
262
References
17
FWCI
30.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.