The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Use of Student Derived Marking Criteria in Peer and Self-assessment
Abstract
This paper reports a study which implemented and evaluated a method of student self and peer assessment involving student constructed marking criteria. The theme of the importance of marking criteria (Orsmond et al ., 1996, 1997) is developed. Pairs of first-year undergraduate biology students were asked to complete a poster assignment. The study was designed to allow the comparison and evaluation of (1) student self and tutor marking for individual marking criteria; (2) student self and peer marking for individual marking criteria; and (3) student and tutor marking for student constructed and tutor provided individual marking criteria. The present study shows that: (a) students may be less able to discriminate between individual marking criteria which they have constructed compared to marking criteria that have been provided; (b) asking students to construct their own marking criteria in discussion with tutors or fellow students does not enhance agreement between student/tutor or student/student marking; and (c) allowing students to construct their own marking criteria may lead to different learning outcomes compared to providing students with a marking criteria.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems
Sadler, D. R. (1989) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/bf00117714 · Cited by 4,285
Cited by
Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment
Liu, N.-F., & Carless, D. (2006) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562510600680582 · Cited by 1,034
The Conscientious Consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning
Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2002) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075070120099368 · Cited by 795
The future of student self-assessment: a review of known unknowns and potential directions.
Panadero, E., Brown, G. T. L., & Strijbos, J.-W. (2016) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9350-2 · Cited by 388
Hovardas, T., Tsivitanidou, O. E., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2014) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.019 · Cited by 176
Transforming holistic assessment and grading into a vehicle for complex learning
Sadler, D. R. (2009) · Assessment, Learning and Judgement in Higher Education · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8905-3_4 · Cited by 162
An inventory of peer assessment diversity
Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Onghena, P. (2011) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602930903221444 · Cited by 160
Training teachers in peer-assessment skills: effects on performance and perceptions
Sluijsmans *, D. M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Martens, R. L. (2004) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/1470329032000172720 · Cited by 127
Goals of peer assessment and their associated quality concepts
Gielen, S., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., Struyven, K., & Smeets, S. (2011) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075071003759037 · Cited by 85
Learning through science writing via online peer assessment in a college biology course
Liang, J.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2010) · The Internet and Higher Education · doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2010.04.004 · Cited by 60
Student peer review as a process of knowledge creation through dialogue
Reddy, K., Harland, T., Wass, R., & Wald, N. (2021) · Higher Education Research & Development · doi:10.1080/07294360.2020.1781797 · Cited by 36
Student assessment literacy: indicators and domains from the literature
Hannigan, C., Alonzo, D., & Oo, C. Z. (2022) · Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice · doi:10.1080/0969594x.2022.2121911 · Cited by 35
Metadata
- Authors
- Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K.
- Venue
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2000-03
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 23-38
- ISSN
- 0260-2938 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-297X
- OpenAlex
- W1988677309
- Cited by
- 277
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 17.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.
