Formative peer assessment in a CSCL environment: a case study
Open accessAbstract
In this case study our aim was to gain more insight in the possibilities of qualitative formative peer assessment in a computer supported collaborative learning (CSCL) environment. An approach was chosen in which peer assessment was operationalized in assessment assignments and assessment tools that were embedded in the course material. The course concerned a higher education case‐based virtual seminar, in which students were asked to conduct research and write a report in small multidisciplinary teams. The assessment assignments contained the discussion of assessment criteria, the assessment of a group report of a fellow group and writing an assessment report. A list of feedback rules was one of the assessment tools. A qualitative oriented study was conducted, focusing on the attitude of students towards peer assessment and practical use of peer assessment assignments and tools. Results showed that students’ attitude towards peer assessment was positive and that assessment assignments had added value. However, not all students fulfilled all assessment assignments. Recommendations for implementation of peer assessment in CSCL environments as well as suggestions for future research are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In [30], students reported having limited experience with receiving critical feedback from peers, even though criteria and feedback rules were provided.
“In [30], students reported having limited experience with receiving critical feedback from peers, even though criteria and feedback rules were provided.”
From Comparing Student Preferences for AI-Generated and Peer-Generated Feedback in AI-driven Formative Peer Assessment (2025) · cites this paper as [30]
Prins et al. demonstrated that, during formative peer assessment, the discussion of assessment criteria was hampered by low participation, which stemmed from students' lack of experience.
“Prins et al. [30] demonstrated that, during formative peer assessment, the discussion of assessment criteria was hampered by low participation, which stemmed from students’ lack of experience.”
From Comparing Student Preferences for AI-Generated and Peer-Generated Feedback in AI-driven Formative Peer Assessment (2025) · cites this paper as [30]
Formative peer assessment faces challenges including time constraints, low participation, and poor quality feedback.
“However, the effective implementation of formative peer assessment faces challenges: constraints of time, low participation, and poor quality feedback [30].”
From Comparing Student Preferences for AI-Generated and Peer-Generated Feedback in AI-driven Formative Peer Assessment (2025) · cites this paper as [30]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Making Sense of Assessment Feedback in Higher Education
Evans, C. (2013) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654312474350 · Cited by 1,143 · see citing works
Peer feedback through blogs: Student and teacher perceptions in an Advanced German class
Dippold, D. (2009) · ReCALL · doi:10.1017/s095834400900010x · Cited by 196 · see citing works
Hovardas, T., Tsivitanidou, O. E., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2014) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.019 · Cited by 176 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Rotsaert, T., Panadero, E., & Schellens, T. (2018) · European Journal of Psychology of Education · doi:10.1007/s10212-017-0339-8 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
A systematic review on peer assessment: intrapersonal and interpersonal factors
Panadero, E., Alqassab, M., Fernández Ruiz, J., & Ocampo, J. C. (2023) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2023.2164884 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Liu, X., Li, L., & Zhang, Z. (2018) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2017.1324018 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Zhan, Y. (2021) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2020.1804826 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
A systematic review of the key components of online peer feedback practices in higher education
Gao, X., Noroozi, O., Gulikers, J., Biemans, H. J. A., & Banihashem, S. K. (2024) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100588 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Cheng, K.-H., Hou, H.-T., & Wu, S.-Y. (2014) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2011.649766 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Strijbos, J.-W., Ochoa, T. A., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Segers, M. S. R., & Tillema, H. H. (2009) · Cognitive and Emotional Processes in Web-Based Education · doi:10.4018/978-1-60566-392-0.ch018 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Self-citationShin, I., Hwang, S. B., Yoo, Y. J., Bae, S., & Kim, R. Y. (2025) · Proceedings of the 15th International Learning Analytics and Knowledge Conference · doi:10.1145/3706468.3706488 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
“However, the effective implementation of formative peer assessment faces challenges: constraints of time, low participation, and poor quality feedback [30].”
Influential
- Authors
- Prins, F. J., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Kirschner, P. A., & Strijbos, J.
- Affiliations
- Open University of the Netherlands (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Prins, Frans J.
- Venue
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2005-08
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 417-444
- ISSN
- 0260-2938 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-297X
- OpenAlex
- W2012970215
- Cited by
- 192
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 31.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- dspace.library.uu.nl
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion)
- Open access LMU (Ludwid Maxmilian's Universitat Munchen) (submittedVersion)
- DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Keywords
- computer-supported collaborative learning, feedback rules, student attitudes, multidisciplinary team, higher education
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
