An inventory of peer assessment diversity
Abstract
Since Topping published his literature review on peer assessment in 1998 Topping, K. 1998. Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68: 249–76. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], the number of studies on this subject has doubled, if not tripled. However, along with this expansion, the diversity of peer assessment applications increased equally fast. Based on recent literature, this contribution focuses specifically on the diversity that has come to exist in order to update Topping's typology, adding eight variables, extending eight others with extra sub‐dimensions, and including the implementation factors. Five original variables were absorbed into larger entities, leaving 20 variables which were finally grouped into five clusters. For teachers or advisors, this inventory may be of interest as a source of inspiration or as a checklist of important decisions to make when working with peer evaluation. For researchers, it may be a guide towards covering the full scope of particularities when introducing their peer assessment design. Moreover, the framework developed in this paper might relieve the possible confusion originating from the use of a single term to cover a multitude of sometimes incompatible practices.
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?
Gielen, Dochy and Onghena provided an overview of 20 variables that could be considered important for the design and implementation of peer feedback tasks.
“Gielen, Dochy and Onghena provided an overview of 20 variables that could be considered important for the design and implementation of peer feedback tasks.”
From The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students' academic writing: a Meta-Analysis (2019) · cites this paper as Gielen, Dochy and Onghena 2011
Despite an increase in research on peer feedback in the thirteen following years, Gielen, Dochy and Onghena (2011) deemed such a synthesis still unfeasible.
“Despite an increase in research on peer feedback in the thirteen following years, Gielen, Dochy and Onghena (2011) deemed such a synthesis still unfeasible.”
From The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students' academic writing: a Meta-Analysis (2019) · cites this paper as Gielen, Dochy and Onghena 2011
A specific focus on one object of assessment within one educational context may not yet have been feasible because of the diversity in reported peer feedback practices in which many factors interrelate.
“This may not yet have been feasible because of the diversity in reported peer feedback practices in which many factors interrelate (e.g., Gielen, Dochy and Onghena 2011).”
From The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students' academic writing: a Meta-Analysis (2019) · cites this paper as Gielen, Dochy and Onghena 2011
The current study is the first to follow up on multiple calls for a quantitative research synthesis for the effects of peer feedback.
“To our knowledge, this study is the first to follow up on multiple calls for a quantitative research synthesis for the effects of peer feedback (e.g., Topping 1998, 2010; Gielen, Dochy and Onghena 2011).”
From The impact of formative peer feedback on higher education students' academic writing: a Meta-Analysis (2019) · cites this paper as Gielen, Dochy and Onghena 2011
The first theme is decisions concerning the implementation of peer assessment, including purpose, scope of involvement, product/output of peer assessment, and whether the peer assessment involves revision.
“The first theme is decisions concerning the implementation of peer assessment (cf.Gielen et al., 2011).It includes the design elements: purpose (formative vs. summative), scope of involvement (e.g.provision and/or reception of peer assessment), the product/output of peer assessment (scoring and/or [written] comment), and whether the peer assessment involves revision.”
From A systematic review of peer assessment design elements (2023) · cites this paper as Gielen et al., 2011
The second theme is concerned with assessment groups and peer interaction within them, including group constellation, unit of assessment assessor, unit of assessment assessee, matching, contact, and privacy.
“The second theme is concerned with assessment groups and peer interaction within them (i.e.'composition of assessment groups' and 'interaction between peers'; Gielen et al., 2011).This theme includes the design elements: group constellation (intragroup vs. intergroup vs. both), unit of assessment assessor (group vs. individual vs. both), unit of assessment assessee (group vs. individual vs. both),”
From A systematic review of peer assessment design elements (2023) · cites this paper as Gielen et al., 2011
The most prominent design elements belong to two core themes of peer assessment design: decisions concerning the implementation of peer assessment and assessment groups and peer interactions within them.
“We showed that the most prominent design elements belong to two core themes of peer assessment design: decisions concerning the implementation of peer assessment and assessment groups and peer interactions within them (Gielen et al., 2011).”
From A systematic review of peer assessment design elements (2023) · cites this paper as Gielen et al., 2011
Cites
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075070600572090 · Cited by 5,846 · see citing works
Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems
Sadler, D. R. (1989) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/bf00117714 · Cited by 4,285 · see citing works
Peer Assessment between Students in Colleges and Universities
Topping, K. (1998) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.2307/1170598 · Cited by 2,173 · see citing works
Sustainable Assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society
Boud, D. (2000) · Studies in Continuing Education · doi:10.1080/713695728 · Cited by 1,545 · see citing works
Student Peer Assessment in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Peer and Teacher Marks
Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543070003287 · Cited by 1,170 · see citing works
Yorke, M. (2003) · Higher Education · doi:10.1023/a:1023967026413 · Cited by 973 · see citing works
The Impact of Self- and Peer-Grading on Student Learning
Sadler, P., & Good, E. (2006) · Educational Assessment · doi:10.1207/s15326977ea1101_1 · Cited by 535 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Saito and Fujita 2004 use a double-blind procedure)? Is the output communicated confidentially (e.g. Pâquet and Des Marchais 1998) between assessor and assessee? Is the teacher present during the assessment, or does he or she have access to the assessment results (e.g. in some courses in the study of van den Berg, Adm…”
BackgroundFormative Peer Assessment of Academic Writing Between Postgraduate Students
Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/713611428 · Cited by 449 · see citing works
Reexamining the affective advantage of peer feedback in the ESL writing class
Zhang, S. (1995) · Journal of Second Language Writing · doi:10.1016/1060-3743(95)90010-1 · Cited by 405 · see citing works
Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Wilson, R. W. (2006) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.891 · Cited by 355 · see citing works
Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K., & Mylonas, A. (2002) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0260293022000009302 · Cited by 329 · see citing works
Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2002) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0260293022000001337 · Cited by 292 · see citing works
The Importance of Marking Criteria in the Use of Peer Assessment
Orsmond, P., Merry, S. P., & Reiling, K. (1996) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0260293960210304 · Cited by 287 · see citing works
The Use of Student Derived Marking Criteria in Peer and Self-assessment
Orsmond, P., Merry, S. P., & Reiling, K. (2000) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602930050025006 · Cited by 278 · see citing works
New Assessment Forms in Problem-based Learning: The value-added of the students' perspective
Segers, M. S. R., & Dochy, F. J. R. C. (2001) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075070120076291 · Cited by 248 · see citing works
Self-citationNorcini, J. J. (2003) · Medical Education · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01536.x · Cited by 244 · see citing works
Analyzing Talk in ESL Peer Response Groups: Stances, Functions, and Content
Lockhart, C., & Ng, P. (1995) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/j.1467-1770.1995.tb00456.x · Cited by 235 · see citing works
Somervell, H. (1993) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0260293930180306 · Cited by 228 · see citing works
Bloxham, S., & West, A. (2004) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0260293042000227254 · Cited by 216 · see citing works
Peer assessment in university teaching: evaluating seven course designs
van den Berg, I., Admiraal, W., & Pilot, A. (2006) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602930500262346 · Cited by 205 · see citing works
Making a Difference: Using peers to assess individual students' contributions to a group project
Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (2000) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/135625100114885 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Formative peer assessment in a CSCL environment: a case study
Prins, F. J., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Kirschner, P. A., & Strijbos, J. (2005) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602930500099219 · Cited by 192 · see citing works
Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Peer Assessment: A Case for Student and Staff Development
Smith, H., Cooper, A., & Lancaster, L. (2002) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/13558000110102904 · Cited by 178 · see citing works
Assessment in Partnership with Learners
Stefani, L. A. J. (1998) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0260293980230402 · Cited by 173 · see citing works
Peer and Teacher Assessments of Oral Presentation Skills: How reliable are they?
Magin, D., & Helmore, P. (2001) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075070120076264 · Cited by 157 · see citing works
Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writing classrooms
Saito, H., & Fujita, T. (2004) · Language Teaching Research · doi:10.1191/1362168804lr133oa · Cited by 156 · see citing works
Searby, M., & Ewers, T. (1997) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0260293970220402 · Cited by 153 · see citing works
The Implementation of Peer Assessment: An action research approach
Sivan, A. (2000) · Assessment in Education Principles Policy and Practice · doi:10.1080/713613328 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Langan, A. M., Wheater, C. P., Shaw, E. M., Haines, B. J., Cullen, W., Boyle, J., Penney, D., Oldekop, J. A., Ashcroft, C., Lockey, L., et al. (2004) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0260293042003243878 · Cited by 138 · see citing works
The impact of stress in self‐ and peer assessment
Pope, N. K. (2004) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0260293042003243896 · Cited by 132 · see citing works
The Effect of Scoring Criteria Specificity on Peer and Self-assessment
Miller, P. J. (2003) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0260293032000066218 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Designing student peer assessment in higher education: analysis of written and oral peer feedback
van den Berg, I., Admiraal, W., & Pilot, A. (2006) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562510500527685 · Cited by 126 · see citing works
Feedback for General Practitioners in Training: Quality, Styles, and Preferences
Prins, F. J., Sluijsmans, D. M. A., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006) · Advances in Health Sciences Education · doi:10.1007/s10459-005-3250-z · Cited by 120 · see citing works
Enhancing scientific essay writing using peer assessment
Venables, A. T., & Summit, R. (2003) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/1470329032000103816 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Peer and Self‐assessment at Tertiary Level ‐‐ an experiential report
Oldfield, K. A., & MacAlpine, J. M. K. (1995) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0260293950200113 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Peer and Teacher Assessment of the Oral and Written Tasks of a Group Project
Cheng, W., & Warren, M. (1999) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0260293990240304 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
Sluijsmans, D. M. A., Brand‐Gruwel, S., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Bastiaens, T. J. (2002) · Studies In Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/s0191-491x(03)90003-4 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
A conceptual framework for integrating peer assessment in teacher education
Sluijsmans, D. M. A., & Prins, F. J. (2006) · Studies In Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2006.01.005 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Learning about Interface Design through Peer Assessment
Purchase, H. C. (2000) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/026029300449245 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Strachan, I. B., & Wilcox, S. (1996) · Journal of Geography in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03098269608709377 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Schelfhout, W., Dochy, F. J. R. C., & Janssens, S. (2004) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0260293042000188465 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Self-citationUsing multisource feedback in the classroom: a computer-based approach
McGourty, J. (2000) · IEEE Transactions on Education · doi:10.1109/13.848062 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Improving Feedback To and From Students
(2012) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203062074-18 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Patterns in student-student commenting
Rada, R., & Hu, K. (2002) · IEEE Transactions on Education · doi:10.1109/te.2002.1024619 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
In Search of Fairness: An application of multi-reviewer anonymous peer review in a large class
Robinson, J. M. (2002) · Journal of Further and Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03098770220129451 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Omelicheva, M. Y. (2005) · Journal of Political Science Education · doi:10.1080/15512160590961784 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Towards a flexible peer assessment system
Trahasch, S. (2004) · doi:10.1109/ithet.2004.1358227 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Peer assessment as a tool for learning
Gielen, S. (2007) · Lirias (KU Leuven) · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Self-citationDeepening computer programming skills by using web-based peer assessment
Sitthiworachart, J., & Joy, M. S. (2003) · Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) · Cited by 17 · see citing works
Students' Acceptance of Peer Assessment.
Paquet, M. R., & Marchais, J. E. D. (1998) · Cited by 15 · see citing works
The use of self- and peer-contribution assessments within a final year pharmaceutics assignment
Malcolmson, C., & Shaw, J. (2005) · Pharmacy Education · doi:10.1080/15602210500293142 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
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
Huisman, B., Saab, N., van Driel, J., & van den Broek, P. (2018) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1424318 · Cited by 318 · see citing works
Huisman, B., Saab, N., van den Broek, P., & van Driel, J. (2019) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1545896 · Cited by 306 · see citing works
Panadero, E., & Alqassab, M. (2019) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2019.1600186 · Cited by 232 · see citing works
Dialogue within peer feedback processes: clarification and negotiation of meaning
Zhu, Q., & Carless, D. (2018) · Higher Education Research & Development · doi:10.1080/07294360.2018.1446417 · Cited by 214 · see citing works
Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Smeets, S. (2010) · British Educational Research Journal · doi:10.1080/01411920902894070 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
Self-citationPham, T. N., Lin, M., Trinh, V. Q., & Bui, L. T. P. (2020) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/2158244020914554 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
A systematic review of peer assessment design elements
Alqassab, M., Strijbos, J.-W., Panadero, E., Ruiz, J. F., Warrens, M., & To, J. (2023) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-023-09723-7 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Colognesi, S., Vassart, C., Blondeau, B., & Coertjens, L. (2020) · Studies in Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100917 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Enhancing the Peer-Feedback Process Through Instructional Support: A Meta-Analysis
Hornstein, J., Keller, M. V., Greisel, M., Dresel, M., & Kollar, I. (2025) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-025-10017-3 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
“With regard to the objects of peer-feed-back (according to Alqassab et al., 2023; S. Gielen et al., 2011), we only included studies in which the initial task solution could be assessed separately from the person (Criterion 9; e.g., case analysis, picture, but not an oral presentation or dance…”
Eppler, E., Meyer, J., Serowy, S., Link, K., Pauk, B., & Filgueira, L. (2021) · Research in Science Education · doi:10.1007/s11165-018-9795-7 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Onghena, P.
- Affiliations
- KU Leuven (BE)
- Corresponding author
- Gielen, Sarah
- ORCID
- Onghena, Patrick
- Venue
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-03
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 137-155
- ISSN
- 0260-2938 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-297X
- OpenAlex
- W1976311664
- Cited by
- 160
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 11
- FWCI
- 43.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
- Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
- KU Leuven
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Practises and Engagement
- Keywords
- peer assessment, higher education assessment, implementation factors, student self-assessment, peer feedback
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
