The road to self-assessment: exemplar marking before peer review develops first-year students’ capacity to judge the quality of a scientific report
Open accessAbstract
Lack of clarity about assessment criteria and standards is a source of anxiety for many first-year university students. The Developing Understanding of Assessment for Learning (DUAL) programme was designed as a staged approach to gradually familiarise students with expectations, and to provide opportunities for the development of the skills required to successfully complete assessment tasks. This paper investigated the students’ perceptions of the first two components of the DUAL programme, which assist first-year biology students to engage with stated assessment criteria and standards in order to develop their capacity to make judgements about scientific report exemplars, their peers’ scientific reports and ultimately their own. The study found strong evidence (96% of responses) that the marking and discussion of exemplar reports with peers and demonstrators clarified expectations of scientific report writing. A key feature of this element of DUAL was the opportunity for structured discussion about assessment criteria and standards between peers and markers (demonstrators). During these discussions, students can clarify explicit statements and develop a tacit knowledge base to enhance their ability to judge the quality of others’ work and their own. The peer review exercise (the second element of DUAL) was not rated as highly, with 65% of students finding the process helpful for improving their report. The negative reactions by a sizeable minority of students highlight the need to clearly communicate the expectations and benefits of peer review, with a focus on how the process of giving feedback to peers might benefit a student as much as receiving feedback on their own report.
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?
This approach motivates students to engage positively in the activity and helps them establish realistic expectations.
“This approach motivates students to engage positively in the activity and helps them establish realistic expectations (Yucel et al., 2014).”
From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Yucel et al., 2014
Factors such as limited experience, inadequate subject knowledge, and constrained metacognitive abilities contribute to the challenge of providing constructive feedback.
“Furthermore, factors such as limited experience (Yucel et al., 2014), inadequate subject knowledge (Kostopoulou and O’Dwyer, 2021), and constrained metacognitive abilities (Nur and Anas, 2022) have also been identified as contributing factors to this challenge.”
From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Yucel et al., 2014
A dedicated discussion session focusing on rubric items fosters deeper comprehension of criteria, encourages sharing of insights, and promotes mutual learning.
“This forum fosters a deeper comprehension of the criteria among students (Yucel et al., 2014), encourages the sharing of insights, and promotes mutual learning (Yu et al., 2019).”
From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Yucel et al., 2014
Nurturing a favorable mindset among students is crucial for facilitating the peer feedback process in academic writing.
“Furthermore, nurturing a favorable mindset among students is crucial for facilitating the peer feedback process in academic writing context (Yucel et al., 2014).”
From Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges (2024) · cites this paper as Yucel et al., 2014
Cites
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511815355 · Cited by 33,219 · see citing works
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/003465430298487 · Cited by 12,905 · see citing works
Weber, R. (1990) · doi:10.4135/9781412983488 · Cited by 7,750 · see citing works
Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. (2006) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075070600572090 · Cited by 5,846 · see citing works
Beyond feedback: developing student capability in complex appraisal
Sadler, D. R. (2010) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602930903541015 · Cited by 1,138 · see citing works
Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective
Nicol, D., Thomson, A., & Breslin, C. (2014) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.795518 · Cited by 966 · see citing works
Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions
van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & van Merriënboer, J. (2010) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.004 · Cited by 536 · see citing works
Kift, S., Nelson, K., & Clarke, J. (2010) · The International Journal of the First Year in Higher Education · doi:10.5204/intjfyhe.v1i1.13 · Cited by 377 · 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
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feedback
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354 · Cited by 2,428 · see citing works
“Through making expectations clear, exemplars reduce some of the inevitable student anxiety about assessment standards and requirements (Yucel et al. 2014).”
Managing dialogic use of exemplars
Carless, D., & Chan, K. K. H. (2017) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2016.1211246 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
Incorporating peer feedback in academic writing: a systematic review of benefits and challenges
Wei, Y., & Liu, D. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1506725 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
- Authors
- Yucel, R., Bird, F. L., Young, J., & Blanksby, T.
- Affiliations
- La Trobe University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Yucel, Robyn
- Venue
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-01-29
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 971-986
- ISSN
- 0260-2938 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-297X
- OpenAlex
- W2034563203
- Cited by
- 66
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2
- FWCI
- 24.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- figshare.com
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
- Keywords
- self-assessment, peer review, assessment for learning, first-year students, biology education, scientific report writing, evaluation criteria, student perceptions, peer feedback, tacit knowledge
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