Cited by 66Student Assessment and FeedbackEvaluation of Teaching PracticesScience Education and Pedagogy

The road to self-assessment: exemplar marking before peer review develops first-year students’ capacity to judge the quality of a scientific report

Open access
Yucel, Robyn, Bird, Fiona L., Young, Jodie, Blanksby, Tania·2014·Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1080/02602938.2014.880400

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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).”
  • 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.”
  • 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).”
  • 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).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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
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