Cited by 120Student Assessment and FeedbackEvaluation of Teaching PracticesHigher Education Practises and Engagement

Peer-assessment in higher education--Twenty-first Century practices, challenges and the way Forward

Ashenafi, Michael Mogessie·2017·Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

Abstract

Peer assessment in higher education has been studied for decades. Despite the substantial amount of research carried out, peer assessment has yet to make significant advances. This review identifies themes of recent research and highlights the challenges that have hampered its advance. Most of these challenges arise from the manual nature of peer assessment practices, which prove intractable as the number of students involved increases. Practitioners of the discipline are urged to forge affiliations with closely related fields and other disciplines, such as computer science, in order to overcome these challenges.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02602938.2015.1100711

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Other review studies also noted this limitation.

    “This limitation was also noted by other review studies (e.g., Alqassab et al., 2023; Ashenafi, 2017).”
  • This finding clearly contrasts the claim by Ashenafi (2017) that 'Gender effects are the least studied factors in peer assessment in higher education'.

    “This clearly contrasts the claim by Ashenafi (2017) that 'Gender effects are the least studied factors in peer assessment in higher education… ' (p. 232).”

    From A systematic review of peer assessment design elements (2023) · cites this paper as Ashenafi (2017)

  • The (proto)typical peer assessment design described by Ashenafi (2017) clearly does not match with any of the five latent design patterns identified, despite around 84% of included studies being conducted in higher education.

    “Yet, this (proto)typical design clearly does not match with any of the five latent design patterns we identified, despite the fact that around 84% of the studies we included have been conducted in higher education (including postgraduate).”

    From A systematic review of peer assessment design elements (2023) · cites this paper as Ashenafi (2017)

  • Ashenafi (2017) found that most PA activities are non-iterative and not fully integrated into the whole educational program, which makes it hard to measure the impact of PA on long-term learning.

    “The literature review by Ashenafi (2017) found that most PA activities are non-iterative, and not fully integrated into the whole educational program, which makes it hard to measure the impact of PA on long-term learning (Ashenafi, 2017).”

    From Using learning analytics to understand student perceptions of peer feedback (2021) · cites this paper as Ashenafi, 2017

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ashenafi, M. M.
Venue
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
Published
2015-10-19
Volume
42
Issue
2
Pages
226-251
ISSN
  • 0260-2938 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-297X
OpenAlex
W1785201945
Cited by
120
References
74
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2
FWCI
29.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
  • Iris (University of Trento) (submittedVersion)
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, interdisciplinary collaboration, student assessment

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