Academics’ perceptions of the benefits and challenges of self and peer assessment in higher education
Open accessAbstract
Despite compelling evidence of its potential effectiveness, uptake of self and peer assessment in higher education has been slower than expected. As with other assessment practices, self and peer assessment is ultimately enabled, or inhibited, by the actions of individual academics. This paper explores what academics see as the benefits and challenges of implementing self and peer assessment, through the analysis of interviews with 13 Australian academics. Thematic analysis of our qualitative data identified seven themes of benefits and five challenges. Our academics showed strong belief in the power of self and peer assessment as formative assessment, contrary to past literature which has focussed on the accuracy of students’ marking. This paper therefore brings insights as to not only what academics value about self and peer assessment but also identifies potential inhibitors in practice. Recommendations are made about improving the design and implementation of self and peer assessment in higher education.
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?
Peer assessments are often considered inaccurate and unreliable, based on the assumption that students are not only inexperienced in the discipline but also unfamiliar with academic practices in general.
“Peer assessments are often considered inaccurate and unreliable, based on the assumption that students are not only inexperienced in the discipline but also unfamiliar with academic practices in general [2].”
From Comparing Student Preferences for AI-Generated and Peer-Generated Feedback in AI-driven Formative Peer Assessment (2025) · cites this paper as [2]
Students may perceive peer assessment as an act of helping peers who are seen as competitors, which can lead to difficulties in participation.
“Also, students may perceive peer assessment as an act of helping peers who are seen as competitors, which can lead to difficulties in participation [2].”
From Comparing Student Preferences for AI-Generated and Peer-Generated Feedback in AI-driven Formative Peer Assessment (2025) · cites this paper as [2]
Cites
Rethinking models of feedback for learning: the challenge of design
Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2013) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2012.691462 · Cited by 1,636 · cited 1× · see citing works
“As Osborne, Houston, and Toman (2007) noted, feedback ought to call for a possible future change, which learners can act upon (see also: Boud and Molloy 2013).”
BackgroundRethinking 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
Winstone, N. E., Nash, R. A., Parker, M., & Rowntree, J. (2017) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2016.1207538 · Cited by 884 · cited 1× · see citing works
“But on the other hand, students have to receive the feedback given from their peers, reflect on it and use it to improve their future work, which takes a lot of student efficacy, empathy and trust (Winstone et al. 2017).”
BackgroundSustainable assessment revisited
Boud, D., & Soler, R. (2016) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1018133 · Cited by 576 · see citing works
The feedback triangle and the enhancement of dialogic feedback processes
Yang, M., & Carless, D. (2013) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562517.2012.719154 · Cited by 414 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Such a focus on grades and grading privileges assessment’s summative purposes, rather than the potential learning benefits of self and peer assessment which are ultimately more useful to students (Nicol 2010; Yang and Carless 2013; Ajjawi and Boud 2017).”
BackgroundDoes student engagement in self-assessment calibrate their judgement over time?
Boud, D., Lawson, R., & Thompson, D. G. (2013) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2013.769198 · Cited by 221 · see citing works
Boud, D., Lawson, R., & Thompson, D. G. (2015) · Higher Education Research & Development · doi:10.1080/07294360.2014.934328 · Cited by 138 · see citing works
Peer assessment as a method of improving student engagement
Weaver, D., & Esposto, A. (2012) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2011.576309 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
What makes for effective feedback: staff and student perspectives
Dawson, P., Henderson, M., Mahoney, P., Phillips, M., Ryan, T., Boud, D., & Molloy, E. (2019) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2018.1467877 · Cited by 514 · see citing works
Self-citationShen, B., Bai, B., & Xue, W. (2020) · Studies in Educational Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.100821 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
Tang, L., Shen, K., Le, H., Shen, Y., Tan, S., Zhao, Y., Juelich, T., Li, X., Gašević, D., & Fan, Y. (2024) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.13036 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Vattøy, K.-D., & Gamlem, S. M. (2024) · Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research · doi:10.1080/00313831.2023.2192772 · Cited by 23 · see citing works
Shin, 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
- Authors
- Adachi, C., Tai, J. H.-M., & Dawson, P.
- Affiliations
- Deakin University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Adachi, Chie
- Venue
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-06-15
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 294-306
- ISSN
- 0260-2938 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-297X
- OpenAlex
- W2626768306
- Cited by
- 256
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 50.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- figshare.com
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Deakin University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Social Sciences › Education › Higher Education Practises and Engagement
- Keywords
- self-assessment, peer assessment, academics' perceptions, formative assessment, higher education assessment, implementation barriers, academic beliefs
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
