Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 292

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

PRODUCT COMPARISONS AND PROCESS BENEFITS OF COLLABORATIVE PEER GROUP AND SELF ASSESSMENTS

Falchikov, Nancy·1986·Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

Abstract

Any student assessment procedure should meet a number of criteria. It should be -valid, reliable, practicable and fair, and useful to students.(1) The prevailing authoritarian model of assessment in higher education is examined and its disadvantages elaborated. Results of some previous studies of self assessment are discussed. The present study attempts to meet Percival and Ellington's criteria, and addresses itself to a number of important questions concerning the comparability of self and peer group assessment with traditional methods; the extent of over‐ or undermarking by students, the relationships between accuracy of grading and age or overall ability, and the possible effects on learning or personal development of self and peer group assessment procedures. Details of the implementation of the scheme are recorded, and results presented and discussed. In terms of both product (the correspondences between self or peer and tutor assessment) and process (the evaluation by students of the effects of the scheme), the scheme appears to be successful. Implications and plans for future studies are elaborated.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/0260293860110206

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 292

Metadata

Authors
Falchikov, N.
Venue
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
Published
1986-06
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
146-166
ISSN
  • 0260-2938 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-297X
OpenAlex
W1965911588
Cited by
292
References
0
FWCI
4.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: PRODUCT COMPARISONS AND PROCESS BENEFITS OF COLLABORATIVE PEER GROUP AND SELF ASSESSMENTS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/0260293860110206
The paper
Falchikov, N. (1986). PRODUCT COMPARISONS AND PROCESS BENEFITS OF COLLABORATIVE PEER GROUP AND SELF ASSESSMENTS. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293860110206

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.