The DOI matches its Crossref record.
PRODUCT COMPARISONS AND PROCESS BENEFITS OF COLLABORATIVE PEER GROUP AND SELF ASSESSMENTS
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Peer Assessment between Students in Colleges and Universities
Topping, K. (1998) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.2307/1170598 · Cited by 2,173
The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review
Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075079912331379935 · Cited by 1,206
Student Peer Assessment in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Peer and Teacher Marks
Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/00346543070003287 · Cited by 1,170
Self-citationMaking Sense of Assessment Feedback in Higher Education
Evans, C. (2013) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654312474350 · Cited by 1,143
Quantitative studies of student self-assessment in higher education: a critical analysis of findings
Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (1989) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/bf00138746 · Cited by 616
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Falchikov, N.
- Venue
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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.