The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Importance of Marking Criteria in the Use of Peer Assessment
Abstract
This paper reports a study which implemented and evaluated a method of peer assessment, as a formative and summative assessment procedure. Pairs of first‐year undergraduate biology students were asked to complete a poster assignment on a specific aspect of nerve physiology. This paper contains details of a method which allows student peer and tutor marking of work against the individual marking criteria to be evaluated. The results show that a comparison between the tutor and the student peer mark may be misleading as a guide to the validity of peer assessment. The importance of considering the individual sections of the marking criteria is illustrated. It was found that when the individual criteria were analysed the number of students marking the same as the tutor ranged from 31% to 62%. It also became clear that specific areas of the marking criteria were prone to over and under‐marking. Analysis of student feedback forms showed that students not only liked carrying out peer assessment, but felt the benefits in terms of developing facets of their learning process and heightening their awareness of their work. These results are discussed in the light of other studies.
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
The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity and educational consequences
Jonsson, A., & Svingby, G. (2007) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2007.05.002 · Cited by 1,509
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
The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review
Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.002 · Cited by 839
The Conscientious Consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning
Higgins, R., Hartley, P., & Skelton, A. (2002) · Studies in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/03075070120099368 · Cited by 795
Metadata
- Authors
- Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K.
- Venue
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1996-09
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 239-250
- ISSN
- 0260-2938 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-297X
- OpenAlex
- W2080170979
- Cited by
- 288
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 25.78
- 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: The Importance of Marking Criteria in the Use of Peer Assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/0260293960210304
- The paper
- Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (1996). The Importance of Marking Criteria in the Use of Peer Assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293960210304
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.