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
Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K., & Mylonas, A. (2002) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0260293022000009302 · Cited by 329
Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria
O'donovan *, B., Price, M., & Rust, C. (2004) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/1356251042000216642 · Cited by 300
van Gennip, N. A. E., Segers, M. S. R., & Tillema, H. H. (2010) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.010 · Cited by 259
The nature, reception, and use of online peer feedback in higher education
van der Pol, J., van den Berg, B. A. M., Admiraal, W. F., & Simons, P. R. J. (2008) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.06.001 · Cited by 230
van Gennip, N. A. E., Segers, M. S. R., & Tillema, H. H. (2009) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2008.11.002 · Cited by 218
Web-based peer review: the learner as both adapter and reviewer
Liu, E. Z.-F., Lin, S. S. J., Chiu, C.-H., & Yuan, S.-M. (2001) · IEEE Transactions on Education · doi:10.1109/13.940995 · Cited by 196
Hovardas, T., Tsivitanidou, O. E., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2014) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.019 · Cited by 176
Improving student peer feedback
Nilson, L. B. (2003) · College Teaching · doi:10.1080/87567550309596408 · Cited by 172
An inventory of peer assessment diversity
Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Onghena, P. (2011) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602930903221444 · Cited by 160
McCarthy, J. (2017) · Active Learning in Higher Education · doi:10.1177/1469787417707615 · Cited by 140
Training teachers in peer-assessment skills: effects on performance and perceptions
Sluijsmans *, D. M. A., Brand-Gruwel, S., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Martens, R. L. (2004) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/1470329032000172720 · Cited by 127
The effect of peer assessment on project performance of students at different learning levels
Li, L., & Gao, F. (2016) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1048185 · Cited by 79
Yu, F.-Y., & Wu, C.-P. (2011) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.012 · Cited by 50
Anonymous Peer Assessment of Medication Management Reviews
Basheti, I. A., Ryan, G., Woulfe, J., & Bartimote-Aufflick, K. (2010) · American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education · doi:10.5688/aj740577 · Cited by 37
Practical Peer Prediction for Peer Assessment
Shnayder, V., & Parkes, D. (2016) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing · doi:10.1609/hcomp.v4i1.13285 · Cited by 17
Chang, S.-H., Yu, L.-C., Kuo, Y.-K., Mai, Y.-T., & Chen, J.-D. (2015) · Journal of Baltic Science Education · doi:10.33225/jbse/15.14.379 · Cited by 11
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
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.
