Goals of peer assessment and their associated quality concepts
Abstract
The output of peer assessment in higher education has been investigated increasingly in recent decades. However, this output is evaluated against a variety of quality criteria, resulting in a cluttered picture. This article analyses the different conceptualisations of quality that appear in the literature. Discussions about the most appropriate quality criteria for the output of peer assessment should be brought back to the underlying differences in goals. The most obvious goal is its use as an assessment tool, and the learning goal of peer assessment has also been well established. Investigating the literature more closely yields three additional goals: installation of social control; preparation for self-monitoring and self-regulation in lifelong learning; and active participation of students in the classroom. Each goal results in different quality criteria. Only the criteria that are congruent with the goal that one is trying to achieve should be considered when evaluating the quality of peer assessment.
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 review or assessment is an additional method for developing complex appraisal capability.
“Sadler also suggested that an additional method for developing this capability was peer review or assessment, which was also taken up by Gielen et al. (2011).”
From Developing evaluative judgement: enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work (2018) · cites this paper as Gielen et al. 2011
Cites
Assessment and Classroom Learning
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998) · Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice · doi:10.1080/0969595980050102 · Cited by 8,152 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The first sub‐goal is the well‐known ‘assessment for learning’ (Taras 2002 ), also referred to as learning‐oriented assessment (Carless, Joughin, and Mok 2006 ) or formative assessment (Black and Wiliam 1998 ).”
BackgroundEnhancing teaching through constructive alignment
Biggs, J. (1996) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/bf00138871 · Cited by 4,084 · see citing works
The Impact of Self- and Peer-Grading on Student Learning
Sadler, P., & Good, E. (2006) · Educational Assessment · doi:10.1207/s15326977ea1101_1 · Cited by 535 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Concerning this last goal, the quality criterion may be whether one accomplishes the creation of a ‘sense of shared ownership’ (Sadler and Good 2006 ) of the learning and assessment processes for each learner.”
BackgroundChange in self-perceived competence as a function of peer and teacher evaluation
Cole, D. A. (1991) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/0012-1649.27.4.682 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Developing evaluative judgement: enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work
Tai, J., Ajjawi, R., Boud, D., Dawson, P., & Panadero, E. (2018) · Higher Education · doi:10.1007/s10734-017-0220-3 · Cited by 810 · see citing works
“Sadler also suggested that an additional method for developing this capability was peer review or assessment, which was also taken up by Gielen et al. (2011).”
MethodPeer-assessment in higher education--Twenty-first Century practices, challenges and the way Forward
Ashenafi, M. M. (2017) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2015.1100711 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
Business Graduate Performance in Oral Communication Skills and Strategies for Improvement
Jackson, D. (2014) · The International Journal of Management Education · doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2013.08.001 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
A systematic review on peer assessment: intrapersonal and interpersonal factors
Panadero, E., Alqassab, M., Fernández Ruiz, J., & Ocampo, J. C. (2023) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2023.2164884 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gielen, S., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., Struyven, K., & Smeets, S.
- Affiliations
- KU Leuven (BE)
- Corresponding author
- Gielen, Sarah
- Venue
- Studies in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-09
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 719-735
- ISSN
- 0307-5079 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-174X
- OpenAlex
- W1977349997
- Cited by
- 85
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 30.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Studies in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
- Lirias (KU Leuven) (submittedVersion)
- VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- peer assessment, quality standards, quality concept, higher education assessment, social control, self-regulation, lifelong learning, student participation, learning objectives
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
