Accountability in peer assessment: Examining the effects of reviewing grades on peer ratings and peer feedback
Abstract
We examined the influence of accountability on the consistency of peer ratings and quality of peer feedback by comparing three conditions: only rating accountability, only feedback accountability, or both rating and feedback accountability. From a large undergraduate course, 287 students’ peer ratings and peer feedback were coded for rating consistency, comment helpfulness, amount of feedback, and feedback features. Because only 30% of the students accurately perceived their assigned condition, data were analyzed according to the perceived condition. Students who believed their reviewing grade would be influenced by the helpfulness of their feedback not only provided more feedback, but also more criticism, solutions, and localized comments. These students also provided more consistent ratings than those who thought their reviewing grade would be influenced by the consistency of their ratings. These findings indicate that constructing helpful comments could have a broad influence on peer assessment and consistent ratings are grounded in commenting.
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?
Patchan et al. (2018) found that students who believed that their peer feedback was graded based on the perceived helpfulness by feedback receivers gave better quality feedback.
“Patchan et al. (2018) found that students who believed that their peer feedback was graded based on the perceived helpfulness by feedback receivers, gave better quality feedback.”
From Using learning analytics to understand student perceptions of peer feedback (2021) · cites this paper as Patchan et al. (2018)
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 31 · Cited by 112
- Authors
- Patchan, M. M., Schunn, C. D., & Clark, R. J.
- Affiliations
- West Virginia University (US)
- University of Pittsburgh (US)
- Corresponding author
- Patchan, Melissa M.
- Venue
- Studies in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2017-05-02
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 2263-2278
- ISSN
- 0307-5079 (ISSN-L)
- 1470-174X
- OpenAlex
- W2611357751
- Cited by
- 112
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3
- FWCI
- 17.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Studies in Higher Education (publishedVersion)
- 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, accountability, peer feedback, peer ratings, grading consistency, undergraduate students, student perceptions
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
