The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Assessing Self- and Peer-assessment: The students' views
Abstract
Self- and peer-assessment are being used increasingly in higher education, to help assign grades to students' work and to help students to learn more effectively. However, in spite of this trend there is little in the published literature on how students view these methods. In this paper we present an analysis of the views of a large number of students (N = 233) who had just experienced self- and peer-feedback as part of one of their subjects. It is a rarely questioned commonplace in the literature that in order to gain benefit from peer and self-assessment schemes students first need training in the specific scheme being used; ideally they will play a role in devising the scheme. The intervention reported here, which involved a large (N = 233) group of students, included no such measures. The results show that students felt, nonetheless, that they benefited from the intervention. The results also present prima facie evidence that training or other measures to further involve the students in the peer and self-assessment scheme might be beneficial. Our analysis of students' views revealed eight general dimensions under which are grouped twenty higher order themes. The results both support and extend previous research and give a more detailed picture than previously available. The general dimensions found were: Difficult; Gained Better Understanding of Marking; Discomfort; Productive (including learning benefits and improved work); Problems with Implementation; Read Others' Work; Develop Empathy (with assessing staff); and, Motivation (especially motivation to impress peers). The practical implications of these findings are discussed.
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 feedback: the learning element of peer assessment
Liu, N.-F., & Carless, D. (2006) · Teaching in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/13562510600680582 · Cited by 1,034
Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning
Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007 · Cited by 615
Shepherding the crowd yields better work
Dow, S., Kulkarni, A., Klemmer, S., & Hartmann, B. (2012) · Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work · doi:10.1145/2145204.2145355 · Cited by 334
Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K., & Mylonas, A. (2002) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0260293022000009302 · Cited by 329
Peer feedback through blogs: Student and teacher perceptions in an Advanced German class
Dippold, D. (2009) · ReCALL · doi:10.1017/s095834400900010x · Cited by 196
Metadata
- Authors
- Hanrahan, S. J., & Isaacs, G.
- Venue
- Higher Education Research & Development
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2001-05
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 53-70
- ISSN
- 0729-4360 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8366
- OpenAlex
- W2025564445
- Cited by
- 517
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 37.37
- 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: Assessing Self- and Peer-assessment: The students' views. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/07294360123776
- The paper
- Hanrahan, S. J., & Isaacs, G. (2001). Assessing Self- and Peer-assessment: The students' views. Higher Education Research & Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360123776
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.