The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Peer Feedback Marking: Developing Peer Assessment
Abstract
SUMMARY Some studies of peer assessment in higher education are reviewed, and found to focus on either assessment of a product such as an examination script, or of the performance of a particular skill, often in a medical or dental setting. Classroom performance studies focus mainly on interpersonal skills or group dynamics. Many examples where mean peer assessments resembled lecturer assessments were found, and the overwhelming view seems to be that peer assessment is a useful, reliable and valid exercise. Student evaluations of peer assessment suggest that they also perceive it to be beneficial. However, some students expressed a dislike of awarding a grade to their peers, particularly in the context of a small, well established group. A study which attempted to capitalize on the benefits of peer assessment while minimizing the problems is described. In this study, the emphasis was on critical feedback, rather than on the awarding of a grade, though this was required also. Results indicated a close correspondence between lecturer and peer marks, as in previous studies. Feedback was perceived to be useful, and the scheme of Peer Feedback Marking (PFM) rated as conferring more benefits than the more usual, lecturer marked method. The main strength of PFM seems to be related to the enhancement of student learning by means of reflection, analysis and diplomatic criticism.
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 Assessment between Students in Colleges and Universities
Topping, K. (1998) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.2307/1170598 · Cited by 2,173
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
Self-citationPeer 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
Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K., & Mylonas, A. (2002) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0260293022000009302 · Cited by 329
Metadata
- Authors
- Falchikov, N.
- Venue
- Innovations in Education and Training International
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1995-05
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 175-187
- ISSN
- 1355-8005 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8420
- OpenAlex
- W2020567301
- Cited by
- 491
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 15.89
- 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: Peer Feedback Marking: Developing Peer Assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/1355800950320212
- The paper
- Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer Feedback Marking: Developing Peer Assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International. https://doi.org/10.1080/1355800950320212
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.