The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Formative Peer Assessment of Academic Writing Between Postgraduate Students
Abstract
Reciprocal paired qualitative formative peer assessment of academic writing was undertaken by 12 postgraduate students of educational psychology. Overall, staff and peer assessments showed a very similar balance between positive and negative statements, but this varied according to assessment criterion. However, only half of all detailed formative assessment statements made showed some degree of correspondence between staff and peers. Nevertheless, there was very little evidence of conflict between the views of staff and peers-rather, they focused on different details. Subjective feedback from students indicated that most found the process time consuming, intellectually challenging and socially uncomfortable, but effective in improving the quality of their own subsequent written work and developing other transferable skills. The reliability and validity of this type of peer assessment thus appeared adequate, and the partiality of overlap in detail between staff and peer assessments suggested that the triangulation peer assessment offers is likely to add value. However, caution is indicated regarding the generalisation of this finding. Implications for action are outlined.
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
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- BROWN S., 1991, Self and Peer Assessment,
- CHAUDRON C., Paper presented at the 17th Annual TESOL Convention
- 10.1080/1355800950320212 · DOI · Paper page
- HOUNSELL D., Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the British Educational Research Association
- HOUNSELL D., 1996, The ASHHE Inventory: Changing Assessment Practices in Scottish Higher Education
- HUGHES I. E., 1995, Capability, 1, 39
- JACOBS G., Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association
- RICHER D. L., 1992, Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 2722
- 10.3102/00346543068003249 · doi:10.3102/00346543068003249 · Paper page
- TOPPING K. J., 2000, Peer Assisted Learning: A Practical Guide for Teachers
- TOPPING K. J., 1998, Peer Assisted Learning, 10.4324/9781410603678 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Topping, K. J. (2009) · Theory Into Practice · doi:10.1080/00405840802577569 · Cited by 785
Self-citationCho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Wilson, R. W. (2006) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.4.891 · Cited by 355
Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K., & Mylonas, A. (2002) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/0260293022000009302 · Cited by 329
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
Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider
van Popta, E., Kral, M., Camp, G., Martens, R. L., & Simons, P. R.-J. (2017) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2016.10.003 · Cited by 269
Metadata
- Authors
- Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A.
- Venue
- Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2000-06
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 149-169
- ISSN
- 0260-2938 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-297X
- OpenAlex
- W2057607060
- Cited by
- 446
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.72
- 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: Formative Peer Assessment of Academic Writing Between Postgraduate Students. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/713611428
- The paper
- Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative Peer Assessment of Academic Writing Between Postgraduate Students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/713611428
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.
