The Impact of Self- and Peer-Grading on Student Learning

“The study by Sadler and Good (2006) puts the presumed benefits of peer-grading to the test.”

“…to produce feedback both as marks and comments, despite some researchers having shown that students do not learn much from simply grading peer work (Sadler and Good 2006), and others highlighting that students are uncomfortable about being assessed by peers and that they have reservations about…”

“…lessons (Goodrich Andrade & Boulay, 2003), self-assessment of a first draft (Andrade et al., 2010; Andrade et al., 2008), peer and self-assessment (Andrade, Buff, et al., 2009; Panadero, 2011; Panadero et al., 2012; Sadler & Good, 2006), and selfassessment and exemplars (Jonsson, 2010).”

“Peer grading is often supplemented by self grading to encourage the development of self-evaluative skills and is generally thought to “augment student learning” [25].”

“SSA for initially lower performing students (Ross et al. 1999; Sadler and Good 2006), while”

“…and Schoonen (1988) 4 Q 9th grade Written composition Essay writing Sadeghi and Khonbi (2015) 3 Q Undergraduate Teaching methodology Exam Sadler and Good (2006) 2 Q 7th grade Science Exam Sch€onrock-Adema et al. (2007) 6 E Undergraduate Medical study Medical professional…”

“Studies of peer assessment have shown that students did not learn very much from simply grading peer papers (Sadler and Good 2006) or from providing low-quality comments (Althauser and Darnall 2001; Li et al.”

“Nevertheless, when the learning impacts of peer and self-assessment are considered, these activities are generally considered independently (e.g. Sadler and Good 2006).”

“In summary, both self- and peer-evaluation of work are avenues for providing meaningful feedback without formal grading on correctness that can positively influence students’ learning (Sadler and Good, 2006; Freeman et al., 2007; Freeman and Parks, 2010).”

“Peer assessment — which has been historically used for logistical, pedagogical, metacognitive, and affective benefits [18] — offers a promising solution that can scale the grading of complex assignments in courses with tens or even hundreds of thousands of students.”

“Praise is usually recommended and is found to be one of the most common features present in the feedback provided by undergraduates (Cho et al. 2006; Nilson 2003; Sadler and Good 2006).”

“Sadler and Good (2006) state that peer-grading leads to many benefits when students receive training by the teacher on grading.”

“Thus, self-assessed scores can be reliable when a rubric – shared by the teacher and the students – is used, which gives evidence that the use of self-assessment grading through a rubric to reduce the burden of teachers assessing a high number of students can be very effective (Sadler & Good, 2006).”

“Ameta-regression indicated that the effect size was not significantly different when comparing peer assessment with teacher assessment, than when comparing peer assessment with no assessment (b = Table 2 Descriptive characteristics of the included studies Authors Year Pub. type Subject Country Ed. level Hwang et al. 2…”

“That is self-evaluation, which involves students in grading their work, perhaps as part of their final grade for an assignment or a class (e.g., Sadler & Good, 2006).”

“…or rewards, especially for achieving challenging goals (Barling, 1980; Miller, Duffy, & Zane, 1993; Wall, 1982), (f) contributing to the design of a scoring rubric (Sadler & Good, 2006), or (g) judging the accuracy of answers to standardized test items (Koivula, Hassmén, & Hunt, 2001).”

“Indeed, having students involved in the process of creating criteria for rubrics is especially associated with greater learning outcomes (Andrade, Du, & Mycek, 2010; Andrade, Du, & Wang, 2008; Ross, Rolheiser, & Hogaboam-Grey, 1998a; Sadler & Good, 2006).”

“In a study of rubric‐referenced self‐grading by seventh grade students of constructed‐response biology test items, Sadler and Good ( 2006 ) found significant and large gains in post‐test scores, particularly for students whose pre‐test scores were in the lower third of the range.”

“Saito and Fujita 2004 use a double-blind procedure)? Is the output communicated confidentially (e.g. Pâquet and Des Marchais 1998) between assessor and assessee? Is the teacher present during the assessment, or does he or she have access to the assessment results (e.g. in some courses in the study of van den Berg, Adm…”

“Peer feedback and assessment helps support the building of student capacity to critically evaluate tasks and their own performance, which are essential skills for student teachers to develop (Sadler 1998; Sadler and Good 2006).”

“A number of studies discovered the consistency between self- and teacher-assessment (Bouzidi & Jaillet, 2009; Cho, Schunn, & Wilson, 2006; Liu, 2002; Sadler & Good, 2006; Sung et al., 2005; Tsai & Liang, 2009; Tseng & Tsai, 2007).”

“by evaluating the answers themselves, they were able to critically analyze their deficiencies and tried to be careful while attempting the second test Herbert has also suggested that by this process of self‐assessment, students begin to internalize instructional goals and begin to apply them to future efforts [6] Boud…”

“Past studies have focused on peer assessment of PBL outcomes in the conventional classroom (e.g. Falchikov 1995; Sadler and Good 2006), in hybrid courses (e.g. Wengrowicz, Dori, and Dori 2017) and in distance learning courses with a limited number of participants (e.g. Li and Gao 2016).”

“The value of formative assessment cannot be denied, yet the over-emphasis on summative assessment has resulted in inadequate resources for formative assessment (Ecclestone 2010; Sadler and Good 2006).”

“In the case of peer assessment, such rubrics can provide an objective way for peers to offer feedback that is focused on criteria and standards (Sadler and Good 2006).”

“Although the effectiveness of P2P has been repeatedly questioned (Sadler & Good, 2006; Sluijsmans, Dochy & Moer-kerke, 1998), it seems proven that P2P tasks can enhance students ’ cognitive skills (Nelson & Schunn, 2009).”

“Except for Chen’s (2010) conclusion, our findings are contrary tomost studies, such as Bouzidi and Jaillet (2009), Cho, Schunn andWilson (2006), Liu (2002), Sadler and Good (2006), Sung et al. (2005), Topping (1998), Tsai and Liang (2009), and Tseng and Tsai (2007).”

“Work has also been done on self-evaluation of assignments within MOOCs [60], replicating earlier results in smaller class settings showing that self-evaluation helps improve student outcomes [47].”

“Furthermore, evidence seem to indicate that students learn from these kinds of grading (Sadler & Good, 2006).”

“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.”

“Peer assessment is a process by which students give feedback on another student’s work based on a rubric provided by the instructor [183].”

“According to the theory of Sadler and Good (2006), the purpose of self-assessment is to allow students to reflect on their work and make changes.”

“However, Sadler and Good found no evidence that peergrading improves peer performance on subsequent tests on the same material [18].”

“Peer feedback helps recipients to develop skills for reflection, self‐regulation, and critical thinking (Boud, 2001; Dochy, Segers, & Sluijsmans, 1999; Ion, Sánchez Martí, & Morell, 2019, Sadler & Good, 2006).”

“On the other hand Sadler and Good (2006) points out a tendency to award lower grade to the best performing students in themiddle school science class settings.”

“Peer assessment is a popular practice in both online and offline educational settings (Piech et al., 2013; Sadler & Good, 2006; Topping, 1998).”

“Therefore, it depends on the teaching teams to narrow down quality expectations, for example by providing detailed rubrics to ensure the success of PAs and to keep assessments comparable, consistent, and fair [9, 27].”

“…that provided students with object-ive reference criteria (e.g., normative solutions, rubrics, or scripts) or self-assessment training can improve students ’ subsequent monitoring accuracy on new tasks (Baars et al., 2014; Kostons et al., 2012; Sadler & Good, 2006; Zamora et al., 2018b).”

“Four reasons to incorporate self- and peer-assessment are suggested (P. M. Sadler & Good, 2006).”

“The fact that the rubrics enhanced learning in the present study is in line with prior research (Andrade et al., 2008; Panadero & Jonsson, 2013; Sadler & Good, 2006).”

“While peer grading appears to have some pedagogical value for learners [30], each learner typically needs to grade several solutions from other learners for each question they solve, in order to obtain an accurate grade estimate.”

“Sadler and Good (2006) showed in this context a high correlation between student and teacher grading (r¼ 0.91–0.94), after training middle school students to use scoring rubrics.”

“According to Sadler and Good (2006) peer evaluation and selfevaluation both help teachers save time, and improve pupils‘ metacognitive skills and understanding of their learning experiences.”

“Most of the P2P are based on traditional written productions (Sadler and Good 2006; Tenório et al. 2016).”

“A couple of recent studies (Lejk & Wyvill, 2001; Sadler & Good, 2006) have also found that, in order for self-grading to be done well, some kind of agreement needs to be made between the students and the teachers.”

“Children who contribute to the development of evaluative criteria and who subsequently use the criteria to self-assess also achieve better (Andrade, Du, & Mycek, 2010; Ross, 2006; Sadler & Good, 2006).”

“Specifically, peer feed-back includes both formalized feedback, which refers to the feedback provided by students according to rating systems (Lu & Law, 2012; Sadler & Good, 2006), and elaborate feedback, which refers to detailed open-ended feedback (Gielen & De Wever, 2015; Luo et al., 2014).”

“For instance, Sadler and Good (2006) found that students who graded their peers’ tests did not display better performance on a second, unannounced administration of the same test a week later, as compared to students who did not grade any tests at all.”

“…are many contexts in which the development and understanding of such criteria is an inherently valuable learning activity (e.g. Hunter & Russ, 1996; Sadler & Good, 2006), but there may exist other contexts in which it is desirable or at least pragmatically useful for students to assess peers’ work…”

“The conclusion is supported by a number of research results (Sadler & Good, 2006; Sung et al., 2005) but contradictory to the findings of Knowles et al. (2005).”

“enables students to gauge or refine their comprehension and enhance their ability to analyze, evaluate, and synthesize information [45].”

“Even studies focused on learning rarely measured quantitative changes in student outcomes (Sadler and Good 2006).”

“When given standard grading rubrics that decomposes assessment into smaller queries, students do seem to be able to provide scores effectively [26].”

“Few quantitative studies have examined the learning effects of assessment rubrics, feedback quality, and domain knowledge in the same model (Sadler & Good, 2006) and even fewer ones compared the effects of peer assessment on both assessors and assessees.”

“…by reading their peers’ comments); metacognitive (i.e., students could be made aware of their strengths and weaknesses and could take responsibility for their own learning); and affective (i.e., classes could become more productive, friendlier, and more cooperative) (Sadler & Good, 2006).”

“Given the strong possible pedagogical benefits as well as pragmatic benefits of reducing grading burden (Sadler and Good 2006; Cho and MacArthur 2011), understanding CONTACT Wentao Li liwt283@nenu.edu.cn 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group when peer assessment can be used is…”

“Some others have revealed that the use of rubrics as one of the tools in learning assessment can enhance the students’ critical thinking skills, problem-solving skills, and self-assessment in the learning environment (Shafer, et al., 2001; Green & Bowser, 2006; Sadler & Good, 2006).”

“…been explored as an efficient procedure to deal with this problem; see for instance (Kulkarni et al., 2015; Piech et al., 2013; Raman and Joachims, 2014, 2015; Sadler and Good, 2006; Shah et al., 2013; Labutov and Studer, 2016; D´ıez et al., 2013; Luaces et al., 2015a,b, 2017; Formanek et al., 2017).”

“Since it is unpractical that an instructor evaluates all the assignments, or even a set of Teaching Assistants (TA), researchers have been exploring the possibilities of using methods previously employed in Journals or Conferences: peer grading or peer assessment [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7].”

“Students’ self-assessments are a reliable form of assessing them at school level (Higgins et al., 1994; Ross et al., 2002) and contribute to the demands for an authentic, alternative method of evaluation (Sadler & Good, 2006).”

“Apart from being an instrumental tool for teacher assessment and feedback, rubrics can also support formative assessment and enhance student learning by promoting re fl ections on their own work (Andrade & Valtcheva, 2009; Panadero et al., 2013) or works by other students (Sadler & Good, 2006).”

“A practical approach to tackle this problem is peer grading or peer assessment (Godlee et al. 2003; Sadler and Good 2006), in which students also play the role of graders in grading a small number of assignments submitted by other students according to the rubrics or benchmarks provided by the…”

“Consequently, the existing digital peer grading systems differ from one another in both design and underlying statistical models: Common features of a peer grading system are self grading[13, 22, 12] and calibration[2].”

“These results are consistent with the study of Sung et al(23) and Sadler et al.(24) Based on observations by the nurse educator, competition among students is the major reason for lower peer evaluation outcome because the students scored each other more strictly and cautiously.”

“Sadler and Good (2006) [6] showed that self-grading and peer-grading are reasonable aids for saving time.”