CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 535Student Assessment and FeedbackInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsEducational Technology and Assessment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Sadler, Philip, Good, Eddie·2006·Educational Assessment
DOI 10.1207/s15326977ea1101_1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The 2001 U.S. Supreme Court Case of Falvo v. Owasso School System (Owasso Independent School District No I-011 v. Falvo) has focused national attention on the common classroom practice of peer-grading. In a unanimous decision the court reaffirmed the popular view that students grading each others' tests is valuable, saving teachers' time and augmenting student learning. Our study puts these presumed benefits to the test in 4 middle school science classrooms. We compared teacher-assigned grades to those awarded either by students to themselves or by their peers. By training students to grade with the help of a scoring rubric, a very high correlation was obtained between students and their teacher on test questions (r = 0.91 to 0.94). We found patterns of bias when students assigned grades. When grading others, students awarded lower grades to the best performing students than their teacher did. When grading themselves, lower performing students tended to inflate their own low scores. Performance on an unan...

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15326977ea1101_1

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. 10.1207/s15327906mbr3104_1 · DOI
  2. Agresti, A. & Findlay, B. (1997). Statistical methods for the social sciences. San Francisco: Prentice Hall.
  3. Alexander P. A., 1991, Review of Educational Research, 61, 315, 10.3102/00346543061003315 · DOI
  4. Black, P. & Atkin, J. M. (1996). Changing the subject. Innovations in science, math, and technology education. London: Routledge.
  5. Black P., 2001, School Science Review, 83, 43
  6. Bloom, B. S. (1971). Mastery learning. In J. H. Block (Ed.), Mastery learning, theory and practice (pp. 47-63). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
  7. Boud D., 1989, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 14, 20, 10.1080/0260293890140103 · DOI
  8. Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinhart & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  9. Burke R. J., 1969, Journal of Educational Research, 62, 444, 10.1080/00220671.1969.10883897 · DOI
  10. Crocker A. C., 1988, Educational Studies, 14, 105, 10.1080/0305569880140110 · DOI
  11. Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J. & Faulk, B. (1995). Authentic assessment in action: Studies of schools and students at work. New York: Teachers College Press.
  12. Davis J. K., 1980, Journal of Educational Research, 73, 207, 10.1080/00220671.1980.10885237 · DOI
  13. 10.1007/BF01383731 · DOI
  14. Fairbrother, R., Black, P. & Gill, P. (Eds.). (1995). Teachers assessing pupils. Lessons from science classrooms. Hatfield, UK: Association for Science Education.
  15. Falchikov N., 1986, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 11, 146, 10.1080/0260293860110206 · DOI
  16. Falchikov N., 1989, Review of Educational Research, 59, 395, 10.3102/00346543059004395 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Falchikov N., 2000, Review of Educational Research, 70, 287, 10.3102/00346543070003287 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Fleiss J. L., 1973, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 33, 613, 10.1177/001316447303300309 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Janssen, T. & Rijlaarsdam, G. (1996). Students as self-assessors, learning experiences of literature teaching in secondary schools. In E. Marum (Ed.), Children and books in the modern world. Contemporary perspectives on literacy (pp. 98-115). London: Falmer Press.
  20. Kim Y., 2000, International Family Planning Perspectives, 26, 4, 10.2307/2648283 · DOI
  21. Lynam P., 1993, Studies in Family Planning, 24, 252, 10.2307/2939193 · DOI
  22. Neukom, J. R. (2000). Alternative assessment, rubrics Students' self assessment process. Unpublished master's thesis, Pacific Lutheran University, Tacoma, WA.
  23. Ory, J. & Ryan, K. (1993). Tips for improving testing and grading. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
  24. Parkin, C. & Richards, N. (1995). Introducing formative assessment at KS3, and attempt using pupil self-assessment. In R. Fairbrother, P. J. Black, & P. Gill (Eds.), Teachers assessing pupils. Lessons from science classrooms (pp. 13-28). Hatfield, UK: Association for Science Education.
  25. Pfeifer, J. K. (1981). The effects of peer evaluation and personality on writing anxiety and writing performance in college freshmen. Unpublished master's thesis, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX.
  26. 10.1207/s15326977ea0402_1 · DOI
  27. Reed, D. E. (1996). High school teachers' grading practices: A description of methods for collection and aggregation of grade information in three schools. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Riverside.
  28. Walsh M., 2001, Education Week, 21, 28
  29. 10.1007/BF01100106 · DOI
  30. Werdelin I., 1966, Educational and Psychological Interactions, 11, 1
  31. Winer, B. J. (1962). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill. · DOI
  32. Zola J., 1992, Social Education, 56, 121
  33. Zoller U., 1993, Journal of Chemical Education, 70, 195, 10.1021/ed070p195 · DOI
  34. 10.1023/A:1022512423569 · DOI
  35. Zoller U., 1997, School Science and Mathematics, 97, 3, 10.1111/j.1949-8594.1997.tb17334.x · DOI
  36. Zoller U., 1997, Journal of College Science Teaching, 27, 99

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 535

Metadata

Authors
Sadler, P., & Good, E.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
ORCID
Sadler, Philip
Venue
Educational Assessment
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2006-02-01
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
1-31
ISSN
1062-7197 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1207/s15326977ea1101_1
OpenAlex
W1996469193
Cited by
535
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 38 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 48 · 2015: 58 · 2014: 49 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 15
FWCI
24.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Educational Assessment (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Educational Technology and Assessment
Keywords
peer grading, self-assessment, student grading, grading bias, rubrics, junior high school science, student learning, test scoring

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