Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Optimising New Modes of Assessment: In Search of Qualities and Standards pp 55–87Cite as

Self and Peer Assessment in School and University: Reliability, Validity and Utility

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Innovation and Change in Professional Education ((ICPE,volume 1))

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Abson, D. (1994). The effects of peer evaluation on the behaviour of undergraduate students working in tutorless groups. In H. C. Foot, C. J. Howe, A. Anderson, A. K. Tolmie, & D. A. Warden (Eds.), Group and Interactive Learning (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 153–158). Southampton & Boston: Computational Mechanics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, L., Willoughby, L., Calkins, V., Gammon, L., & Eberhart, G. (1981). Use of peer evaluation in the assessment of medical students. Journal of Medical Education, 56, 35–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C. C., & Morgan, M. (1991). The instructional effects of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61, 213–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, J. E., & Hixon, J. E. (1997). Effects of grade level and subject on student test score predictions. Journal of Educational Research, 90(3), 170–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergee, M. J. (1993). A comparison of faculty, peer, and self-evaluation of applied brass jury performances. Journal of Research in Music Education, 41, 19–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernadin, H. J., & Beatty, R. W. (1984). Performance appraisal: Assessing human behavior at work. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birenbaum, M., & Dochy, F. (Eds.). (1996). Alternatives in assessment of achievement, learning processes and prior knowledge. Boston: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkeland, T. S. (1986). Variations of feedback related to teaching paragraph structure to technicians. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 4362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blatchford, P. (1997). Pupils’ self assessments of academic attainment at 7, 11 and 16 years: Effects of sex and ethnic group. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 169–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boersma, G. (1995). Improving student self-evaluation through authentic assessment. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 393 885.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D. (1989). The role of self-assessment in student grading. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 14(1), 20–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D. (1990). Assessment and the promotion of academic values. Studies in Higher Education, 15(1), 101–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D. (Ed.). (1995). Enhancing learning through self-assessment. London & Philadelphia: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D. (2000). Sustainable assessment: Rethinking assessment for the learning society, Studies in Continuing Education, 22(2), 151–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Sampson, J. (Eds.). (2001). Peer learning in Higher Education: Learning from and with each other. London & Philadelphia: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (1989). Quantitative studies of student self-assessment in higher education: A critical analysis of findings. Higher Education, 18(5), 529–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouton, K., & Tutty, G. (1975). The effect of peer-evaluated student compositions on writing improvement. The English Record, 3, 64–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brock, M. N. (1993). A comparative study of computerized text analysis and peer tutoring as revision aids for ESL writers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54, 912.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S., & Dove, P. (1991). Self and Peer Assessment. Birmingham: Standing Conference on Educational Development (SCED).

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S., & Knight, P. (1994). Assessing Learners in Higher Education. London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnett, W., & Cavaye, G. (1980). Peer assessment by fifth year students of surgery. Assessment in Higher Education, 5(3), 273–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, R. J. (1969). Some preliminary data on the use of self-evaluations and peer ratings in assigning university course grades. Journal of Educational Research, 62(10), 444–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byard, V. (1989). Power Play: The Use and Abuse of Power Relationships in Peer Critiquing. Paper presented to Annual meeting of the conference on college composition and communication, Seattle WA, March 16–18 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrd, D. R. (1994). Peer editing: Common concerns and applications in the foreign language classroom. Unterrichtspraxis, 27(1), 119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Califano, L. Z. (1987). Teacher and peer editing: Theireffects on students’ writing as measured by t-unit length, holistic scoring, and the attitudes of fifth and sixth grade students. Dissertation Abstracts International. 49(10), 2924.

    Google Scholar 

  • Catterall, M. (1995). Peer learning research in marketing. In S. Griffiths, K. Houston, & A. Lazenblatt (Eds.), Enhancing student learning through peer tutoring in higher education: Section3 — Implementing. (1sted., Vol. 1, pp. 54–62). Coleraine, NI: University of Ulster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaudron, C. (1983). Evaluating Writing: Effects of Feedback on Revision. Paper presented at the Annual TESOL Convention (17th, Toronto, Ontario, March 16–19, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cicchetti, D. V. (1982). On peer review — We have met the enemy and he is us. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(2), 205–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cicchetti, D. V. (1991). The reliability of peer-review for manuscript and grant submissions — A cross-disciplinary investigation. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(1), 119–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. G. (1982). Expectation states and interracial interaction in school settings. Annual Review of Sociology, 8, 209–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, D. A. (1991). Change in self-perceived competence as a function of peer and teacher evaluation. Developmental Psychology, 27(4), 682–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conway, R., Kember, D., Sivan, A., & Wu, M. (1993). Peer assessment of an individual’s contribution to a group project. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1),45–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cover, B. T. L. (1987). Blue-pencil workers: the effects of a peer editing technique on students’ editing skills and attitudes toward writing at the seventh grade level. Dissertation Abstracts International, 48(08), 1968.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crooks, T. J. (1988). The impact of classroom evaluation practices on students. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 438–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, P. (2000). Computerized peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 37(4), 346–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J. K., & Rand, D. C. (1980). Self-grading versus instructor grading. Journal of Educational Research, 73(4), 207–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer-and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 31–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downing, T., & Brown, I. (1997). Learning by cooperative publishing on the World Wide Web. Active Learning, 7, 14–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S., & Bush, E. S. (1976). Sex differences in learned helplessness: Differential debilitation with peer and adult evaluators. Developmental Psychology, 12(2), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • El-Koumy, A. S. A. (2001). Effects of Student Self-Assessment on Knowledge Achievement and Academic Thinking. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Integrated English Language Program-II (3rd, Cairo, Egypt, April 18–19, 2001). ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 452 731.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falchikov, N. (1986). Product comparisons and process benefits of collaborative peer group and self assessments. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 11(2), 146–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falchikov, N. (1993). Group process analysis — Self and peer assessment of working together in a group. Educational & Training Technology International, 30(3), 275–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking — Developing peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 32, 175–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falchikov, N. (2001). Learning together: Peer tutoring in higher education. London & New York: Routledge Falmer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falchikov, N., & Boud, D. (1989). Student self-assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 59(4), 395–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in Higher Education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farh, J., Cannella, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1991). Peer ratings: The impact of purpose on rating quality and user acceptance. Group and Organization Studies, 16, 367–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fedor, D. B., & Bettenhausen, K. L. (1989). The impact of purpose, participant preconceptions, and rating level on the acceptance of peer evaluations. Group and Organization Studies, 14, 182–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandes, M., & Fontana, D. (1996). Changes in control beliefs in Portuguese primary school pupils as a consequence of the employment of self-assessment strategies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 301–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fontana, D., & Fernandes, M. (1994). Improvements in mathematics performance as a consequence of self-assessment in Portuguese primary-school pupils. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64, 407–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, C. A. (1981). Instructor versus peer feedback in microteaching on the acquisition of confrontation; illustrating, analogies, and use of examples; and question-asking teaching skills for pre-service science teachers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 2, 3565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, S. W. (1992). Outside-in and inside-out: Peer response groups in two ninth grade classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 26, 71–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, M. (1995). Peer assessment by groups of group work. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 20, 289–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fry, S. A. (1990). Implementation and evaluation of peer marking in higher education. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 15, 177–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frye, A. W., Richards, B. F., Bradley, E. W., & Philp, J. R. (1992). The consistency of students self-assessments in short-essay subject-matter examinations. Medical Education, 26(4), 310–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A., & Stringfield, P. (1994). Congruence of self and subordinate ratings of managerial practices as a correlate of supervisor evaluation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 57–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaier, E. L. (1961). Student self assessment of final course grades. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 98(1), 63–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaillet, L. I. (1992). A foreshadowing of modern theories and practices of collaborative learning: The work of the Scottish rhetorician George Jardine. Paper presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Cincinnati OH March 19–21 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gere, A. R., & Abbot, R. D. (1985). Talking about writing: The language of writing groups. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 362–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldfinch, J. (1994). Further developments in peer assessment of group projects. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 19(1), 29–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graner, M. H. (1985). Revision techniques: Peer editing and the revision workshop. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffee, D. T. (1995). A longitudinal study of student feedback: Self-assessment, Course Evaluation and Teacher Evaluation. Longman: Birmingham, Alabama.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haaga, D. A. F. (1993). Peer review of term papers in graduate psychology courses. Teaching of Psychology, 20(1), 28–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hendrickson, J. M., Brady, M. P., & Algozzine, B. (1987). Peer-mediated testing: The effects of an alternative testing procedure in higher education. Educational and Psychological Research, 7(2), 91–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry, S. E. (1979). Sex and locus of control as determinants of children’s responses to peer versus adult praise. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(5), 605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herman, J., Gearhart, M., & Baker, E. (1993). Assessing writing portfolios: Issues in the validity and meaning of scores. Educational Assessment, 1(3), 201–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heun, L. R. (1969). Speech Rating as Self-Evaluative Behavior: Insight and the Influence of Others. PhD Dissertation, Southern Illinois University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heywood, J. (1988). Assessment in higher education. Chichester: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holley, C. A. B. (1990). The effects of peer editing as an instructional method on the writing proficiency of selected high school students in Alabama. Dissertation Abstracts International, 51(09), 2970.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hounsell, D., & McCulloch, M. (1999). Assessing skills in Scottish higher education. In E. Dunne (Ed.) The learning society: International perspectives on core skills in higher education (pp. 149–158). London: Kogan Page.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, I. E. (1995). Peer assessment. Capability, 1(3), 39–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, I. E., & Large, B. J. (1993a). Staff and peer-group assessment of oral communication skills. Studies in Higher Education, 18, 379–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, I. E., & Large, B. J. (1993b). Assessment of students’ oral communication skills by staff and peer groups. New Academic, 2(3), 10–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, D., & Russ, M. (1995). Peer assessment in performance studies. In S. Griffiths, K. Houston, & A. Lazenblatt (Eds.), Enhancing Student Learning Through Peer Tutoring in Higher Education: Section 3 — Implementing. (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 63–65). Coleraine, NI: University of Ulster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, G., & Zhang, S. (1989). Peer Feedback in Second Language Writing Instruction: Boon or Bane? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (San Francisco, CA, March 27–31, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  • Joines, S. M. B., & Sommerich, C. M. (2001). Comparison of self-assessment and partnered-assessment as cost-effective alternative methods for office workstation evaluation. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 28(6), 327–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karegianes, M. L., Pascarella, E. T., & Pflaum, S. W. (1980). The effects of peer editing on the writing proficiency of low-achieving tenth grade students. Journal of Educational Research, 73(4), 203–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaye, M. M., & Dyason, M. D. (1999). Achieving a competitive focus through self-assessment. Total Quality Management, 10(3), 373–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koretz, D., Stecher, B., Klein, S., & Mc Caffrey, D. (1994). The Vermont portfolio assessment program: Findings and implications. Educational Measurement, 13(3), 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korman, M., & Stubblefield, R. L. (1971). Medical school evaluation and internship performance. Journal of Medical Education, 46, 670–673.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kulhavy, R. W., & Stock, W. A. (1989). Feedback in written instruction: The place of response certitude. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 279–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lagana, J. R. (1972). The development, implementation and evaluation of a model for teaching composition which utilizes individualized learning and peer grouping. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasater, C. A. (1994). Observation feedback and analysis of teaching practice: Case studies of early childhood student teachers as peer tutors during a preservice teaching practicum. Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 1916.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, M. J. (1996). The effects of providing feedback on the characteristics of student responses to a videotaped high schoolphysics assessment. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, B. (1999). Self-assessment for pupils with learning difficulties. Slough UK: National Foundation for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lejk, M., & Wyvill, M. (2001). Peer assessment of contributions to a group project: A comparison of holistic and category-based approaches. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(1), 61–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • LeMahieu, P., Gitomer, D. H., & Eresh, J. T. (1995). Portfolios in large-scale assessment: Difficult but not impossible. Educational Measurement, 14(3), 11–16, 25-28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lennon, S. (1995). Correlations between tutor, peer and self assessments of second year physiotherapy students in movement studies. In S. Griffiths, K. Houston, & A. Lazenblatt (Eds.), Enhancing Student Learning Through Peer Tutoring in Higher Education: Section 3 —Implementing. (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 66–71). Coleraine, NI: University of Ulster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Litwack, M. (1974). A study of the effects of authority feedback, peer feedback, and self feedback on learning selected indirect-influence teaching skills. Dissertation Abstracts International, 35, 5762.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, J. (1982). Reactive effects of self-assessment and self-recording on attention to task and academic productivity. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5(3), 216–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longhurst, N., & Norton, L. S. (1997). Self-assessment in coursework essays. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 23(4), 319–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacArthur, C. A., Schwartz, S. S., & Graham, S. (1991). Effects of a reciprocal peer revision strategy in special education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6(4), 201–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, L. (2000). Occupational therapy students as peer assessors in viva examinations. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 135–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacLellan, E. (2001). Assessment for learning: the differing perceptions of tutors and students. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(4), 307–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magin, D. J. (2001a). Reciprocity as a source of bias in multiple peer assessment of group work. Studies in Higher Education, 26(1), 53–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magin, D. J. (2001b). A novel technique for comparing the reliability of multiple peer assessments with that of single teacher assessments of group process work. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(2), 139–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magin, D., & Helmore, P. (2001). Peer and teacher assessments of oral presentation skills: How reliable are they? Studies In Higher Education, 26(3), 287–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcoulides, G. A., & Simkin, M. G. (1991). Evaluating student papers: The case for peer review. Journal of Education for Business, 67, 80–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcoulides, G. A., & Simkin, M. G. (1995). The consistency of peer review in student writing projects. Journal of Education for Business, 70(4), 220–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marienau, C. (1999). Selfassessment at work: Outcomes of adult learners’ reflections on practice. Adult Education Quarterly, 49(3), 135–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mathews, B. P. (1994). Assessing individual contributions — Experience of peer evaluation in major group projects. British Journal of Educational Technology, 25, 19–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAuley, R. G., & Henderson, H. W. (1984). Results of the peer assessment program of the college of physicians and surgeons of Ontario. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 131, 557–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCurdy, B. L., & Shapiro, E. S. (1992). A comparison of teacher-monitoring, peer-monitoring, and self-monitoring with curriculum-based measurement in reading among students with learning-disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 26(2), 162–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, B. (2002). Self assessment and academic achievement. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of the West Indies, Cave Hill, Barbados, West Indies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Midgley, D. F., & Petty, M. (1983). Final report on the survey of graduate opinions on general education. Kensington: University of New South Wales.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, M. (1988). Self-Assessment in students with learning handicaps. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the Council for Exceptional Children (66th, Washington, DC, March 28–April 1, 1988). ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. EC 210 383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, L. (1994). Yes, It Can Work!: Portfolio Assessment with Preschoolers. Paper presented at the Association for Childhood Education International Study Conference (New Orleans, LA, March 30–April 2, 1994). ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 372 857.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, V. W., & Bakewell, C. (1995). Learning without doing — Enhancing oral presentation skills through peer-review. Management Learning, 26, 353–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mockford, C. D. (1994). The use of peer group review in the assessment of project work in higher education. Mentoring and Tutoring, 2(2), 45–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newstead, S. E. (1996). The psychology of student assessment. The Psychologist, 9, 543–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newstead, S., & Dennis, I. (1994). Examiners examined. The Psychologist, 7, 216–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ney, J. W. (1989). Teacher-Student Cooperative Learning in the Freshman Writing Course. ERIC Document Reproduction Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ninness, H. A. C., Ellis, J., & Ninness, S. K. (1999). Self-Assessment as a learned reinforcer during computer interactive math performance — An Experimental analysis. Behavior Modification, 23(3), 403–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ninness, H. A. C., Ninness, S. K., Sherman, S., & Schotta, C. (1998). Argumenting computer-interactive self-assessment with and without feedback. Psychological Record, 48(4), 601–616.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Donnell, A. M., & Topping, K. J. (1998). Peers assessing peers: Possibilities and problems. In K. J. Topping, & S. W. Ehly (Eds.), Peer assisted learning (Chapter 14, pp. 255–278). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, V. L. B. (1986). The effects of revision instruction and peer response groups on the revision behaviors, quality of writing and attitude toward writing of sixth grade students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47(12), 4310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, V. L. B. (1990). The revising processes of sixth-grade writers with and without peer feedback. Journal of Educational Research, 84(1), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orpen, C. (1982). Student vs lecturer assessment of learning: A research note. Higher Education, 11, 567–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orr, A. (1995). Peer assessment in a practical component of physiotherapy education. In S. Griffiths, K. Houston, & A. Lazenblatt (Eds.), Enhancing Student Learning Through Peer Tutoring in Higher Education: Section 3 — Implementing. (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 72–78). Coleraine, NI: University of Ulster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orsmond, P., Merry, S., & Reiling, K. (2000). The use of student derived marking criteria in peer and self-assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(1), 23–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paris, S. G., & Newman, R. S. (1990). Developmental aspects of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 25, 87–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paris, S. G., & Paris, A. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 36(2), 89–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paulson, E. L., Paulson, P. R., & Meyer, C. A. (1991). What makes a portfolio a portfolio? Educational Leadership, 48(5), 60–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierson, H. (1967). Peer and teacher correction: A comparison of the effects of two methods of teaching composition in grade 9 English classes. Unpublished doctoral thesis, New York University, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pond, K., Ul-Haq, R., & Wade, W. (1995). Peer review: A precursor to peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International, 32, 314–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rada, R., Acquah, S., Baker, B., & Ramsey P. (1993). Collaborative learning and the MUCH System. Computers and Education, 20, 225–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramsey, P. G., Carline, J. D., Blank, L. L., & Wenrich M. D. (1996). Feasibility of hospital-based use of peer ratings to evaluate the performances of practicing physicians. Academic Medicine, 71, 364–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raphael, T. E. (1986). The impact of text structure instruction and social context on students’ comprehension and production of expository text. East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich, R. (1975). The effect of peer feedback on the use of specific praise in student-teaching. Dissertation Abstracts International, 37, 925.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richer, D. L. (1992). The effects of two feedback systems on first year college students’ writing proficiency. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53, 2722.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rijlaarsdam, G. (1987). Effects of peer evaluation on writing performance, writing processes, and psychological variables. Paper presented at the 38th Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Atlanta GA, March 19–21, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rijlaarsdam, G., & Schoonen, R. (1988). Effects of a teaching program based on peer evaluation on written composition and some variables related to writing apprehension. Amsterdam: Stichting Centrum voor Onderwijsonderzoek, Amsterdam University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley, S. M. (1995). Peer responses in an ESL writing class: Student interaction and subsequent draft revision. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 3031.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, W. H. (1985). The effects of grammar reviews and peer-editing on selected collegiate students’ ability to write business letters effectively. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocklin, T. R., O’Donnell, A. M., & Hoist, P. M (1995). Effects and underlying mechanisms of self-adapted testing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 103–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, C. R. (1983). Freedom to learn for the 80s. Columbus OH: Charles E. Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, J. A. (1995). Effects of feedback on student behavior in cooperative learning groups in a grade-7 math class. Elementary School Journal, 96(2), 125–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, S. (1998). Self-assessment in second language testing: A meta-analysis and analysis of experiential factors. Language Testing, 15(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowntree, D. (1977). Assessing students: How shall we know them? London: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudd, T. J., & Gunstone, R. F. (1993). Developing self-assessment skills in grade 3 science and technology: The importance of longitudinal studies of learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (Atlanta, GA, April 15–18, 1993) and the American Educational Research Association (Atlanta, GA, April 12–16, 1993). ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 358 103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rushton, C., Ramsey, P., & Rada, R. (1993). Peer assessment in a collaborative hypermedia environment — A case-study. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20, 75–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saavedra, R., & Kwun, S. K. (1993). Peer evaluation in self-managing work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 450–462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salend, S. J., Whittaker, C. R., & Reeder, E. (1993). Group evaluation — a collaborative, peer-mediated behavior management system. Exceptional Children, 59(3), 203–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 89–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samway, K. D. (1993). This is hard, isn’t it — children evaluating writing. Tesol Quarterly, 27(2), 233–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H. (1996). Learning theories: An educational perspective (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segers, M., & Dochy, F. (2001). New assessment forms in problem-based learning: The value-added of the students’ perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 26(3), 327–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shore, T. H., Shore, L. M., & Thornton, G. C. (1992). Construct validity of self evaluations and peer evaluations of performance dimensions in an assessment center. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 42–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sink, C. A., Barnett, J. E., & Hixon, J. E. (1991). Self-regulated learning and achievement by middle-school children. Psychological Reports, 69(3), 979–989.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobral, D. T. (1997). Improving learning skills: A self-help group approach. Higher Education, 33(1), 39–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefani, L. A. J. (1992). Comparison of collaborative self, peer and tutor assessment in a biochemistry practical. Biochemical Education, 20(3), 148–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefani, L. A. J. (1994). Peer, self and tutor assessment — Relative reliabilities. Studies in Higher Education, 19(1), 69–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stoddard, B., & MacArthur, C. A. (1993). A peer editor strategy — guiding learning-disabled students in response and revision. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(1), 76–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strachan, I. B., & Wilcox, S. (1996). Peer and self assessment of group work: Developing an effective response to increased enrolment in a third-year course in microclimatology. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 20(3), 343–353.

    Google Scholar 

  • Supovitz, J. A., MacGowan, A., & Slattery J. (1997). Assessing agreement: An examination of the interrater reliability of portfolio assessment in Rochester, New York. Educational Assessment, 4(3), 237–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, I. (1995). Understanding computer software: Using peer tutoring in the development of understanding of some aspects of computer software. In S. Griffiths, K. Houston, & A. Lazenblatt (Eds.), Enhancing Student Learning Through Peer Tutoring in Higher Education: Section 3 — Implementing. (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 87–89). Coleraine, NI: University of Ulster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J. (1996a). The effectiveness of peer tutoring infurther and higher education: A typology andreview of the literature. Higher Education, 32(3), 321–345. (Also in S. Goodlad. (Ed.). (1998). Mentoring and tutoring by students. London & Stirling VA: Kogan Page.)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J. (1996b). Effective peer tutoring in further and higher education (SEDA Paper 95). Birmingham: Staff and Educational Development Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in college and university. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J. (1999). Formative assessment of reading comprehension by computer: Advantages and disadvantages of the Accelerated Reader software. Reading OnLine (I.R.A.) [Online]. Available http://www.readingonline.org/critical/topping/ [November 4]. (hypermedia).

  • Topping, K. J. (2001a). Peer assisted learning: A practical guidefor teachers. Cambridge MA: Brookline Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J. (2001b). Tutoring by peers, family and volunteers. Geneva: International Bureau of Education, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). [Online] Available: http://www.ibe.unesco.org/International/Publicalions/EducationalPractices/prachomc.htm [January 1 ] (Also in translation in Chinese and Spanish).

    Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J., & Ehly, S. W. (Eds.). (1998). Peer-assisted learning. Mahwah NJ & London UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J., & Ehly, S. W. (2001). Peer assisted learning: A framework for consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12(2), 113–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J., & Sanders, W. L. (2000). Teacher effectiveness and computer assessment of reading: Relating value added and learning information system data. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(3), 305–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J., Smith, E. F., Swanson, I., & Elliot, A. (2000). Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(2), 149–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Towler, L, & Broadfoot, P. (1992). Self-assessment in the primary school. Educational Review, 44(2), 137–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, R. F. (1981). The effects of feedback on the teaching performance of preservice teachers involved in a microteaching experience. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 3116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade, L. K. (1988). An analysis of the effects of a peer feedback procedure on the writing behavior of sixth-grade students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(05), 2181.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, M, Gruppen, L., & Regehr, G. (2002). Measuring self-assessment: Current state of the art. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 7(1), 63–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wassef, A., Mason, G., Collins, M. L., O’Boyle, M., & Ingham, D. (1996). In search of effective programs to address students’ emotional distress and behavioral problems: Student assessment of school-based support groups. Adolescence, 31(12), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weaver, M. E. (1995). Using peer response in the classroom: Students’ perspectives. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 12, 31–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 13–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., & Farivar, S. (1994). Promoting helping behavior in cooperative small groups in middle school mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 369–395.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weeks, J. O., & White, M. B. (1982). Peer editing versus teacher editing: Does it make a difference?. Paper presented at Meeting of the North Carolina Council of the International Reading Association, Charlotte NC, March 7–9, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. (1995). Using peer assessment to enhance professional capability. In M. Yorke (Ed.), Assessing Capability in Degree and Diploma Programmes. (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 59–67). Liverpool: Centre for Higher Education Development, Liverpool John Moores University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, L., & Smith, J. K. (1995). The consequence of consequence: Motivation, anxiety, and test performance. Applied Measurement in Education, 8, 227–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, L. (1995). All students will take more responsibility for their own learning. In S. Griffiths, K. Houston, & A. Lazenblatt (Eds.), Enhancing Student Learning Through Peer Tutoring in Higher Education: Section 3 — Implementing. (1st ed., Vol. 1, pp. 90–92). Coleraine, NI: University of Ulster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates, J. A. (1982). The effects of peer feedback and self-monitoring on student teachers’ use of specific praise. Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 2321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zoller, Z., & Ben-Chaim, D. (1997). Student self-assessment in Science Examinations: Is it compatible with that of teachers? Paper presented at the meeting of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Greece, Athens, August 26–30.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Dundee, Scotland

    Keith Topping

Authors
  1. Keith Topping
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Leiden and University of Maastricht, The Netherlands

    Mien Segers

  2. University of Leuven, Belgium

    Filip Dochy

  3. American Institutes for Research, Washington, DC, USA

    Eduardo Cascallar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Kluwer Academic Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Topping, K. (2003). Self and Peer Assessment in School and University: Reliability, Validity and Utility. In: Segers, M., Dochy, F., Cascallar, E. (eds) Optimising New Modes of Assessment: In Search of Qualities and Standards. Innovation and Change in Professional Education, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48125-1_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48125-1_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-1260-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-306-48125-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation