Skip to main content


Log in

Teachers’ reasons for using peer assessment: positive experience predicts use

  • Published:
European Journal of Psychology of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript


Peer assessment (PA) is one of the central principles of formative assessment and assessment for learning (AfL) fields. There is ample empirical evidence as to the benefits for students’ learning when AfL principles are implemented. However, teachers play a critical role in mediating the implementation of intended policies. Hence, their experiences, beliefs, and attitudes towards PA are important factors in determining whether the policy is actually carried out. A survey of over 1500 primary, secondary, and higher education teachers in Spain elicited their beliefs and values around PA as well as other aspects of formative assessment; only 751 teachers provided complete responses to all PA items. Teachers reported occasional use of PA in their classrooms but with positive experience of it. The vast majority did not use anonymous forms of PA and half of the teachers considered the students were accurate when assessing peers. Confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling were used to examine relationships of attitudes and beliefs to self-reported frequency of using of PA. The self-reported frequency of using PA was strongly predicted by teacher experience of PA which included positive reasons for using PA, rather than negative obstacles for avoiding, prior use, and beliefs that students should participate in assessment, and willingness to include PA in grading.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. As published by the Spanish Educational Department in 2014 (


  • Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality and behavior (2nd ed.). New York: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes, N., Fives, H., & Dacey, C. M. (2015). Teachers’ beliefs about assessment. In H. Fives & M. Gregoire Gill (Eds.), International Handbook of Research on Teacher Beliefs (pp. 284–300). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Borsboom, D. (2006). The attack of the psychometricians. Psychometrika, 71(3), 425–440. doi:10.1007/s11336-006-1447-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, D. A., & Carless, D. R. (2010). Peer assessment in a test-dominated setting: Empowering, boring or facilitating examination preparation? Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 9(1), 3–15. doi:10.1007/s10671-009-9077-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho, A. (2012). Students’ perceptions of fairness in peer assessment: Evidence from a problem-based learning course. Teaching in Higher Education, 18(5), 491–505. doi:10.1080/13562517.2012.753051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, F., Bollen, K. A., Paxton, P., Curran, P. J., & Kirby, J. B. (2001). Improper solutions in structural equation models: Causes, consequences, and strategies. Sociological Methods & Research, 29(4), 468–508.

    Article  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), 331–350. doi:10.1080/03075079912331379935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falchikov, N. (1995). Peer feedback marking: Developing peer assessment. Innovations in Education & Training International, 32(2), 175–187. doi:10.1080/1355800950320212.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, X., & Sivo, S. A. (2007). Sensitivity of fit indices to model misspecification and model types. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(3), 509–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2012). Spring cleaning for the “messy” construct of teachers' beliefs: What are they? Which have been examined? What can they tell us? In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA Educational Psychology Handbook: Individual Differences and Cultural and Contextual Factors (Vol. 2, pp. 471–499). Washington, DC: APA

  • Gao, M. (2009). Students’ voices in school-based assessment of Hong Kong: A case study. In D. M. McInerney, G. T. L. Brown, & G. A. D. Liem (Eds.), Student perspectives on assessment: What students can tell us about assessment for learning (pp. 107–130). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, L. R., & Brown, G. T. L. (2013). Opportunities and obstacles to consider when using peer- and self-assessment to improve student learning: Case studies into teachers' implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36(0)), 101–111. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, G. J., Hung, C. M., & Chen, N. S. (2014). Improving learning achievements, motivations and problem-solving skills through a peer assessment-based game development approach. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(2), 129–145. doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9320-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IBM. (2011). Amos [computer program] (version 20, Build 817). Meadville, PA: Amos Development Corporation

  • Ion, G., & Cano, E. (2011). Assessment practices at Spanish universities: From a learning to a competencies approach. Evaluation & Research in Education, 24(3), 167–181. doi:10.1080/09500790.2011.610503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M., & Ryu, J. (2013). The development and implementation of a Web-based formative peer assessment system for enhancing students’ metacognitive awareness and performance in ill-structured tasks. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(4), 549–561. doi:10.1007/s11423-012-9266-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lingard, B., & Lewis, S. (2016). Globalization of the Anglo-American approach to top-down, test-based educational accountability. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.). Handbook of Social and Human Conditions in Assessment (pp. 1–30). New York: Routledge.

  • Lynch, D. H., & Golen, S. (1992). Peer evaluation of writing in business communication classes. Journal of Education for Business, 68(1), 44–48. doi:10.1080/08832323.1992.10117585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noonan, B., & Duncan, C. R. (2005). Peer and self-assessment in high schools. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(17).

  • Panadero, E., Brown, G. T. L., & Courtney, M. G. R. (2014). Teachers’ reasons for using self-assessment: A survey self-report of Spanish teachers. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(3), 365–383. doi:10.1080/0969594X.2014.919247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panadero, E., Romero, M., & Strijbos, J. W. (2013). The impact of a rubric and friendship on construct validity of peer assessment, perceived fairness and comfort, and performance. Studies In Educational Evaluation, 39(4), 195–203. doi:10.1016/j.stueduc.2013.10.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panadero, E. (2016). Is it safe? Social, interpersonal, and human effects of peer assessment: a review and future directions. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Human factors and social conditions of assessment. New York: Routledge.

  • Panadero, E., Jonsson, A., & Strijbos, J. W. (2016). Scaffolding self-regulated learning through self-assessment and peer assessment: Guidelines for classroom implementation. In D. Laveault & L. Allal (Eds.), Assessment for learning: meeting the challenge of implementation. Springer, In press.

  • Peterson, E. R., & Irving, S. E. (2008). Secondary school students’ conceptions of assessment and feedback. Learning and Instruction, 18(3), 238–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinholz, D. L. (2015). The assessment cycle: A model for learning through peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–15. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2015.1008982

  • Remesal, A. (2007). Educational reform and primary and secondary teachers' conceptions of assessment: The Spanish instance, building upon Black and Wiliam (2005). Curriculum Journal, 18(1), 27–38. doi:10.1080/09585170701292133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Remesal, A. (2011). Primary and secondary teachers’ conceptions of assessment: A qualitative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 472–482. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schacter, D. L. (1999). The seven sins of memory: Insights from psychology and cognitive neuroscience. American Psychologist, 54(3), 182–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spandorfer, J., Puklus, T., Rose, V., Vahedi, M., Collins, L., Giordano, C., & Braster, C. (2014). Peer assessment among first year medical students in anatomy. Anatomical Sciences Education, 7(2), 144–152. doi:10.1002/ase.1394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tan, K. H. K. (2012). Student self-assessment. Assessment, learning and empowerment. Singapore: Research Publishing.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topping, K. J. (2003). Self and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability, validity and utility. In M. Segers, F. Dochy & E. Cascallar (Eds.), Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standards (Vol. 1, pp. 55–87): Springer Netherlands.

  • Topping, K. J. (2013). Peers as a source of formative and summative assessment. In J. H. McMillan (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of research on classroom assessment (Vol (pp. 395–412). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(4), 4–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderhoven, E., Raes, A., Montrieux, H., Rotsaert, T., & Schellens, T. (2015). What if pupils can assess their peers anonymously? A quasi-experimental study. Computers & Education, 81, 123–32. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gennip, N. (2012). Assessing together. Peer assessment from an interpersonal perspective. (PhD), Universiteit Leiden.

  • van Gennip, N., Gijbels, D., Segers, M., & Tillema, H. H. (2010). Reactions to 360° feedback: The role of trust and trust-related variables. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 10(4), 362–379. doi:10.1504/IJHRDM.2010.036088.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Gennip, N., Segers, M., & Tillema, H. H. (2009). Peer assessment for learning from a social perspective: The influence of interpersonal variables and structural features. Educational Research Review, 4(1), 41–54. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2008.11.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & van Merriënboer, J. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 270–279. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, F. Y., & Wu, C. P. (2011). Different identity revelation modes in an online peer-assessment learning environment: Effects on perceptions toward assessors, classroom climate and learning activities. Computers & Education, 57(3), 2167–2177. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.05.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


Research funded by personal grant to Ernesto Panadero under Ramón y Cajal framewok (RYC-2013-13469).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ernesto Panadero.

Additional information

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

By the first author (some):

Panadero, E., Alonso-Tapia, J., & Huertas, J. A. (2012). Rubrics and self-assessment scripts effects on self-regulation, learning and self-efficacy in secondary education. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(6), 806–813. doi:

Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9(0), 129–144. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2013.01.002

Panadero, E., Brown, G. T. L., & Courtney, M. G. R. (2014). Teachers’ reasons for using self-assessment: A survey self-report of Spanish teachers. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(3), 365–383. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2014.919247

Panadero, E., & Järvelä, S. (2015). Socially shared regulation of learning: A review. European Psychologist, 20(3), 190–203. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000226

Panadero, E. (2016). Is it safe? Social, interpersonal, and human effects of peer assessment: a review and future directions. In G. T. L. Brown & L. R. Harris (Eds.), Human factors and social conditions of assessment. New York: Routledge

By the second author (some):

Brown, G. T. L., Lake, R., & Matters, G. (2011). Queensland teachers’ conceptions of assessment: The impact of policy priorities on teacher attitudes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 210–220. doi:

Brown, G. T. L., & Harris, L. R. (2013). Student self-assessment. In J. McMillan (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of research on classroom assessment (pp. 367–393). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Brown, G. T. L., Andrade, H., & Chen, F. (2015). Accuracy in student self-assessment: Directions and cautions for research. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 1–14. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2014.996523

Brown, G. T. L., Harris, L. R., O’Quin, C. R., & Lane, K. (2015). Using multi-group confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate cross-cultural research: identifying and understanding non-invariance. International Journal of Research and Method in Education. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/1743727X.2015.1070823.

Harris, L. R., & Brown, G. T. L. (2013). Opportunities and obstacles to consider when using peer- and self-assessment to improve student learning: case studies into teachers’ implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36 101–111. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2013.07.008.

Harris, L. R., Brown, G. T. L., & Harnett, J. (2014). Analysis of New Zealand primary and secondary student peer- and self-assessment comments: applying Hattie & Timperley’s feedback model. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 22(2), 265–281. doi: 10.1080/0969594X.2014.976541.



Table 10 Teachers’ beliefs about students peer assessment survey

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Panadero, E., Brown, G.T.L. Teachers’ reasons for using peer assessment: positive experience predicts use. Eur J Psychol Educ 32, 133–156 (2017).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: