Formative Peer Assessment of Academic Writing Between Postgraduate Students

By Keith Topping, E. F. Smith, I. Swanson, A. Elliot. 2000

490 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/317ff66c7cef6c19548c5a8c8da4b3df0910cc1e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

Citations in the corpus

Exploring the use of peer assessment as a vehicle for closing the gap between feedback given and feedback used (2010, background): “learning (Topping et al. 2000; Cassidy 2006).”
Enhancing feedback in higher education: Students’ attitudes towards online and in-class formative assessment feedback models (2017, background): “Peer feedback is a process in which students provide comments and critiques on their peers’ submissions; this differs considerably from peer assessment, which is a process in which students evaluate the performance or achievements of their peers, and provide a grade (Topping et al., 2000).”
Giving or receiving feedback: which is more beneficial to students’ learning? (2018, unknown): “Thus, this study fills a gap in the literature (Topping et al. 2000) and provides new insights into the benefits of providing peer review in student learning.”
Peer assessment for learning from a social perspective: The influence of interpersonal variables and structural features (2009, background): “However, several studies note that students feel uncomfortable criticizing one another’s work, or find it difficult to rate their peers (Topping et al., 2000).”
Students’ experience of peer assessment in a professional course (2007, background): “( 2000 ) suggest oral feedback be given by both students and staff.”
Online peer assessment: effects of cognitive and affective feedback (2011, background): “Topping et al. (2000) also report positive effects of peer assessment on assessors: students involved in peer assessment not only improved the quality of their own work but also developed additional transferable skills.”
Validity and reliability of scaffolded peer assessment of writing from instructor and student perspectives (2006, background): “This finding helps explain the finding of Rushton et al. (1993) and Topping et al. (2000) that students sometimes lower their estimates of the reliability of peer reviewing after experiencing a peer review process that is objectively reliable and valid from the instructor perspective.”
Online self-assessment and peer-assessment as a tool to enhance student-teachers’ assessment skills (2018, background): “other students' performances and see the assessment assignment as onerous and time-consuming (Davies 2000; Topping et al. 2000; Lin, Liu, and Yuan 2001; Ballantyne, Hughes, and Mylonas 2002; Tsai, Lin, and Yuan 2002; Miller 2003).”
An inventory of peer assessment diversity (2011, background): “Examples are a criterion list for judgement (Omelicheva 2005), a request to ‘flag’ comments as positive or negative in feedback (Topping et al. 2000), and general feedback rules (Prins, Sluijsmans, and Kirschner 2006; Prins et al.”
Developing Procedures for Implementing Peer Assessment in Large Classes Using an Action Research Process (2002, background): “…an approach would seem to offer both staff teaching large classes and their students signi cant time and learning bene ts—marking time decreases together with a decrease in feedback time and an increase in the quality and quantity of comments (Davies, 2000; Falchikov, 1998; Topping et al., 2000).”
Goals of peer assessment and their associated quality concepts (2011, background): “2000 ), although they are mostly studied in relation to the quantitative version of peer assessment (Topping 1998 ).”