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

By Philip M. Sadler, E. Good. 2006

592 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, Information Systems and Management

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/619af0f274e7a76d10a97765e061f1b8516d6999

How researchers see this paper

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

In Education

In Information Systems and Management

Citations in the corpus

Peer reviewers learn from giving comments (2011, background): “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.”
Rubric‐referenced self‐assessment and middle school students’ writing (2010, background): “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.”
To rubric or not to rubric? The effects of self-assessment on self-regulation, performance and self-efficacy (2014, background): “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).”
Does peer assessment promote student learning? A meta-analysis (2020, background): “…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…”
Goals of peer assessment and their associated quality concepts (2011, background): “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.”
Students as the Definitive Source of Formative Assessment: Academic Self-Assessment and the Self-Regulation of Learning (2010, background): “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).”
Online peer assessment: effects of cognitive and affective feedback (2011, background): “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).”
The Future of Student Self-Assessment: a Review of Known Unknowns and Potential Directions (2016, background): “SSA for initially lower performing students (Ross et al. 1999; Sadler and Good 2006), while”
The Impact of Peer Assessment on Academic Performance: A Meta-analysis of Control Group Studies (2018, background): “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. l”
Tuned Models of Peer Assessment in MOOCs (2013, background): “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.”
The assessment cycle: a model for learning through peer assessment (2016, background): “Nevertheless, when the learning impacts of peer and self-assessment are considered, these activities are generally considered independently (e.g. Sadler and Good 2006).”
Accuracy in student self-assessment: directions and cautions for research (2015, background): “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).”
Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective (2014, unknown): “…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…”
The use of scoring rubrics: Reliability, validity, and educational consequences (2007, background): “The study by Sadler and Good (2006) puts the presumed benefits of peer-grading to the test.”