The Effect of Scoring Criteria Specificity on Peer and Self-assessment

By P. Miller. 2003

152 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7196dd199fe5c24cc0ce0efcaaf73dea7b44633b

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

An inventory of peer assessment diversity (2011, background): “Examples are a checklist for quantitative assessment (Purchase 2000), a feedback form (possibly online) (Miller 2003; Trahasch 2004), or a template for making an assessment form when students are involved in the formulation of criteria (Prins et al. 2005).”
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).”
Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment (2006, background): “(Stefani, 1998, p. 343) Yet, the focus (arguably overemphasis) on reliability of student grading is still prominent as evidenced by further recent examples of measurement-focused forms of peer assessment; see Miller (2003) and Segers and Dochy, (2001).”
How effective are self- and peer assessment of oral presentation skills compared with teachers’ assessments? (2012, background): “Miller (2003) concluded that a larger number of items in the evaluation checklist resulted in an increase in variance in scores.”
The nature of feedback: how different types of peer feedback affect writing performance (2009, background): “Global feedback has been associated with better performance in college students (Olson and Raffeld 1987), and yet local feedback has also been associated with better performance in college students (Lin et al. 2001; Miller 2003).”
Does peer assessment promote student learning? A meta-analysis (2020, background): “Research shows that rating quality improves when peer assessment is supported by training, checklists, exemplification, teacher assistance and monitoring (Pond, UiHaq, and Wade 1995; Berg 1999; Miller 2003; Li et al. 2016).”
Goals of peer assessment and their associated quality concepts (2011, background): “On the one hand, peer assessment is sometimes assumed to be a partial replacement for staff assessment, but on the other hand, it often becomes part of a triangulated approach to assessment in which student learning is evaluated from multiple data sources or by multiple assessors (Breitmeyer, Ayres,”
Peer assessment of oral presentations: effects of student gender, university affiliation and participation in the development of assessment criteria (2005, background): “This suggests that they were less prone to over-marking by naive assessors as described in Miller (2003).”
Student perceptions of peer assessment: an interdisciplinary study (2014, background): “Dedicating more time to agreeing on and understanding the rubrics, grade descriptors and scoring matrix prior to the assessment process (Miller 2003; Vickerman 2009).”
Relationships between student characteristics and self‐, peer and tutor evaluations of oral presentations (2008, background): “Incorporation of naive and/or multiple assessors in self- and peer-assessment processes requires advance consideration (Tan 2004) and there is a growing body of literature to guide the design and implementation of appropriate protocols (e.g. Miller 2003).”
Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning (2009, methodology): “Hence, the feedback form was not as open as the one used in the above mentioned studies; rather a scripting approach was applied, with directed questions (Miller, 2003) and sentence openers (Baker & Lund, 1997) being used as guiding prompts.”