An inventory of peer assessment diversity

By Sarah Gielen, Filip Dochy, Patrick Onghena. 2011

142 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/81f02bfa593f9b2cd90f1991cdfb29f1e6289d84

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

Dialogue within peer feedback processes: clarification and negotiation of meaning (2018, background): “Following the category of interaction between peers (Gielen et al., 2011), we present the various peer feedback practices in Table 1 where frequency suggests the number of peer feedback practice in the semester while privacy, contact and role of receiver indicate the modes whereby peer feedback is c”
Peer feedback on academic writing: undergraduate students’ peer feedback role, peer feedback perceptions and essay performance (2018, background): “On the one hand, Gielen et al. (2010) found that the presence of explanations (‘justifications’) in peer feedback could raise subsequent performance of assessees in secondary education.”
Student perceptions of peer assessment: an interdisciplinary study (2014, methodology): “The main characteristics of each activity are presented in Table 1 and are based on the contributions of Topping (1998), Gielen, Dochy, and Onghena (2011) and Van den Berg, Admiraal, and Pilot (2007).”
Developing student competence through peer assessment: the role of feedback, self-regulation and evaluative judgement (2020, background): “There are numerous contributions to the characteristics of high-quality feedback, as well as suggestions on how further improvements can be made (Ajjawi and Boud 2017, 2018; Boud and Molloy 2013; Espasa and Meneses 2010; Evans 2013; Gielen et al. 2011; Pardo 2018).”
An empirical review of anonymity effects in peer assessment, peer feedback, peer review, peer evaluation and peer grading (2019, background): “According to Gielen et al. (2011), privacy has three dimensions: (a) anonymity of assessor/assessee, (b) teacher presence, and (c) whether the output of peer assessment is confidential or public.”