Methodological quandaries in studying process and outcomes in peer assessment

By Keith Topping. 2010

188 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/848477aedc32d3db0c97812347f6531dcf161c07

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

Online self-assessment and peer-assessment as a tool to enhance student-teachers’ assessment skills (2018, background): “There are however certain pitfalls with these types of assessment; limitations of peer evaluation include students’ distrust (Topping 2010), inaccurate evaluation and inconsistent evaluation in”
Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction (2011, background): “Although research examining these variables in association with motor skill learning is progressing, at the present time it is not yet possible to draw conclusions about the association between these variables and motor skill development.”
Is peer review an appropriate form of assessment in a MOOC? Student participation and performance in formative peer review (2017, background): “However, although many studies do show clear benefit to peer assessment and review, the evidence for their effectiveness on learning overall is mixed, possibly because of the variability of assessment tasks used (Topping 2010).”
Peer feedback in second language writing (2005–2014) (2016, background): “review essays and offer feedback to their peers (Topping 2010).”
Feedback on feedback practice: perceptions of students and academics (2017, result): “While many researchers advocate the use of peer assessment (Nicol and MacfarlaneDick 2006; Topping 2010; Vickerman 2009), the results of this study presented more negative views in terms of the effectiveness of group and peer feedback: 56% students and 46% staff felt that peer evaluation or discussi”
An empirical review of anonymity effects in peer assessment, peer feedback, peer review, peer evaluation and peer grading (2019, background): “Therefore, we need to start exploring anonymity in interaction with other crucial variables (e.g. aids, length of intervention, practice) as these interactions might have a stronger impact on peer assessment outcomes (Evans, 2013 (Topping, 2010))).”
Learning-by-teaching. Evidence and implications as a pedagogical mechanism (2017, background): “As not all forms of feedback are effective (Topping, 2010), it is worth training the student evaluators.”
Peer assessment without assessment criteria (2014, background): “Ensuring that learners are motivated to take peer assessment seriously is an important design principle (e.g. Cho, Schunn and Wilson 2006; Topping 2010).”
Developing evaluative judgement: enabling students to make decisions about the quality of work (2018, background): “…students developing capability for evaluative judgement either through strategies that involve self-assessment (e.g. Boud 1992; Panadero et al. 2016), peer assessment (e.g. Panadero 2016; Topping 2010), or self-regulated learning (e.g. Nicol and MacfarlaneDick 2006; Panadero and Alonso-Tapia 2013).”
Developing student competence through peer assessment: the role of feedback, self-regulation and evaluative judgement (2020, result): “The way in which peer assessment is implemented in practice is of fundamental importance if the intention is to enable the study to be replicated and to compare and synthesise results (Topping 2010).”