Improving the Quality of Undergraduate Peer Assessment: A Case for Student and Staff Development

By Holly Smith, A. Cooper, Lesley Lancaster. 2002

172 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/84ef18c4abd782baf6502cf35ac1ed18f5b16eee

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

A Critical Evaluation of Peer Review via Teaching Observation within Higher Education. (2005, unknown): “regular participation (Smith et al., 2002);”
An inventory of peer assessment diversity (2011, unknown): “Orsmond, Merry, and Reiling 2002 ; Smith, Cooper, and Lancaster 2002 ), presentations (e.”
The impact of stress in self‐ and peer assessment (2005, background): “Peer assessment can be of either performanceÐtypically a group project or discussionÐor product (Falchikov, 1988; Hanrahan & Isaacs, 2001; Smith et al., 2002).”
The development of science activities via on-line peer assessment: the role of scientific epistemological views (2009, background): “From a learning perspective, relevant research has concluded that the use of peer assessment can help students achieve better learning outcomes, identify their own strengths and weaknesses, and enhance their problem-solving and metacognitive abilities involved in learning processes (e.g., Smith et ”
Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions (2010, background): “In Smith et al. (2002) study (see subchapter 3.1) student attitudes towards PA were measured as well.”
The assessment cycle: a model for learning through peer assessment (2016, background): “This scaffolding is crucial because peer assessment is a novel activity for students (Min 2006; Smith, Cooper, and Lancaster 2002; Topping 2009).”
University Students’ Perceptions of and Attitudes Toward (Online) Peer Assessment (2006, background): “…display a liking for PA activities because these activities provide an opportunity for comparison of student work, but they are much less appriciative of criticism from peers (Brindley and Scoffield 1998; Cheng and Warren 1997; Paquet and Des Marchais 1998; Smith et al. 2002; Williams 1992).”