Understanding the rules of the game: marking peer assessment as a medium for developing students' conceptions of assessment

By Sue Bloxham *, Amanda West. 2004

232 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b2372c668e8d041c42001c4528937f1e6fefc525

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

Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment (2006, methodology): “A useful way of motivating students to carry out peer feedback rigorously is described by Bloxham and West (2004).”
Constructive guidance and feedback for learning: the usefulness of exemplars, marking sheets and different types of feedback in a first year law subject (2011, methodology): “Exemplars have been used in biology (Orsmond, Merry, and Reiling 2002 ) and their use has been planned in sports studies (Bloxham and West 2004 ) mainly to help students understand criteria and standards.”
Use of interactive–informal assessment practices: New Zealand secondary students' conceptions of assessment (2009, unknown): “…assessments) shows that the assessments that have been positively evaluated by students were more authentic and thus made learning more realistic or powerful (Bloxham & West, 2004; Gulikers, Kester, Kirschner, & Bastiaens, in press; Sambell, McDowell, & Brown, 1997; Segers & Dochy, 2001).”
Students’ perceptions of the usefulness of marking guides, grade descriptors and annotated exemplars (2013, background): “One pair of students in Bloxham and West’s study suggested ‘[i]n future perhaps less criteria should be given so we are made to think more’ (2004, 76). Our findings suggest that as students become more assessment literate they have the confidence to self-assess and to understand what is required (de”
Assessment in higher education: drivers, barriers and directions for change in the UK (2016, methodology): “This is in contrast to higher education, where the academic rules shaping assessment often remain tacit (Bloxham and West 2004; O’Donovan, Price, and Rust 2004), where assessment is frequently end-loaded (Hounsell 2007) and where feedback is often received too late for the students to usefully act…”
From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education (2010, background): “Bloxham and West (2004) provide an example of this approach where the teacher reinforces the”
Using principles of authentic assessment to redesign written examinations and tests (2019, background): “Assessment can be more authentic when students are involved in dialogue and collaboration with their teachers in feedback processes (Bloxham & West, 2004).”
Supporting Learners' Agentic Engagement With Feedback: A Systematic Review and a Taxonomy of Recipience Processes (2017, unknown): “Furthermore, after engaging with the grading criteria, learners in at least three studies claimed they were more likely to consult them when completing subsequent work (Bloxham & West, 2004, 2007; Cartney, 2010).”
Students’ experience of peer assessment in a professional course (2007, background): “Bloxham and West ( 2004 ) argue that assessing students’ marking and comments on peers encourages them to take seriously the assessment of their peers.”
Staff student partnership in assessment: enhancing assessment literacy through democratic practices (2017, background): “This dissatisfaction may centre on lack of clarity about assessment requirements and understanding marking criteria (Bloxham and West 2004); opacity of feedback, which may lead to students ‘misinterpreting academic discourse’ (Weaver 2006, 392); difficulty in understanding how feedback can be used…”
An inventory of peer assessment diversity (2011, background): “For instance, in the study by Bloxham and West (2004), a quarter of the total mark of the assessor is based on the quality of the peer assessment.”
Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning (2009, background): “A third type of intervention is the use of a quality control system that rewards or sanctions assessors for the quality of their feedback (Bloxham & West, 2004; Kali & Ronen, 2008; Searby & Ewers, 1997) or that filters unreliable feedback (Cho & MacArthur, 2010; Rada & Hu, 2002).”