Peer Assessment of Contributions to a Group Project: A comparison of holistic and category-based approaches

By M. Lejk, Michael Wyvill. 2001

168 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/e11ec88da97d94409a13f87960cd8c42b469e6a7

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 Assessment in Small Groups: A Comparison of Methods (2008, methodology): “Was dependable: met deadlines, kept his or her word (e.g., Beatty & Haas, 1996; Brooks & Ammons, 2003; Chalupa et al., 2000; Clark, 1989; Gatfield, 1999; Gueldenzoph & May, 2002; Haas et al., 1998; Lejk & Wyvill, 2001; Rafiq & Fullerton, 1996).”
The impact of stress in self‐ and peer assessment (2005, background): “It appears that holistic assessment methods (one grade is awarded to a group member for overall contribution) are superior to categorical methods (wherein contributions are put together in various categories and then summated) (Lejk & Wyvill, 2001b).”
The Effect of the Inclusion of Selfassessment with Peer Assessment of Contributions to a Group Project: A quantitative study of secret and agreed assessments (2001, background): “An examination of the rst issue of this journal in 2001 shows three out of the six papers dealing with the subject (Bourner et al., 2001; Lejk & Wyvill, 2001; Li, 2001).”
Quantitative analysis of the rubric as an assessment tool: an empirical study of student peer‐group rating (2003, background): “Peer learning and peer assessment are key pedagogical strategies to help students gain the knowledge that allows them to reflect on their own performance as well as that of their fellow students (Lejk and Wyvill 2001, Sluijsmans et al. 2001).”
The Effect of Scoring Criteria Specificity on Peer and Self-assessment (2003, result): “…able to determine differences in presentation performance or not willing to be critical of themselves or their peers: this is a possibility and has been raised as a concern by other authors (Falchikov, 1995; Orsmond et al., 1996; Lopez-Real & Chan, 1999; Sullivan et al., 1999; Lejk & Wyvill, 2001).”
Unfolding collaborative learning assessment literacy: a reflection on current assessment methods in higher education (2020, background): “…group product, however, is typically still only scored or graded with a group assessment, despite the criteria on the quality of the contribution to the collaborative product also being part of the intra-group peer assessment (Cheng and Warren 2000; Lejk and Wyvill 2001; Johnston and Miles 2004).”