The Use of Student Derived Marking Criteria in Peer and Self-assessment

By Paul Orsmond, S. Merry, K. Reiling. 2000

297 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f4fd4a421d938b584f54835ebcbeffc74b6b1cc8

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

An Examination of the Use of Peer Rating for Formative Assessment in the Context of the Theory of Consumption Values (2001, background): “Generally, researchers have reported poor correlations between teacher and peer marks (Falchikov, 1986; Falchikov & Magin, 1997; Kane & Lawler, 1978; Orsmond et al., 2000).”
Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment (2006, background): “Orsmond et al, (2000) argue that peer involvement in assessment, conducted in a non-threatening, collaborative atmosphere, enables students to learn better because it prompts them to think more critically.”
The effects of self-assessment among young learners of English (2010, background): “…various academic settings, a number of authors have addressed the importance of practicing or training students to conduct self-assessment (e.g., giving them instruction and feedback) (e.g., McDonald and Boud, 2003; Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick, 2006; Orsmond et al., 2000; Stefani, 1998; Taras, 2001).”
Peer review in higher education: Student perceptions before and after participation (2014, background): “Several scholars (e.g. Orsmond et al., 2000; Rust et al., 2003) thus call for students to be provided with opportunities to participate more actively in the assessment process, and for formative peer assessment to be used ‘to empower students as self-regulated learners’ (Nicol and Macfarlane-Dick,…”
The Use of Exemplars and Formative Feedback when Using Student Derived Marking Criteria in Peer and Self-assessment (2002, methodology): “Furthermore, discussion between tutor and student leading to joint construction of marking criteria did not identify a method of using peer and self-assessment that achieved greater understanding of the marking criteria by students (Orsmond et al., 2000).”
Student involvement in assessment: a project designed to assess class participation fairly and reliably (2005, background): “Orsmond et al. (2000) undertake a study on the use of student derived marking criteria.”
Using Assessment for Learning and Learning from Assessment (2002, background): “Another possible reason is that high-stake validating tests and examinations tend to dominate education (Black & Wiliam, 1998, p. 142; Orsmond et al., 2000, p. 24).”
Learning to self-assess oral performance in English: A longitudinal case study (2008, background): “The fact that more students favored participation in self-assessment did not differ from previous findings (e.g. Orsmond et al. 1997, 2000; Chen, 2006), but refuted the claim that students were reluctant to be involved in assessment or regarded assessment as the teacher’s responsibility (Chan,…”
The Use of Tutor Feedback and Student Self-assessment in Summative Assessment Tasks: Towards transparency for students and for tutors (2001, background): “(Orsmond et al., 2000, p. 24) Self-assessment is too well documented and used to be discussed here (see various procedures suggested by Boud, 1986).”
To Feedback or Not to Feedback in Student Self-assessment (2003, background): “From each mark sheet 1, 2 and 3 that the students filled in, there are data available which may be used to firstly compare and evaluate student self- and tutor marking for individual marking criteria (Orsmond et al., 2000), and secondly for the final grade.”
The Conscientious Consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning (2002, unknown): “The results of studies by Hounsell (1987), Orsmond et al. (1996, 1997, 2000), Lillis (1997), Street & Lea, (1997), IvanicÏ (1998), Chanock, (2000), Hartley & Chesworth (2000), echo the view that students often experience problems interpreting the academic language underpinning assessment.”
A social constructivist assessment process model: how the research literature shows us this could be best practice (2005, result): “At least one study (Orsmond et al., 2000) has surprisingly suggested otherwise, apparently finding that ‘students may be less able to discriminate between individual marking criteria which they have constructed compared to marking criteria that have been provided’ (p. 23).”
The Effect of Scoring Criteria Specificity on Peer and Self-assessment (2003, background): “…usually involved the assignment of a numerical score for each item in a set of criteria, with 4–5 point scales being common (Conway et al., 1993; Orsmond et al., 1996, 2000; Culbertson et al., 1997; Heylings & Stefani, 1997; Longhurst & Norton, 1997; Pond & ul-Haq, 1997; Cheng & Warren, 1999;…”