Assess and give feedback to learners
Appropriate methods for teaching, learning and assessing in the subject area in the subject area and at the level of the academic programme
Peer assessment means students give feedback or grades to each other based on a set of criteria. This can be done face-to-face or online and might include written comments, scores, or both. It’s used to develop feedback skills, encourage active learning, and promote critical thinking. When students assess others, they gain insight into quality work — and into their own learning.
Peer assessment improves academic performance compared to no assessment or teacher assessment ➕➕➕ (Double et al., 2019). It is also effective for developing higher-order thinking, particularly for convergent thinking ➕➕➕➕ (Zhan et al., 2023). Online delivery, reciprocal roles, and anonymity may improve outcomes. Rater training and clear criteria strengthen the learning benefits ➕➕➕ (Li et al., 2020). Students who both give and receive peer feedback learn more than those who only receive feedback.
This summary draws on several high-quality meta-analyses. Double et al. (2019) analysed 54 studies on academic performance. Zhan et al. (2023) reviewed 17 studies on online peer assessment and higher-order thinking. Li et al. (2020) synthesised 58 studies, finding a moderate overall effect (g = 0.29) on learning.
Double, K. S., McGrane, J. A., & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2019). The impact of peer assessment on academic performance: A meta-analysis of control group studies. Educational Psychology Review, 32(3), 481–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3
Zhan, Y., Yan, Z., Wan, Z. H., Wang, X., Zeng, Y., Yang, M., & Yang, L. (2023). Effects of online peer assessment on higher‐order thinking: A meta‐analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 54(4), 817–835. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13310
Li, H., Xiong, Y., Hunter, C. V., Guo, X., & Tywoniw, R. (2020). Does peer assessment promote student learning? A meta-analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(2), 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1620679
