Psychology Learning and Teaching, 3(2), 102-108

Involving students in assessment

NANCY FALCHIKOV1
University of Edinburgh, UK

The importance of assessment and the centrality of students within the process are emphasised.
The changing role of the student is discussed and a number of suggestions made on how to
involve learners productively by means of self, peer or collaborative assessment. Studies of self
assessment are reviewed and the role of psychology explored. Similarly, peer assessment
studies are reviewed and key variables identified. It is noted that the benefits of involving
students go beyond their ability to produce marks which resemble those awarded by teachers.
Stages in the process of implementing and evaluating a self or peer assessment study are
elaborated. Frequently encountered problems in practice are identified and some ways of
dealing with these suggested. Some wider issues are discussed: quality, education versus.
training, and working in groups. The need for further research is emphasised.

INTRODUCTION There are other, more beneficial, ways of involving

students in assessment which have the power to
Assessment carries more salience, perhaps, than any improve assessment procedures at the same time, by
other process in higher education. It dominates student making procedures explicit and transparent. Such
learning (e.g. Brown, Bull and Pendlebury, 1997) and methods include self and peer assessment.
too often overwhelms teachers, required to complete
marking of large numbers of assignments or WAYS OF INVOLVING STUDENTS MORE
examinations in too short a time scale. Unsurprisingly, PRODUCTIVELY: SELF, PEER AND COLLABORATIVE
researchers have produced alarming statistics which ASSESSMENT
point to lack of reliability of marking (e.g. Newstead and
Dennis, 1994). Assessment has come under the critical In self assessment, students are required to rate their
eye of quality watchdogs as well as those of teachers own performance against a standard, while in peer
and researchers. The quest for improved assessment assessment they rate the performance of their peers.
procedures has led to the establishment of government Schemes of assessment involving students may also
agencies, the production of thousands of words and the include some degree of collaboration between staff and
destruction of acres of forest. By any measure, students, depending on whether, how and to what
assessment is important. extent the criteria of assessment are discussed and
agreed by both parties.
At the centre of any debate about assessment must be
the student. Our task as teachers is to help students Although many early studies of self and peer
learn and we can harness the power of assessment to assessment relate to individual work, both may occur in
achieve this end by involving them in the process. Of the context of group work. There are three different
course, students have always been involved in types of peer assessment of group work: intra-group,
assessment. What is beginning to change, however, is inter-group and assessment of groups by individuals
the role they play in the process. Traditionally, the (e.g. Earl, 1986). Intra-group peer assessment can take
student was a testee, a provider of material for teachers place when some measure of individual input is
to evaluate. The process of marking was hidden, left in required for groups of students who have been working
the hands of the ‘experts’ whose experience enabled together (e.g. Falchikov, 1993; Goldfinch and Raeside,
them to recognise worth when they encountered it. It is, 1990; Lejk and Wyvill, 2002). Inter-group assessment
perhaps, not surprising, therefore, that generations of may occur when groups of students assess their own or
researchers have found us wanting (e.g. Cox, 1967; other groups as a whole (e.g. Freeman, 1995; Zimitat
Hartog and Rhodes, 1935; Laming, 1990). Once and Miflin, 2003). Self assessment is an individual
teachers have completed their task, students are activity, but can also take place in the group setting.
reunited with their work, resplendent with a mark, a few It is possible to involve students in the assessment of
ticks and question marks and, if they are lucky, some work or performance in three distinct areas: traditional
written feedback to help them improve the next time. It academic activity, performance in academic settings
seems to be the case, as Taras (2002) argued, that we and professional practice. In the first of these, a
are sending out the wrong message to students. Little traditional academic product such as an examination or
wonder that, too often, their main focus of interest is the coursework essay, laboratory report or multiple choice
grade. test is assessed, while in the other two categories, a
process is the focus of assessment. Assessment of
1
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to the author: Department of Higher and Continuing
Education, The University of Edinburgh, Paterson’s Land, Holyrood Rd, Edinburgh EH8 8AQ. Email:
[email protected]

102
 INVOLVING STUDENTS IN ASSESSMENT

performance in academic settings may take the form of Factors which were found to be important by Falchikov
rating class participation, group process analysis or and Boud (1989) included the quality of design of the
evaluation of presentation, oral communication or study, the level of the course of which the assessment
interpersonal skills. Assessment of professional was a part and the broad area of study. Well designed
practice typically takes place in medical, paramedical, studies were associated with better agreement between
clinical dental or teaching contexts and the focus of teachers and students, students at higher levels of
assessment may be practical skills in surgery or study tended to be more accurate self assessors than
anaesthesia, residency performance, physiotherapy or those in beginner courses and studies within the broad
occupational therapy skills or classroom teaching area of science tended to produce more accurate self
(Hounsell, McCulloch and Scott, 1996). Self assessment than those from other disciplines.
assessment and some peer assessment is carried out
Of course, there are other aspects to student
by individuals, but the majority of students who are
involvement which do not entail marking: the
involved in assessment carry out peer assessment in
experience itself. Many, myself included, believe that it
the group context. A more recent innovation in
is in this area that the main benefits of involving
assessment which can also involve students is that of
students reside. However, an investigation of the
involving employers in the assessment of student
reliability or validity of student self or peer marking can
teamwork (e.g. Stewart and MacLeod, 1997).
provide essential evaluative information. For example, it
Psychology and student involvement would be irresponsible to continue to use an innovative
Does psychology have a role in student involvement in technique if it conferred no benefit or had the potential
assessment? As we shall see below, the research to harm. Conversely, knowledge that an innovation
literature indicates that many students of psychology ‘works’ provides evidence with which to address fears
have already experienced self and peer assessment. of colleagues regarding the practice and persuade both
However, this is not the only link between the discipline students and sceptical colleagues to try the method.
and student involvement. Psychology as a discipline A survey of peer assessment
can exert a direct influence on teachers and
Academic products and processes, as well as
researchers. For example, knowledge of psychological
professional practice, have been subjected to both self
theory can inform practitioners’ approaches to teaching
and peer assessment. However, the majority of peer
and learning. Familiarity with theories of learning and
assessment studies are carried out in the group setting
knowledge of how students learn best may predispose
and relate to processes rather than products. Along
teachers to activities which involve students as active
with medical and dental students and various
agents in their learning. Experiences of experimental
paramedics, clinical psychologists and psychotherapists
psychology can lead to the search for evidence and
have tended to make more use of peer assessment
evaluation of innovation. Psychology has a key role to
than other areas of higher education (Falchikov, 1996).
play.
Peer assessment can involve students in grading the
A survey of student self assessment work of their peers, but can also involve more
Self assessment usually involves a quantitative qualitative aspects and an emphasis on feedback
element. Students are typically asked to grade their relating to the criteria used rather than the grade.
own product or performance. Reviews of quantitative Sometimes both feedback and grade are required. A
student self assessment studies (Boud and Falchikov, recent meta-analytic study by Falchikov and Goldfinch
1989; Falchikov and Boud, 1989) located studies in a (2000) investigated those studies where students had
wide variety of areas of higher education: medicine and been asked to grade the work of their peers. Once
dentistry, engineering, politics, education, teacher again, the discipline of psychology was well
training and counselling and to a lesser extent, history represented (e.g. D’Augelli, 1973; Eisenberg, 1965;
and music. However, many studies also come from Falchikov, 1986, 1994, 1995a, 1995b; Wiggins and
psychology (e.g. D’Augelli, 1973; Falchikov, 1986; Blackburn, 1969; Melvin and Lord, 1995). Falchikov and
Gaier, 1961; Mueller, 1970; Murstein, 1965; Stanton, Goldfinch (2000) identified key variables that might
1978). In fact, given the early involvement of influence the outcomes of peer assessment studies as:
psychology in self assessment, psychologists may be the study design quality, population characteristics,
seen as pioneers in this field. The main focus of the what is assessed, the level of the module or course,
reviews of quantitative studies was to investigate the how the assessment is carried out and the nature of the
degree to which student self ratings resembled those of criteria used, the design quality and the number of
their lecturers and to ascertain features of studies peers and number of teachers involved in assessments.
associated with high agreement between staff and
students. Both common metrics used (correlation coefficients and
effect sizes) were found to provide evidence of good
A meta-analysis such as that conducted by Falchikov agreement between peer and teacher marks. However,
and Boud (1989) starts with an exhaustive search for investigation of the influence of key variables indicated
self assessment studies which contain statistical that:
information comparing student and teacher ratings. The
aim of a meta-analysis is to draw together the results of • Peer assessments which required marking of
such studies and compare them using a common several individual dimensions appeared to be less
metric such as correlation coefficients or effect sizes. valid than peer assessment which required a global

103
FALCHIKOV

judgement based on well understood criteria. Preparation requires application of many of the
Student familiarity with and ownership of criteria principles of good experimental design. In order to
seemed to enhance the validity of peer evaluate the procedure, a dependent variable needs to
assessment. be identified. Very often, researchers nominate the
• Peer assessment of academic products and degree of agreement between peer and teacher
processes gave rise to better peer-teacher marking as dependent variable, though other aspects of
agreement than peer assessment of professional the exercise, such as the degree of agreement between
practice. student raters or a measure of benefits to learning
experienced by participants, are possible. Additionally,
• Well designed studies were associated with better
some note should be taken of independent variables
peer-teacher agreements than those with poor
such as the experience of participants, the level of the
experimental designs, (Falchikov and Goldfinch,
course in which the assessment is to take place,
2000).
gender and so on. Some knowledge of previous
research, such as that provided by the two meta-
Falchikov and Goldfinch (2000: p. 315) concluded that, analyses noted above, is desirable. Use of a control
The combination of a high quality study, an academic group is possible, though Kember (2003) argued that,
task and a global judgement based on consideration in naturalistic studies, genuine control is impossible.
of several dimensions or criteria would appear to
Practical preparation involves a full explanation of the
lead to the highest correlation between peers and
rationale for the innovation to students and clear,
faculty.
written instructions for them to take away and refer to
HOW IS SELF OR PEER ASSESSMENT CARRIED OUT as required. It is also helpful to present some examples
AND EVALUATED? of successful involvement of students, detailing the
benefits to be derived from participation, to help allay
Setting up a self or peer assessment study requires fears and uncertainties of learners regarding their ability
careful preparation, monitoring and follow-up. The key to carry out the task for the first time. Procedures for
stages are illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1

Preparation Implementation Follow-up & evaluation Replication

Study designed carefully Checklist / criteria used Feedback collected Exercise repeated with
by students to mark (formally or informally), same cohort
own / peers’ work / using standardised
performance (where instruments where
appropriate) appropriate

Rationale
Rationalesupplied
suppliedtoto Feedback given by Feedback analysed
Students
students students to peers

Clear instructions given

(written) relating to all Judgements justified Problems identified
stages of process, by students publicly
including for example
mechanisms for disagree- Disagreements Modifications made
ments; whether, and extent resolved using agreed where necessary
to which marks ‘count’, etc. mechanisms

Criteria identified by
students (and discussed /
agreed with teacher?)

Checklist prepared
with criteria listed
and ranked

Figure 1
Stages in carrying out and evaluating a self or peer assessment study

104
 INVOLVING STUDENTS IN ASSESSMENT

resolving any disagreements that may arise should be Colleagues are suspicious of, or hostile to, the
made clear at this stage. Teachers might do well to idea
have a ready response to suggestions that ‘marking is There seem to be several reasons for lack of
the teacher’s job, not mine’. enthusiasm in our colleagues. They may fear that
Both self and peer assessment may involve the use of students lack the necessary experience to do the job, or
rating scales or checklists. These instruments may fear that students will collude and award over inflated
have been designed by potential users, using criteria grades. Some may feel uncomfortable with the change
identified by students and agreed with the teacher. of role necessary to allow them to give over some
However, pre-existing instruments may also be used or control to students. Sometimes fears about reliability of
modified to suit particular purposes. After self or peer student marking seem to be justified. From time to time,
assessment has taken place, feedback is given and differences between teacher and student ratings have
decisions justified. Any disagreements should be been found, particularly when peer assessment has
resolved at this time. Evaluative feedback may be been used, and we cannot ignore such differences.
collected for developmental or research purposes. This What can we do? We can:
may be formal or informal. It is important to identify any
problems and make modifications to the procedure • become familiar with results of reliability and
where necessary. validity or meta-analytic studies relating to
‘accuracy’ of student marking to appraise ourselves
The final (usually absent) stage is that of replication. It of potential problems (e.g. Falchikov and Goldfinch,
is very desirable to monitor the development of student 2000);
self or peer assessment skills over time. Current short
modular programmes which involve a single piece of • help allay fears of colleagues by informing them
written coursework or a single presentation or about existing research that advises on best
demonstration make replication difficult or impossible. practice;
Recent meta-analytic studies were not able to • consider using student assessment for formative
investigate these effects, as such data as were purposes or reduce the amount the student derived
available were dependent and were combined before marks ‘count’; and
entry into the analysis. An investigation of the effects of • help ease the change of role required by stressing
repeated experience of peer assessment is an the importance of the teacher in setting up,
important question to investigate in future work. implementing and running a self or peer
assessment initiative and in helping students
PROBLEMS IN PRACTICE acquire the necessary expertise.
It is very unlikely that first implementations of self or
peer assessment will run like clockwork, though some Setting up studies involves too much time.
seem to. As in all things, we can learn from the It is true that well designed and implemented studies
problems we encounter and improve our practice. The require considerable input from the teacher. However,
following three problems seem to crop up relatively students need to be thoroughly prepared if obvious
frequently. pitfalls are to be avoided. What do we do? We can:
Students often dislike either the idea or the • point out that while setting up a study is time
experience of being involved in assessment intensive, time may be saved further down the line;
There are several reasons for this. Some students lack and
confidence, doubting their ability to mark fairly. Others • stress the fact that the time is well spent because
believe that the ‘job’ of marking is ours not theirs. of the great benefits to students.
Sometimes social effects such as friendship or hostility
are perceived as influencing outcomes. Some students Preparation is a vital component of any innovation, not
have reported fear of retaliation in response to least of all any which involves students in assessment.
awarding low grades to peers. Others dislike grading We shall now look at two examples of solutions in
friends. What can we do? We can: practice.
• discuss these problems with students; SOLUTIONS IN PRACTICE
• prepare them thoroughly;
Beaman (1998) suggested a novel way for students to
• require student markers to be able to justify their rehearse peer assessment using the Egg Game. In this
grades; game, students can make mistakes and discover
• consider making assessments anonymous; potential problems with peer assessment in a relaxed
• consider using self or peer assessment for environment where grading is not an issue. Beaman
formative purposes only; sets students the problem of building an egg container
that can be dropped from a given height without
• provide students with information concerning
breaking. However, before starting, students have to
successes and benefits of previous schemes;
decide on the criteria on which they are to be assessed
• help students come to see their education as being and on the weightings of each criterion. In this way,
their responsibility. they have to differentiate between process and product.
Beaman (1998: p.54) asserted that the Egg Game

105
FALCHIKOV

enables students to think about what is involved in view, seeing value in activity and practical interaction
peer assessment and, at the same time, to raise any with objects in the world. For example, Piagetian theory
problems or issues such as collusion, fairness and (Piaget, 1971) stresses the importance of practical
validity’. concrete experience for cognitive development.
Another way of reducing the discomfort students often Similarly, a key belief of Lewin and his followers is that
experience when asked to carry out peer assessment is human behaviour is the result of the interaction of
to focus on its formative aspects. My own Peer persons with the environment (Lewin, 1935; Sherman,
Feedback Marking (PFM) scheme was devised for just 1991).
this purpose (Falchikov, 1994, 1995a, 1995b). Students Working in groups
are required to identify a particularly good feature in an
oral presentation and provide one piece of advice on Many programmes of study now contain some element
how the presentation might be improved. This feedback of group working. However, cooperation, or
is written down and then given to presenters just after interdependence is not a new concept in psychology
completion of their presentation, starting with the and education. Slavin (1985) found research from
positive features. Presenters have their confidence which cooperative learning developed dating from the
boosted by hearing compliments about their work which early 1900s. He argued that all cooperative learning
seems to make them more receptive to the constructive methods are based on social psychological research
criticism which follows. They are able to take away and theory, adapted to meet the practical requirements
written feedback for future use. of classrooms. Of course, group work and cooperative
learning are not synonymous, though they share
FURTHER ISSUES AND PROBLEMS several features such as face-to-face interaction and
practice of interpersonal skills. In order that students
Involving students in assessment can give rise to a gain a maximum number of benefits associated with
number of problems, as we have seen, and bring other cooperation, learning should be structured to ensure
problems into clearer focus. We shall look at four positive interdependence of learners combined with
further issues: quality, education versus training, group individual accountability. In addition, Adams and Hamm
work and the need for further research. (1996) recommended regular group processing and
Issues concerning quality reflection as aids to true cooperation. True cooperation
confers many benefits. Piaget (1971) argued that it
Concern has always been expressed by some encourages real exchange of thought and discussion
educators regarding reliability and validity of self or peer and is essential for the development of a critical attitude
assessment, often expressed in terms of the ‘accuracy’ of mind, objectivity and discursive reflection. According
of student assessments and reviews of self and peer to Adams and Hamm (1996), cooperative learning also
assessment studies discussed above. Falchikov and has the power to motivate students, aid skills
Boud (1989) and Falchikov and Goldfinch (2000) have development, and to improve academic performance
focused on this issue. It may be also argued that and retention.
student involvement in assessment has the power to
enhance the quality of assessment itself, in addition to However, awarding individual grades to students who
the value it can bring to student learning. Well have been working in a group can sometimes be
conducted schemes of self and peer assessment make problematic, particularly when the teacher has no
explicit the criteria by which students are judged. This knowledge of the group working. In such cases, peer
practice has been found to be useful to students in the assessment may provide an answer (Goldfinch and
preparation of work and may act to improve both the Raeside, 1990; Lejk and Wyvill, 2002) and allow those
quality of learning and the work produced (e.g. who were there to do the assessment.
Falchikov, 1986; Orsmond, Merry and Reiling, 2002;
It is probable that some group work schemes currently
Rust, Price and O’Donovan, 2003). Similarly, student
in use in higher education have been introduced in
involvement in the provision of qualitative feedback to
response to increased class sizes or other situational
their peers also has the potential to improve the quality
demands, possibly in the absence of knowledge of the
of both the educational experience and the products of
wealth of theory supporting the initiatives and the
education (Falchikov, 1994, 1995a and 1995b).
benefits to be derived from them. However, for once, it
Education versus training is good that an act of expediency has the potential to
bring benefits to students.
Some aspects of self and peer assessment, particularly
assessment of performance or skills, have fuelled the The need for further research
debate concerning the relationship between education
As we saw above, in spite of the increasing use of peer
and training. ‘Education’ is commonly conceived of as
and self assessment in higher education, we have
being theoretical, while ‘training’ more readily conjures
scant evidence relating to the effects of repeating the
up images of practical skills being exercised. Peters
experience. It is generally assumed that practice will
(1975, p. 9) described the Greek ideal of ‘the educated
improve performance, but we need evidence to support
man’ as one freed from ‘coarsening contact with the
this view. The recent meta-analysis of peer assessment
materials of the earth’, a person who develops
studies (Falchikov and Goldfinch, 2000) also indicated
knowledge, ‘both for its own sake and in order to control
complex interactions between variables. It is, thus,
himself and other men’. However, many philosophers,
highly desirable that further systematic investigations
psychologists and educators have dissented from this
be conducted to further tease out these effects. In

106
 INVOLVING STUDENTS IN ASSESSMENT

addition, so far, little work has addressed gender Falchikov, N. (1986). Product comparisons and process
effects. As I have argued elsewhere, gender effects benefits of collaborative, peer group and self assessments.
occur in a wide variety of social and academic Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education. 11, 146-
situations and there is no reason to exclude them as a 165.
possibility in the context of self or peer assessment. Falchikov, N. (1993). Group process analysis: self and
Further work on the effects of friendship and enmity on peer assessment of working together in a group.
peer assessment is also needed. Educational Technology and Training International, 30,
275-284.
CONCLUSION
Falchikov, N. (1994). Learning from peer feedback
Recent literature on self and peer assessment draws a marking: student and teacher perspectives. In H. C. Foot,
picture of education in the twenty-first century with the C. J. Howe, A. Anderson, A. K. Tolmie and D. A. Warden
learner at the centre of the stage and the lecturer off (Eds.), Group and interactive learning. Southampton:
stage, in the wings ready and able to assist the learner Computational Mechanics Publications, pp. 411-416.
in a multiplicity of ways. Today’s student is more and Falchikov, N. (1995a). Peer feedback marking: developing
more learning as a member of a team. She has more peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Training
opportunities for taking decisions about her education International, 32, 175-187.
than ever before and is encouraged to be an active Falchikov, N. (1995b). Improving feedback to and from
participant in the learning process. While experience students. In P. Knight (Ed.), Assessment for learning in
tells us that this may not be the whole truth of the higher education. London: Kogan Page.
matter in higher education today, the ‘new’ learner
Falchikov, N. (1996, September). Involving students in
seems to differ in many respects from predecessors
feedback and assessment. Paper presented at the
from earlier times. Certainly, the balance of power in Assessment Strategies in Scottish Higher Education
education today appears to be swinging away from the (ASSHE) conference, Stirling, UK.
lecturer as infallible expert with total decision making
power, to a more democratic position where students Falchikov, N. and Boud, D. (1989). Student self-
are partners in the education process. The educational assessment in higher education: a meta-analysis. Review
of Educational Research, 59, 395-430.
benefits of encouraging students to take responsibility
for all aspects of their learning are well rehearsed and Falchikov, N. and Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer
many researchers (e.g. Boud, 1995; Falchikov, 1993; assessment in higher education: a meta-analysis
Heron, 1981) have found that devolving some comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational
responsibility to students by involving them in self and Research, 70, 287-322.
peer assessment is an excellent way of enhancing the Freeman, M. (1995). Peer assessment by groups of group
learning process. work. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 20,
289-300.
REFERENCES
Gaier, E. L. (1961). Student self estimates of final course
Adams, D. and Hamm, M. (with Drobnak, M. and Lazar, grades. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 98, 63-67.
A.). (1996). Cooperative learning: critical thinking and Goldfinch, J. and Raeside, R. (1990). Development of a
collaboration across the curriculum (2nd edition). peer assessment technique for obtaining individual marks
Springfield, Il: Charles Thomas Publishers. on a group project. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher
Beaman, R. (1998) The unquiet…even loud andragogy! Education, 15, 210-225.
Alternative assessments for adult learners. Innovative Hartog, P. and Rhodes, E. C. (1935). An examination of
Higher Education, 23(1), 47-59. examinations. London: Macmillan.
Boud, D. (1995). Enhancing learning through self- Heron, J. (1981). Assessment revisited. In D. Boud (Ed.),
assessment. London: Kogan Page. Developing student autonomy in learning. London: Kogan
Boud, D. and Falchikov, N. (1989). Quantitative studies of Page.
student self-assessment in higher education: a critical Hounsell, D., McCulloch, M. and Scott, M. (Eds.). (1996).
analysis of findings. Higher Education, 18, 529-549. The ASSHE Inventory:changing assessment practices in
Brown, G. (with Bull, J. and Pendlebury, M.). (1997). Scottish higher education. Edinburgh: The University of
Assessing student learning in higher education. London: Edinburgh and Napier University.
Routledge. Kember, D. (2003). To control or not to control: the
Cox, R. (1967). Examinations and higher education: a question of whether experimental designs are appropriate
survey of the literature. University Quarterly, 21, 292-340. for evaluating innovations in higher education. Assessment
D’Augelli, A. R. (1973). The assessment of interpersonal and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 89-101.
skills: a comparison of observer, peer and self ratings. Laming, D. (1990). The reliability of a certain university
Journal of Community Psychology, 1, 177-179. examination compared with the precision of absolute
Earl, S. (1986). Staff and peer assessment - measuring an judgements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
individual’s contribution to group performance. Psychology, 42A, 239-254.
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 11, 60- Lejk, M. and Wyvill, M. (2002). Peer assessment of
69. contributions to a group project: student attitudes to holistic
Eisenberg, T. (1965). Are doctoral comprehensive and category-based approaches. Assessment and
examinations necessary? American Psychologist, 20, 168- Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 569-577.
169.

107
FALCHIKOV

Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New Sherman, L. W. (1991, April). Cooperative learning in post
York: McGraw Hill. secondary education: implications from social psychology
Melvin, K. B. and Lord, A. T. (1995). The prof/peer method for active learning experiences. Paper presented at the
of evaluating class participation: interdisciplinary annual meeting of the American Educational Research
generality. College Student Journal, 29, 258-263. Association, Chicago, IL.

Mueller, R. H. (1970). Is self-grading the answer? Journal Slavin, R. (1985) An introduction to cooperative learning
of Higher Education, 41, 221-224. research. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Herz-
Lazarowitz, C. Webb and R. Schmuck (Eds.) Learning to
Murstein, B. I. (1965). The relationship of grade cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 5-16). New York:
expectations and grades believed to be deserved to actual Plenum Press.
grades received. Journal of Experimental Education, 33,
357-362. Stanton, H. E. (1978). Self-grading as an assessment
method. Improving College and University Teaching, 26,
Newstead, S. E. and Dennis, I. (1994). Examiners 236-238.
examined: the reliability of exam marking in psychology.
The Psychologist, 7, 216-219. Stewart, S. and MacLeod, L. (Eds.). (1997). Student
teamworking: involving employers. Edinburgh: Napier
Orsmond, P., Merry, S. and Reiling, K. (2002). The use of University.
exemplars and formative feedback when using student
derived marking criteria in peer and self assessment. Taras, M. (2002). Using assessment for learning and
Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 309- learning from assessment. Assessment and Evaluation in
323. Higher Education, 27, 501-510.

Peters, R. S. (1975). Education and the educated man. In Wiggins, N. and Blackburn, M. (1969). Prediction of first
R. F. Dearden, P. H. Hirst and R. S. Peters (Eds.), year graduate success in psychology: peer ratings. The
Education and the development of reason: Part 1. A Journal of Educational Research, 68, 81-85.
critique of current educational aims (pp. 1-16). London: Zimitat, C. and Miflin, B. (2003). Using assessment to
Routledge and Kegan Paul. induct students and staff into the PBL tutorial process.
Piaget, J. (1971). Science of education and the psychology Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 17-
of the child. London: Longman. 32.

Rust, C., Price, M. and O’Donovan, B. (2003). Improving

students’ learning by developing their understanding of
assessment criteria and processes. Assessment and
Evaluation in Higher Education, 28, 147-164. Manuscript received on 24 February 2002
Revision accepted for publication on 9 May 2003

108