Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

ISSN: 0260-2938 (Print) 1469-297X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/caeh20

Formative self-and peer assessment for improved

student learning: the crucial factors of design,
teacher participation and feedback

Thomas Wanner & Edward Palmer

To cite this article: Thomas Wanner & Edward Palmer (2018): Formative self-and peer
assessment for improved student learning: the crucial factors of design, teacher participation and
feedback, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2018.1427698

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1427698

Published online: 18 Jan 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=caeh20
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1427698

Formative self-and peer assessment for improved student

learning: the crucial factors of design, teacher participation and
feedback
Thomas Wannera and Edward Palmerb
a
Faculty of Arts, Department of Anthropology and Development Studies, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia;
b
Faculty of Arts, School of Education, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Self and peer-assessment are becoming central aspects of student-centred Self-assessment; peer-
assessment processes in higher education. Despite increasing evidence assessment; student
that both forms of assessment are helpful for developing key capabilities learning; formative
in students, such as taking more responsibility for their own learning, assessment; assessment
design
developing a better understanding of the subject matter, assessment criteria
and their own values and judgements, and developing critical reflection
skills, both forms of assessment are still not the norm at universities. This
paper provides the findings of a two-year study of formative self and peer-
assessment at an Australian university. The study supports other research
showing that students tend to regard formative self and peer-assessment
as beneficial for gaining more insights about the assessment process and
for improving their own work. We argue that self and peer-assessment
requires careful design and implementation for it to be an effective tool
for formative assessment processes; and that the development of students’
capacities for giving feedback, and the continuous and timely involvement
of the teacher, are central aspects for successful self and peer-assessment.
The move to self and peer-assessment is not simple for teachers and students
but is worthwhile and necessary for twenty-first century higher education.

Introduction
We are currently in an environment where flexible learning, flipped classrooms, collaborative learning
and student-driven learning are strong themes in higher education. Assessment remains an integral
part of the learning experience for students, but has shifted from assessment processes designed and
solely implemented by the teacher to those designed for student engagement and empowerment in
flexible assessment practices (Boud and Falchikov 2007; Wanner and Palmer 2015). Accordingly, there
is increasing interest in and implementation of self and peer-assessment, also known in the literature
as self and peer review, in university courses.
There is strong evidence in the literature that self and peer-assessment can enhance student learn-
ing and develop key capabilities in students, such as taking more responsibility for their own learning
(moving from a passive to a more active learner); developing a better understanding of the subject
matter, assessment criteria and their own values and judgements; and developing critical reflection skills
(Boud 2013b; Falchikov 2013; Thomas, Martin, and Pleasants 2011). With more emphasis on students

CONTACT  Thomas Wanner  thomas.wanner@adelaide.edu.au

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2    T. WANNER AND E. PALMER

gaining more work-relatable skills and ‘work-integrated learning’, it is not surprising that there is an
increasingly strong advocacy for its use (Boud and Falchikov 2007; Nulty 2011). However, the literature
also highlights that the implementation of self and peer-assessment is not easy, and engaging students
in those types of activities is challenging to both students and teacher. A recent study about flexible
learning and assessment by Wanner and Palmer (2015) has shown that issues of bias, trust and capability
play on students’ minds during self and peer-assessment activities.
Despite increasing interest, self and peer-assessment still remain at the margins of assessment prac-
tices in higher education. It is still the norm that academic teachers ‘retain all the ownership and power
in the assessment process and make all the choices’, but this limits the potential of learner development
through assessment (Spiller 2012, 2). There is a growing literature about student perceptions of self and
peer-assessment (Mulder, Pearce, and Baik 2014; Mulder et al. 2014; Van Zundert, Sluijsmans, and Van
Merriënboer 2010; Vickerman 2009), but more studies to show how the design and implementation
of self and peer-assessment can be made more effective are required. Hanrahan and Isaacs (2001, 67)
asked for further research as the case by case literature about the implementation and benefits of self
and peer-assessment is ‘still alarmingly sparse’. Kaufman and Schunn (2011), in a more recent study, also
highlighted the need for more research into students’ perceptions about peer-assessment. Similarly,
Nicol, Thomson, and Breslin (2014, 119) state that ‘There is no doubt that more research is required on
peer review and its different components, including more studies of students’ experiences, perceptions
and responses to the different feedback arrangements that are possible during its implementation’.
This article intends to contribute to this growing literature by focusing on what works and what does
not for higher education students in formative self and peer-assessment processes which followed the
‘best practice’ principles as identified in the literature. It is based on a study of geography courses in
2015 and 2016 where formative self and peer-assessment was built into the learning process, and the
views and experiences of the students were gathered. The research question for this study was ‘how
effective is this specific implementation of self and peer assessment in helping students improve their
own learning and their understanding of assessment?’

Background
Assessment for learning and assessment as learning
Assessment remains the main motivator for student learning and the way to gauge the extent and qual-
ity of student learning in higher education. Aligning learning activities and outcomes with assessment
is thus seen as the key to student learning (Biggs 2011). Concomitant to the changes in higher educa-
tion toward more flexible delivery, online and blended learning, student-driven learning and student
engagement, is the increasing interest in using peer and self-assessment as part of the assessment
process. There are several key reasons for this. In the move to more student-centred (or learning-centred,
as we prefer and will use throughout this paper) teaching and learning at universities, new assessment
practices should be based on students and teachers becoming ‘responsible partners in learning and
assessment’ (Boud 2013b, 3), with students being more responsible for assessment rather than receiving
assessment from only the course instructor. Second, with the focus on life-long and work-integrated
learning, the ability of students to be able to evaluate and improve their own work has become more
valued in a globalised society and economy (Boud and Falchikov 2007). Third, overall educational and
pedagogical changes in higher education where an increased demand on universities to provide quality
and accountability of teaching and learning within fixed budgetary constraints has led to a renewed
interest on assessment practices. As stated by James et al. (James, McInnis, and Devlin 2002, 3), the
‘renewal of assessment practices is at the forefront of efforts to improve teaching and learning’.
There is thus increased interest in moving away from assessment of learning (summative assessment),
not only towards assessment for learning (formative assessment), but also assessment as learning where
the assessment process becomes part of learning of skills and students reflect on and assess their own
learning (Dann 2014; Wiliam 2011). Assessment and learning could be viewed as one process where
 ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION   3

assessment becomes integral to student learning, and where students increasingly become part of the
assessment process (Thomas, Martin, and Pleasants 2011).
Student assessment has become integral to the assessment in massive open online courses (MOOCs),
where peer assessment is a widely used assessment approach (Suen 2014). Despite a wide variety of
peer assessment processes in MOOCs, there is much concern by students about the quality of peer
assessment with students generally not trusting the results of peer marks, and, unlike peer assessment in
conventional teaching there is not much teacher involvement in the peer assessment process (Admiraal,
Huisman, and Van de Ven 2014; Suen 2014).
There is a possible contradiction in this ‘renewal of assessment practices’ in that increasing stu-
dent numbers and significant resource constraints may seem to be driving this change, rather than an
emphasis on student-centred learning (Hanrahan and Isaacs 2001). Gibbs et al. (2005, 8), for example,
argued that ‘resource constraints in conventional universities have led to a reduction in the frequency
of assignments, in the quantity and quality of feedback and in the timeliness of this feedback’, which
also led to a decline in formative assessment. Peer assessment, as O’Toole (2013, 10) states in the
context of MOOCs and online learning, is a ‘complex problem’ which requires constant innovation and
improvements. This is why studies, such as the one reported in this paper, are vital to shed light on the
rationales and implications of these assessment practices.

The importance of feedback in formative assessment

Self-assessment is defined by Andrade and Du (2007) as a:
process of formative assessment during which students reflect on and evaluate the quality of their work and their
learning, judge the degree to which they reflect explicitly stated goals or criteria, identify strengths and weaknesses
in their work, and revise accordingly.
Peer-assessment is linked to self-assessment, and ‘requires students to provide either feedback or
grades (or both) to their peers on a product or a performance, based on the criteria of excellence for
that product or event which students may have been involved in determining’ (Falchikov 2007, 132).
The goal is that students help each other through their feedback and make judgements about their
own work and the work of others using pre-determined criteria of quality. The use and study of form-
ative assessment and self and peer-assessment has a strong history (Sadler 1989; Dochy, Segers, and
Sluijsmans 1999; Black, Harrison, & Lee, 2004) and there is now a wide body of literature that highlights
the benefits of both formative self and peer-assessment. Dochy, Segers, and Sluijsmans (1999, 345), in
their review from studies over two decades ago, emphasised that these practices lead to more effective
teaching and learning overall, a better learning climate, and that student-student and teacher-student
interaction and increased

• student confidence in their ability to perform;

• awareness of the quality of the student’s own work;
• student performance on assessments and quality of the learning output;
• student responsibility for their own learning and independence;
• student satisfaction with assessment and feedback

The role and quality of feedback is important for effective formative self and peer-assessment. The
lack of quality and timely feedback for their work is highlighted time and again in student satisfaction
surveys, and is the most criticised aspect of their university education (Boud and Molloy 2013; Nicol,
Thomson, and Breslin 2014). Much has been written about what constitutes good quality feedback, and
many suggestions for improving feedback for and from students have been made. In a learning-cen-
tred approach it is as much about developing the students’ capacities for fair, critical and constructive
feedback as it is to develop these skills in the teacher. Nicol, Thomson, and Breslin (2014) argue that
we need to move away from old feedback models where the teacher is the feedback transmitter to
4    T. WANNER AND E. PALMER

more active involvement of the learner in feedback. Boud and Molloy (2013, 710) also stress the need
to rethink feedback for better learning and an active role of the student. They state the need to move:

(1) From an act of teachers to an act of students in which teachers are part (from unilateral to
co-constructed; from monologue to dialogue).
(2) From the almost exclusive use of teachers to that of many others (from single source to mul-
tiple sources).
(3) From an act of students as individuals to one that necessarily implicates peers (from individ-
ualistic to collectivist).
(4) From a collection of isolated acts to a designed sequence of development over time (from
unitary items to curriculum).

This indicates there needs to be more help for students to develop evaluative and feedback skills,
and learn how to use the feedback they have received and have provided to other peers for their own
learning and improvement of their work (Cartney 2010; Cho and MacArthur 2010).

Challenges and limitations

Nicol (2011) showed in a report about peer-assessment in the UK that many factors can undermine
its successful implementation. These include how software technology was used, if it works properly,
whether students resist assessment when they do not see the value of it, or resist providing marks for
their peers. From our own experience, when the PeerMark component of Turnitin did not function
during the peer assessment process in our study in 2014, students were not only frustrated but were
unable to complete the formative assessment processes. Hanrahan and Isaacs (2001) also stressed the
problems with implementation, such as that self and peer-assessment is not taken seriously by students
if no mark is attached, or that they find it too time consuming for the perceived benefits.
The students’ negative attitudes and hence resistance to peer and self-assessment are one of the
major challenges for successful implementation (Kaufman and Schunn 2011; Van Zundert, Sluijsmans,
and Van Merriënboer 2010). It is in particular the issue of fairness – with students not seeing it as fair
to assess and give marks to others, or getting low quality feedback from their peers, or feeling the
final mark is unfair – which results in resistance to self and peer-assessment by students (Kaufman and
Schunn 2011). This may be a key aspect of peer assessment given Taras’ assertion that proper formula-
tion of formative assessment requires a summative judgement (Taras 2008). Some ways to overcome
such challenges are to provide information about the self and assessment process early on, combine
self and peer-assessment, conduct the peer-assessment anonymously and provide students with many
practice sessions.
In 2014, Wanner and Palmer (2015) evaluated flexible learning and the flipped classroom. Part of that
study investigated self and peer-assessment. The unpublished results form Table 1 and show a large
percentage of students in the pre-and post-course survey having no strong opinion regarding these
practices. This neutral cohort could potentially swing either way depending on teaching strategies
used. So we were interested to study more what kind of teaching strategies and assessment format
are required for successful self and peer assessment. We designed this study in which ‘best practice’
strategies for self and peer assessment were implemented, and then gathered and analysed the views
of the students on their overall engagement with the self and peer assessment processes.

Methodology
In 2015 and 2016, one of the authors (TW) used formative self and peer-assessment as an integral part
of the assessment process in two advanced university courses in the social sciences. The intention was
to encourage and stimulate student engagement in assessment for learning, and provide them with
the opportunity to reflect and improve on their own work through formative peer and self-assessment.
Table 1. Student views of self and peer-assessment (study in 2014).

Pre-self and peer-assessment experience Percentage agreeing with statement Percentage neutral regarding statement Percentage disagreeing with statement
From past experience and what I’ve heard so far, self-as- 43 43 14
sessment (students evaluate their own work) is an
effective way to improve my own work.
From past experience and what you have heard so far, 33 49 18
peer-assessment (students evaluate the work of their
peers) should be part of the assessment process.
From past experience and what I’ve heard so far, peer-as- 43 41 16
sessment (students evaluate the work of their peers) is an
effective way to improve my own work.
Post-self and peer-assessment experience      
From my experience in this course, self-assessment (stu- 45 41 13
dents evaluate their own work) was an effective way to
improve my own work.
From my experience in this course, peer-assessment (stu- 47 32 21
dents evaluate the work of their peers) was an effective
way to improve my own work.
ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION 
 5
6    T. WANNER AND E. PALMER

A major assessment component, worth 30%, for the courses was a research report or essay or tutorial
learning journal of 1500 words. Students were asked to peer assess (without grading) the assignments
of two other students who did the same type of assignment, and to provide a self-review of their own
assignment using the assignment rubric (worth an additional 10%). In 2015, a control group mechanism
was built into the assessment process, in that about half of the students did the self/peer-assessment
process for one major assignment (essay or report), whereas the other half of the class did the self/
peer-assessment of another major assignment (tutorial learning journal). This meant that for each major
assignment half of the class did and the other half did not perform the peer and self-assessment process
for the assignment. This approach was not used in 2016 because students found the random separation
into the two groups (peer/self-assessed or not) for their assignment unfair. The perception of unfair-
ness, as shown in last section, is one of the major hindrances for student motivation to be engaged in
self and peer assessment processes There were 83 students enrolled in the course in 2015 (55 female)
and 71 in 2016 (48 female). There were 9 international students in 2015 and 8 in 2016, all from Europe.
The process of self and peer-assessment in the course was based on ‘best practice’ principles iden-
tified in the literature. These principles were applied to the courses as indicated in Table 2.

(1) Self/peer-assessment as formative assessment: practice peer and self-assessment is done prior to

final submission of assignments; providing the students to reflect on work and the opportunity
to improve own work through the received peer feedback (Falchikov 2007; Sadler 1989, 1998).
(2) Involve students with assessment criteria so that the quality requirements are clearer to students
(Nulty 2008; Rust, Price, and O’donovan 2003).
(3) Students need practice in self/peer-assessment (Dochy, Segers, and Sluijsmans 1999; Falchikov
2007; Van Zundert, Sluijsmans, and Van Merriënboer 2010): practice and experience lead to
more positive student attitudes to self and peer-assessment.
(4) Students do not want peers to mark their work (Dochy, Segers, and Sluijsmans 1999; Moore and
Teather 2013; Van Zundert, Sluijsmans, and Van Merriënboer 2010): student did not give marks
to other students during the peer assessment process;
(5) Students value the process more if it is assessed (Boud, Cohen, and Sampson 1999): students
received feedback and a mark (10% of overall mark) from the teacher for their peer and self-as-
sessment efforts.
(6) Students want immediate feedback (Kearney 2013): peer feedback was made immediately avail-
able after the peer-assessment period (1 week); students had one week to review and resubmit
their own assignment.
(7) Students value anonymity (Nicol 2011): students submitted their assignments without their
names on it; the peer-assessment was anonymous.
(8) Make self-evaluation an essential part of the formative assessment (Nulty 2008): self-assessment
was included in the process.
(9) Modelling and scaffolding of the process (Andrade and Du 2007; Falchikov 2007): see Table 2 for
the scaffolding process which included a session on how to do the peer and self-assessment.

To determine student perceptions of self and peer-assessment the authors canvassed opinion using
surveys and focus groups. There were two surveys, distributed on paper by one of the authors (EP)
who was not involved in the teaching of the course. EP also ran two focus groups at the end of the
course to provide greater understanding of some of the issues raised in the surveys. All participation
was voluntary. One survey was run at the beginning of the course and one at its conclusion. They were
developed by the authors, and teachers in the Faculty of Arts tested them for face validity. Students
had the terminology explained to them both in class and in the introduction to the survey.
Table 2. Overview of the self and peer-assessment process.

Week Activities Principle

1 Students are introduced to the assessment format in the first lecture; and provided with information about self and peer-assessment. 1, 9
2 Students do a quiz about assessment requirements. One of the questions is about self and peer-assessment. 1
3 Face-to-face tutorial (2 h) about self and peer-assessment: the purpose and value of self and peer-assessment is covered; assessment criteria are developed and discussed; 1, 2, 3, 9
and a practice run of self and peer-assessment is done using a sample assignment. At the start of the session, they worked in pairs and provided peer feedback to each
other for a short (300 words) critical review they had prepared for the reading of the week.
6 Students submit the final draft of their assignment. PeerMark in Turnitin allocates each student two assignments for peer-assessment anonymously. 7
7 Students complete two peer-assessments and a self-assessment of their own assignment using the assessment rubric. No grades are requested or recorded. The process 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
itself is worth 10% and due back within a week
8 Students resubmit their revised assignment for marking by the course convenor. 5
ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION 
 7
8    T. WANNER AND E. PALMER

Findings: experiences and views of students

In 2015, 24 students completed the survey prior to instruction and 23 completed the post-course survey.
The responding students had previously experienced peer (59%) and self-assessment (54%) in their
learning. Students expressed a level of anxiousness about using peer and self-assessment on a scale of
1–10 (1 = not anxious). Students were more anxious about peer-assessment (median 3.5, interquartile
range 2–6) than self-assessment (median 2, interquartile range 1–4.75). They also commented on a
range of other aspects about the two assessment approaches, as shown in Table 3, which shows the
students’ attitudes based on previous experience, and their expected and actual experiences. Students’
reported spending a median time of 31–45 min on self-assessment and 61–90 min on peer-assessment.
There were 15 written responses from students to questions on the value of self and peer-assessment.
Thematic analysis showed that five students valued the critical analysis aspect of self-assessment, with
three stating that it improved their work. With regards to peer-assessment, seven students felt that it
was valuable to be able to compare their work with others in order to see where they ranked, and four
students noted that it helped them improve their work. Criticisms (one student each) included it being
a waste of time, not being of much benefit and receiving conflicting feedback from other students. One
student noted ‘Because it was assessed, I put in a lot of effort over and above what was beneficial for
my learning in order to maximise my grades. Thus good use of time is decreased’.
In 2016, the course was similar to that in 2015, but in light of comments about spending too much
time on the task and the mixed quality of feedback, an extended session on doing self and peer-assess-
ment was conducted. Students were then asked similar questions to 2015 but only at the end of the
course. The results are shown in Table 4. Students showed relatively low levels of satisfaction with both
peer and self-assessment (medians of 4 and 5 respectively) and yet agreed with most of the statements
in the survey, reflecting an overall positive approach to the assessment, although the results were more
neutral when it came to deciding if peer and self-assessment should be used in other courses (medi-
ans = 3). Students spent a median of 16–30 min on self-assessment and 46–60 min on peer-assessment.
These are both lower than the times reported being spent in 2015. Students were quite clear in stating
that peer-assessment should always be anonymous and were relatively neutral when it came to pro-
viding a mark along with their feedback. Gratifyingly, many students reported that they modified their
work based on both self and peer-assessment, with more reporting doing so on the latter.
In the open-ended comments, 29 students responded to the question ‘Please provide any further
information regarding your thoughts on self and peer-assessment’. Thematic analysis showed some
strong themes, specifically that peer and self-assessment was a good way to engage with the criteria
(21% of students indicated this), that is was appropriate for drafts or formative work (21%). However,
students were concerned that: (i) these activities required more oversight by the teacher (17%); (ii) they
were not experts in marking and lacked the required skills (14%); and (iii) that peer and self-assessment
were being used to shift workload from staff onto students (14%).

Table 3. Students’ attitudes on peer and self-assessment in 2015.

Self-assessment Prior experience Anticipated experience Actual experience

It is/will be/was a valuable part of assessing my own 2 [2–2.75] 2 [2–2.75] 2 [1–2]
learning
It helped/will help/did help me to improve my work 3 [2–3] 2 [2–2.75] 2 [1–2]
It is/will be/was a good use of my time 2 [2–3] 2 [2–3] 2 [1–3]
It should be part of most courses 2.5 [1.25–3]   2 [1–3.25]
Peer-assessment      
It is/will be/was a valuable part of assessing my own 2 [2–3] 2 [2–3] 2 [1–2]
learning
It helped/will help/did help me to improve my work 2 [2–3] 2 [2–2] 2 [1–2]
It is/will be/was a good use of my time 2 [2–3] 2 [2–3] 2 [1–2.5]
It should be part of most courses 3 [2–3]   2 [1–3]
Note: Results expressed as median [interquartile range], 1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree, 3 = no opinion/neutral.
 ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION   9

Table 4. Student views of self and peer-assessment in 2016.

Result
Median
Question [Interquartile range]
The practice session on self and peer-assessment was helpful 2 [2–3]
 I understood the assessment criteria used for self and peer-assessment 2 [2–2]
10% was an appropriate percentage for the self and peer-assessment exercise 2 [2–3]
Self-assessment  
 It was a valuable part of assessing my own learning 2 [2–3]
 It helped me to improve my work 2 [1–3]
 It was a good use of my time 2.5 [2–4]
 It should be part of most courses 3 [2–4]
 I was confident in marking my own work 2 [2–3.25]
 I modified my work based on the self-assessment 2 [2–3]
Please provide the amount of time you spent doing the self-assessment (in minutes) 2 [2–3] (16-30 min)
Please rate your overall satisfaction level doing the self-assessment in this course (1 = very satisfied, 5 [3–7]
10= very dissatisfied)
Peer-assessment  
 It was a valuable part of assessing my own learning 2 [2–3]
 It helped me to improve my work 2 [1–3]
 It was a good use of my time 2 [1.75–4]
 It should be part of most courses 3 [2–4]
 I was confident in marking other people's work 2 [2–4]
  Peer-assessment should always be anonymous 1 [1–2]
 The student peer reviewer should give a mark along with feedback 2.5 [2–4]
 I learned a lot from giving feedback to my peers 2 [2–3.25]
 I learned a lot from receiving feedback from my peers 2 [2–4]
 I modified my work based on the feedback provided to me by my peers 2 [1–3]
Please provide the amount of time you spent doing the peer-assessment (in minutes) 4 [2–4] (46-60 min)
Please rate your overall satisfaction level doing the peer-assessment in this course (1 = very satisfied, 4 [2–7.75]
10= very dissatisfied).
Please rate your honest contribution to the peer-assessment process 2 [1–2.5]
1=highly engaged (provided extensive feedback and made use of the provided feedback)
2=engaged (provided moderate feedback and made use of provided feedback)
3=basically engaged (provided brief feedback and read provided feedback)
Note: Results expressed as median [interquartile range], 1 = strongly agree, 5 = strongly disagree, 3 = no opinion/neutral.

In the open-ended comments, students further highlighted that the self and peer-assessment helped
them to improve:
By reading and reviewing another student’s work it not only assists the other student but also gives you another
perspective of how another student has interpreted the task. By reading their work it may allow you to then include
additions to your own piece as they might have understood the assignment a little better.
By re-analysing my own work against the research essay rubric I was able to identify errors that I had made in my
initial submission.
They reported having more confidence in their own work:
Often when completing pieces of assessment it is easy to become confused and doubtful regarding the quality and
direction of your work. However, by having a peer review your work it meant that you could receive constructive
feedback that would help improve your work prior to final submission
and gained more understanding of the assessment process and criteria:
Peer-assessing other students work enabled me to engage with other essay topics and helped me to understand
what makes a particularly good essay, and gave me the opportunity to provide useful feedback for them. It allowed
me to get into the mind-set of an assessor and consequently helped me to realise how important it is to stick to
the assessment criteria.
Used with caution this can be a useful learning process, not just in evaluating work, but also showing students how
difficult it is (even for teachers) to do assessments.
Some students felt that the self and peer-assessment was a waste of time and that they did not
benefit from it, mainly because of poor or contradictory feedback from their peers:
10    T. WANNER AND E. PALMER

My peers are not the markers in this case and if they have misunderstood any part of the assignment I feel that
could be detrimental to my final grade.
The peer reviews were somewhat confusing, in that the comments provided were fairly contradictory. I was not
sure what areas should be adjusted according to the comments.
Due to their lack of [first reviewer’s] feedback, I began to self-doubt all aspects of my essay: from the quality, my
argument through to the style I had written. The second reviewer put my mind at ease, as a result of the quality
of their constructive comments.

Impact on student learning

There was a control group in 2015 to see how students doing the self and peer-assessment compared
with those which did not. There was no significant improvement in marks for those doing the self and
peer-assessment, as shown in Figures 1a, 1b and 2.
Despite the students’ belief that the self and peer-assessment has helped them to improve the quality
of work, the self and peer-assessment process had no significant impact on improving students’ marks.
There was no difference based on the type of assignment.

Discussion
Enhancing student learning and understanding of assessment
Self and peer-assessment did not lead to improved marks for the assignments. In course 2 (see Table
2), the marks for the essay/report were even higher without self and peer-assessment. This means that
in this case self and peer-assessment was not about the improvement of student learning outcomes
in the sense of improving their marks. As Boud, Cohen, and Sampson (1999, 426) argued, formative
assessment is about peer learning which shifts ‘the emphasis away from learning outcomes towards
learning processes’. In line with the findings of other studies on self and peer-assessment (Mulder
et al. 2014), students thought that the self and peer-assessment improved the quality of their work.
As two students in 2015 stated, ‘it is an excellent way to improve the quality of your own work’ and
helped to ‘clarify the strengths and weaknesses’ in his/her own assignment. Students often missed
essential parts in their work such as providing an abstract or introduction for their essay, or including
references and adhering to the required referencing system. These omissions were corrected through

Figure 1a. Course 1: Student marks for essay/report with and without self/peer- assessment.
Note: *Fail and Fail No Submissions were put together for the ‘Fail’ mark
 ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION   11

Figure 1b.  Course 1: Student marks for tutorial learning journal with and without self/peer-assessment.
Note: *Fail and Fail No Submissions were put together for the ‘Fail’ mark.

Figure 2.  Course 2: Student marks for essay/report with and without self/peer-assessment.
Note: *Fail and Fail No Submissions were put together for the ‘Fail’ mark.

the peer-assessment process. It is beneficial for the students who use the formative self and peer-as-
sessment to improve the quality of their work even if it does not necessarily result in better marks. As
other studies also have argued (Nicol, Thomson, and Breslin 2014; Thomas, Martin, and Pleasants 2011),
student learning through formative self and peer-assessment is about learning essential skills required
in twenty-first century and for life-long learning, such as critical and reflective skills and being able to
assess own and other work. These skills are part of university attributes which students should learn
through higher education studies.
It is also beneficial for the teacher as she/he will mark work by students which has been revised
and had attention to grammar, structure and flow of the argument or points made. The formative self
and peer-assessment process, in particular the self-assessment, provides the opportunity to have, as
12    T. WANNER AND E. PALMER

one student commented ‘breathing space’ and additional time to reflect on their own work. Students
usually do not not take the time to go over their work again. As one student said:
I found the self-review process to be quite helpful. It forced me to take a step back from my work and then come
back to it after a period of time with fresh eyes. I find often when working on assignments I don’t do this as I am
too focused on completing the work and ensuring it is submitted on time. (Student in 2016)
One of the students with a learning difficulty appreciated the self and peer-assessment process
for the added help with editing the work: ‘Being dyslexic, heavy editing is always needed on my own
work, so I think that this exercise really helped for that purpose’. Although many students regarded the
self-assessment task as challenging because they found it difficult to critically analyse their own work,
they overall found the time spent on it very useful (Table 4). These points underline the importance of
self and peer-assessment for improving self-reflective and critical capacities in students.
The issue of improved student grades from the use of peer and self-assessment is of interest. This
study showed no learning outcomes were linked to this assessment activity. A strong argument could
be put forward that the improvement in grades through the use of peer and self-assessment is not an
overall objective, although there was a constructive alignment of learning outcomes and assessment
tasks in this study. The use of new assessment methods potentially produces new and unexpected
learning outcomes which may differ substantially from those typically provided through essays, reports
and examinations. We also note that students in the second cohort spent less time on both peer and
self-assessment. It is not clear what the cause for this was, but perhaps it played a part in having no
impact on final grades.

The importance of quality feedback

The importance of receiving and being able to provide quality feedback is central to effective peer-as-
sessment (Boud and Molloy 2013; Moore and Teather 2013; Nicol, Thomson, and Breslin 2014). What
‘quality’ feedback means can be contentious and subjective. If students do not receive constructive
feedback from their peers they consider it unfair as it can put them at a disadvantage, and unfair if
they have provided, in their view, constructive feedback but did not receive it. The ability to provide
quality feedback is thus important for reducing students’ perceptions of unfairness, which in turn can
increase student motivation and engagement with self and peer-assessment (Moore and Teather 2013).
In order to learn what high quality feedback means and to learn to make judgements about other
work, students need:
to be exposed to, and gain experience in making judgements about, a variety of works of different quality… require
planned rather than random exposure to exemplars, and experience in making judgements about quality… and
need to engage in evaluative conversations with teachers and other students. (Sadler 2010, 544)
It is, however, problematic as currently these kinds of student capabilities are ‘weakly developed
in higher education, even though these skills are highly valued in all aspects of life beyond university’
(Nicol 2011, 8). The ability to construct and provide quality feedback is a crucial skill for students to
develop. But it is more than that, as students also need to learn to understand the feedback given and
then to use it for their own work to close the ‘gap between feedback given and feedback effectively
used by them’ (Cartney 2010, 560).
It is mainly the responsibility of the faculties and universities to develop these capacities in students,
which is often acknowledged in university graduate attributes. Teachers, however, play a central role in
using assessment and feedback to improve student learning which includes the responsibility to: ‘(a)
develop their own skills in providing quality feedback, and (b) develop in students the skills they need
to provide sound feedback to each other’ (Boud 2013a, 2). This area – the development of teachers’ capa-
bilities for providing quality and timely feedback - is not very well researched or an area of professional
development for higher education teachers. It is often assumed that teachers can provide constructive
feedback to students which has positive effects on student learning because they have the experience
and expertise in the field. ‘It should be clear that providing and receiving feedback requires much skill
 ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION   13

by students and teachers’, but these skills need to be developed in both students and teachers so that
feedback can be ‘one of the most powerful influences on learning’ (Hattie and Timperley 2007, 103,104).

The critical importance of the teacher

The teacher brings many resources to the assessment process which include, inter alia, superior knowl-
edge of the content to be learned, an understanding of and empathy towards how learners learn, deep
knowledge of the assessment process and the assessment criteria, and the evaluative skills to make
judgements about student work (Sadler 1998, 80–82).
However, as Boud, Cohen, and Sampson (1999, 418) pointed out almost 20 years ago, assessment
is usually ‘framed to de-emphasise collaboration fostered in peer learning [through peer-assessment]’,
and is the ‘the principal mechanism where staff exercise power and control over students’. This kind of
mind-set and resistance to including students in the assessment process through self and peer-assess-
ment, and other more flexible and student-centred learning approaches, is still dominant, as expressed
by one of the teachers interviewed in our 2014 study:
The whole idea is wrong-headed and just an exercise in marketing and cost-cutting. It shows a lack of respect
for the intellectual authority of instructors and is depriving students of the guidance they are entitled to receive.
From our experiences, it is certainly not the case that self and peer-assessment will help reduce the
time or workload of teachers, as argued by others (Hanrahan and Isaacs 2001, 54; Nicol, Thomson, and
Breslin 2014, 103). On the contrary, incorporating formative self and peer-assessment, including the
strategies for students to learn the skills for effective quality feedback, will substantially increase the
teacher’s time and workload.
It is possible that some responses and behaviours are due to the Hawthorne Effect (the effect of
knowing that you are being observed affecting the observations). In this case it could have affected the
earlier cohorts’ results. We are confident that this was minimised, mainly by separating the student-fac-
ing researcher and the teacher. Despite this potential limitation in our study, others existed, such as
the small number of participants in 2015 and that only those students with an interest in learning,
assessment and feedback might have participated in our study. Nonetheless, some important lessons
for the design and implementation of self and peer-assessment can be drawn:

(1) Self and peer-assessment should only be used as a formative assessment process: it is about
the focus on students learning important twenty-first century workplace and higher education
skills, such as critical thinking and self-reflective skills. It is not an effective tool and not valued
by the students if self and peer-assessment are used for summative purposes.
(2) Students need to be part of the assessment and feedback process from the start of the course:
include students for setting assessment tasks, designing assessment criteria, and providing
feedback to other students. This gives students a sense of ownership and shifts the power of
the assessment process from the teacher to the students.
(3) Students need to learn how to provide effective feedback. With more and more practice doing
self and peer-assessment students will become more competent in providing and using feed-
back. However, there need to be lessons on what quality feedback means and how it can be
used for improving work.
(4) The teacher is central to the successful implementation of formative self and peer-assessment.
Teachers therefore need training and support to learn how to include students and how to
provide effective and timely feedback to students, and also how to teach students to learn how
to give quality and helpful feedback to their peers. We also found that the teacher’s involvement
at the end of the feedback cycle is not very beneficial to student learning, and that the teacher
needs to be part of feedback as learning throughout the feedback cycle.
14    T. WANNER AND E. PALMER

Conclusion
Self and peer-assessment are critical elements of current transformations in assessment practices in
the higher education sector in Australia and elsewhere in the world. This paper has discussed student
perceptions and experiences with self and peer-assessment as formative assessment in two geography
courses. Our study has shown that students value formative self and peer-assessment as they can see
the benefits of being involved in the assessment and feedback process. They learn both from giving
and receiving feedback, gain a better understanding of assessment requirements and use the formative
self and peer-assessment to improve the quality of their work.
The outcomes of this study will not make it easier to convince students of the value of self and
peer-assessment, especially given that learning outcomes in the form of grade improvement may
not be realised. This does support student comments that they are not experts in the field they peer
assess in. Whilst they may be able to improve mechanics and readability, it may be that markers look
past these aspects to focus on higher order cognitive skills such as critical analysis and evaluation. Peer
assessment could be replaced with mentor feedback or community feedback where more experienced
students can provide input to other students.
An important area for future research, therefore, is the question of how we can make the self and
peer-assessment more flexible and personalised for students, and see if there is a specific kind of stu-
dent that may benefit most from it. It has been reported (Wanner and Palmer 2015) that students want
more flexible and personalised approaches to learning and assessment. This could mean that self and
peer-assessment is done in class rather than online. As one student in 2015 stated, ‘this process could
have been done in class by printing out the [assignment] and sharing it on a weekly or fortnightly basis.
I personally feel that I respond better to one-on-one feedback, rather than anonymous comments via
electronic means’. In class self and peer-assessment has the advantage that the teacher is present and
part of the process. Students also could work on different aspects of the assignment and move from table
to table to get full review about the assignment; or, more skilled students can work as peer support for
lower skilled students. The various level of skills students would bring to the self and peer-assessment
process could be determined by students’ self-assessment which can also include the area they think
they need to improve in their skills.
We are still far off the ‘required cultural shift where assessment is reconceptualised as an active
process done with rather than to students’ (Cartney 2010, 55; emphasis added). An increased imple-
mentation of formative self and peer-assessment, in combination with more flexible and personalised
learning (Boud and Molloy 2013; Keamy, Nicholas, Mahar & Herrick, 2007; Wanner and Palmer 2015)
will steadily bring about this required cultural shift, so that student learning can go beyond course or
programme learning outcomes and include the students as partners in the assessment process.

Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the students who participated in our study for their time and feedback; and two reviewers for their
insightful comments which helped us to improve the paper.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Thomas Wanner is a senior lecturer in the department of Anthropology and Development Studies, University of Adelaide.
His research and teaching interests concentrate on the political economy of sustainability issues and climate change
adaptation. He also has a strong interest in critical and innovative pedagogies and education for sustainability.
Edward Palmer is an associate professor in the School of Education, University of Adelaide. He is interested in all aspects
of curriculum design, focusing on assessment and the use of technology to aid learning.
 ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION   15

References
Admiraal, W., B. Huisman, and M. Van de Ven. 2014. “Self-and Peer Assessment in Massive Open Online Courses.” International
Journal of Higher Education 3 (3): 119–128.
Andrade, H., and Y. Du. 2007. “Student Responses to Criteria-Referenced Self-Assessment.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education 32 (2): 159–181.
Biggs, J. B.. 2011. Teaching for Quality Learning at University: What the Student Does. London: McGraw-Hill Education.
Black, P., C. Harrison,  and C. Lee. 2004. Working Inside the Black Box: Assessment for Learning in the Classroom. PDK
International 86 (1): 8–21.
Boud, D. 2013a. Assessment 2020: Seven Propositions for Assessment Reform in Higher Education [online] 2010. Sydney:
Australian Learning and Teaching Council.
Boud, D. 2013b. Enhancing Learning through Self-assessment. London: Routledge.
Boud, D., and N. Falchikov. 2007. Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education: Learning for the Longer Term. London:  Routledge.
Boud, D., and E. Molloy. 2013. “Rethinking Models of Feedback for Learning: The Challenge of Design.” Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education 38 (6): 698–712.
Boud, D., R. Cohen, and J. Sampson. 1999. “Peer Learning and Assessment.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education
24 (4): 413–426.
Cartney, P. 2010. “Exploring the Use of Peer Assessment as a Vehicle for Closing the Gap between Feedback Given and
Feedback Used.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35 (5): 551–564.
Cho, K., and C. MacArthur. 2010. “Student Revision with Peer and Expert Reviewing.” Learning and Instruction 20 (4): 328–338.
Dann, R. 2014. “Assessment as Learning: Blurring the Boundaries of Assessment and Learning for Theory, Policy and Practice.”
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 21 (2): 149–166.
Dochy, F., M. Segers, and D. Sluijsmans. 1999. “The Use of Self-, Peer and Co-assessment in Higher Education: A Review.”
Studies in Higher Education 24 (3): 331–350.
Falchikov, N. 2007. “The Place of Peers in Learning and Assessment.” Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning
for the longer term, 128–143.
Falchikov, N. 2013. Improving Assessment through Student Involvement: Practical Solutions for Aiding Learning in Higher and
Further Education. London: Routledge.
Gibbs, G., C. Simpson, P. Gravestock, and M. Hills. 2005. “Conditions Under which Assessment Supports Students’ Learning.”
Learning and Teaching in Higher Education 1: 3–31.
Hanrahan, S. J., and G. Isaacs. 2001. “Assessing Self- and Peer-assessment: The Students’ Views.” Higher Education Research
& Development 20 (1): 53–70.
Hattie, J., and H. Timperley. 2007. “The Power of Feedback.” Review of Educational Research 77 (1): 81–112.
James, R., C. McInnis, and M. Devlin. 2002. Assessing Learning in Australian Universities. Melbourne: The University of
Melbourne Centre for the Study of Higher Education.
Kaufman, J. H., and C. D. Schunn. 2011. “Students’ Perceptions about Peer Assessment for Writing: Their Origin and Impact
on Revision Work.” Instructional Science 39 (3): 387–406.
Keamy, R. L., H. R. Nicholas, S. Mahar, and C. Herrick. 2007. Personalising Education: From Research to Policy and Practice.
Melbourne: Office for Education Policy and Innovation. Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.
Kearney, S. 2013. “Improving Engagement: The Use of ‘Authentic self-and Peer-assessment for Learning’to Enhance the
Student Learning Experience.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 38 (7): 875–891.
Moore, C., and S. Teather. 2013. “Engaging Students in Peer Review: Feedback as Learning.” Issues in Educational Research
23 (2): 196–211.
Mulder, R., C. Baik, R. Naylor, and J. Pearce. 2014. “How does Student Peer Review Influence Perceptions, Engagement and
Academic Outcomes? A Case Study.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 39 (6): 657–677.
Mulder, R., J. M. Pearce, and C. Baik. 2014. “Peer Review in Higher Education: Student Perceptions Before and After
Participation.” Active Learning in Higher Education 15 (2): 157–171.
Nicol, D. 2011. Peer Evaluation in Education Review. Bristol, UK: JISC Final Report.
Nicol, D., A. Thomson, and C. Breslin. 2014. “Rethinking Feedback Practices in Higher Education: A Peer Review Perspective.”
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 39 (1): 102–122.
Nulty, D. 2008. A Guide to Peer and Self Assessment: Approaches and Practice Strategies for Academics. Griffith Institute for
Higher Education, Griffith University. Accessed https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/142108/
GuidePeerSelfAssessment-Long.pdf
Nulty, D. 2011. “Peer and Self-assessment in the First Year of University.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 36
(5): 493–507.
O’Toole, R. 2013. Pedagogical Strategies and Technologies for Peer Assessment in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs).
Discussion Paper. Coventry, UK: University of Warwick.
Rust, C., M. Price, and B. O’donovan. 2003. “Improving Students’ Learning by Developing their Understanding of Assessment
Criteria and Processes.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 28 (2): 147–164.
Sadler, D. R. 1989. “Formative Assessment and the Design of Instructional Systems.” Instructional Science 18 (2): 119–144.
16    T. WANNER AND E. PALMER

Sadler, D. R. 1998. “Formative Assessment: Revisiting the Territory.” Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice 5
(1): 77–84.
Sadler, D. R. 2010. “Beyond Feedback: Developing Student Capability in Complex Appraisal.” Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education 35 (5): 535–550.
Spiller, D. 2012. Assessment Matters: Self-assessment and Peer Assessment. Hamilton: University of Waikato. Accessed http://
www.waikato.ac.nz/tdu/pdf/booklets/9_SelfPeerAssessment.pdf.
Suen, H. K. 2014. “Peer Assessment for Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs).” The International Review of Research in Open
and Distributed Learning 15 (3): 312–327.
Taras, M. 2008. “Summative and Formative Assessment: Perceptions and Realities.” Active Learning in Higher Education 9
(2): 172–192.
Thomas, G., D. Martin, and K. Pleasants. 2011. “Using Self-and Peer-assessment to Enhance Students’ Future-learning in
Higher Education.” Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice 8 (1): 5.
Van Zundert, M., D. Sluijsmans, and J. Van Merriënboer. 2010. “Effective Peer Assessment Processes: Research Findings and
Future Directions.” Learning and Instruction 20 (4): 270–279.
Vickerman, P. 2009. “Student Perspectives on Formative Peer Assessment: An Attempt to Deepen Learning?” Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education 34 (2): 221–230.
Wanner, T., and E. Palmer. 2015. “Personalising Learning: Exploring Student and Teacher Perceptions about Flexible Learning
and Assessment in a Flipped University Course.” Computers & Education 88: 354–369.
Wiliam, D. 2011. “What is Assessment for Learning?” Studies in Educational Evaluation 37 (1): 3–14.