The Impact of Peer Assessment on Academic Performance: A Meta-analysis of Control Group Studies

Educational Psychology Review

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2020, Pages 481-509

  Double, Kit S ^a   McGrane, Joshua A ^a   Hopfenbeck, Therese N ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Effect size; Experimental design; Feedback; Formative assessment; Meta analysis; Peer assessment

Indexed keywords

EID: 85076844959     PISSN: 1040726X     EISSN: 1573336X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3     Document Type: Article

References (124)

1. *AbuSeileek, A. F., & Abualsha'r, A. (2014). Using peer computer-mediated corrective feedback to support EFL learners'. Language Learning & Technology, 18(1), 76-95.
2. Alqassab, M., Strijbos, J. W., & Ufer, S. (2018). Training peer-feedback skills on geometric construction tasks: Role of domain knowledge and peer-feedback levels. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33(1), 11–30.
3. *Anderson, N. O., & Flash, P. (2014). The power of peer reviewing to enhance writing in horticulture: Greenhouse management. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 26(3), 310–334.
4. *Bangert, A. W. (1995). Peer assessment: an instructional strategy for effectively implementing performance-based assessments. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of South Dakota.
5. *Benson, N. L. (1979). The effects of peer feedback during the writing process on writing performance, revision behavior, and attitude toward writing. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Colorado, Boulder.
6. *Bhullar, N., Rose, K. C., Utell, J. M., & Healey, K. N. (2014). The impact of peer review on writing in apsychology course: Lessons learned. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25(2), 91-106.
7. *Birjandi, P., & Hadidi Tamjid, N. (2012). The role of self-, peer and teacher assessment in promoting Iranian EFL learners’ writing performance. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(5), 513–533.
8. Birney, D. P., Beckmann, J. F., Beckmann, N., & Double, K. S. (2017). Beyond the intellect: Complexity and learning trajectories in Raven’s Progressive Matrices depend on self-regulatory processes and conative dispositions. Intelligence, 61, 63–77.
9. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.
10. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability (formerly: Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education), 21(1), 5.
11. Bloom, A. J., & Hautaluoma, J. E. (1987). Effects of message valence, communicator credibility, and source anonymity on reactions to peer feedback. The Journal of Social Psychology, 127(4), 329–338.
12. Brown, G. T., Irving, S. E., Peterson, E. R., & Hirschfeld, G. H. (2009). Use of interactive–informal assessment practices: New Zealand secondary students' conceptions of assessment. Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 97–111.
13. *Califano, L. Z. (1987). Teacher and peer editing: Their effects on students' writing as measured by t-unit length, holistic scoring, and the attitudes of fifth and sixth grade students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Northern Arizona University.
14. *Chaney, B. A., & Ingraham, L. R. (2009). Using peer grading and proofreading to ratchet student expectations in preparing accounting cases. American Journal of Business Education, 2(3), 39-48.
15. *Chang, S. H., Wu, T. C., Kuo, Y. K., & You, L. C. (2012). Project-based learning with an online peer assessment system in a photonics instruction for enhancing led design skills. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET, 11(4), 236–246.
16. *Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2011). Learning by reviewing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(1), 73.
17. Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Charney, D. (2006). Commenting on writing: Typology and perceived helpfulness of comments from novice peer reviewers and subject matter experts. Written Communication, 23(3), 260–294.
18. Cook, D. J., Guyatt, G. H., Ryan, G., Clifton, J., Buckingham, L., Willan, A., et al. (1993). Should unpublished data be included in meta-analyses?: Current convictions and controversies. JAMA, 269(21), 2749–2753.
19. *Crowe, J. A., Silva, T., & Ceresola, R. (2015). The effect of peer review on student learning outcomes in a research methods course. Teaching Sociology, 43(3), 201–213.
20. *Diab, N. M. (2011). Assessing the relationship between different types of student feedback and the quality of revised writing. Assessing Writing, 16(4), 274-292.
21. Demetriadis, S., Egerter, T., Hanisch, F., & Fischer, F. (2011). Peer review-based scripted collaboration to support domain-specific and domain-general knowledge acquisition in computer science. Computer Science Education, 21(1), 29–56.
22. Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Sluijsmans, D. (1999). The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher Education, 24(3), 331–350.
23. Double, K. S., & Birney, D. (2017). Are you sure about that? Eliciting confidence ratings may influence performance on Raven’s progressive matrices. Thinking & Reasoning, 23(2), 190–206.
24. Double, K. S., & Birney, D. P. (2018). Reactivity to confidence ratings in older individuals performing the latin square task. Metacognition and Learning, 13(3), 309–326.
25. *Enders, F. B., Jenkins, S., & Hoverman, V. (2010). Calibrated peer review for interpreting linear regression parameters: Results from a graduate course. Journal of Statistics Education, 18(2).
26. *English, R., Brookes, S. T., Avery, K., Blazeby, J. M., & Ben-Shlomo, Y. (2006). The effectiveness and reliability of peer-marking in first-year medical students. Medical Education, 40(10), 965-972.
27. *Erfani, S. S., & Nikbin, S. (2015). The effect of peer-assisted mediation vs. tutor-intervention within dynamic assessment framework on writing development of Iranian Intermediate EFL Learners. English Language Teaching, 8(4), 128–141.
28. Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287–322.
29. *Farrell, K. J. (1977). A comparison of three instructional approaches for teaching written composition to high school juniors: teacher lecture, peer evaluation, and group tutoring (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Boston University, Boston.
30. Fisher, Z., Tipton, E., & Zhipeng, Z. (2017). robumeta: Robust variance meta-regression (Version 2). Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package = robumeta
31. Fleiss, J. L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 378.
32. Flórez, M. T., & Sammons, P. (2013). Assessment for learning: Effects and impact: CfBT Education Trust. England: Reading.
33. Fyfe, E. R., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2016). Feedback both helps and hinders learning: The causal role of prior knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(1), 82.
34. Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Struyven, K. (2010a). Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 304–315.
35. *Gielen, S., Tops, L., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., & Smeets, S. (2010b). A comparative study of peer and teacher feedback and of various peer feedback forms in a secondary school writing curriculum. British Educational Research Journal, 36(1), 143-162.
36. Gorard, S. (2002). Can we overcome the methodological schism? Four models for combining qualitative and quantitative evidence. Research Papers in Education Policy and Practice, 17(4), 345–361.
37. Graner, M. H. (1987). Revision workshops: An alternative to peer editing groups. The English Journal, 76(3), 40–45.
38. Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112.
39. Hays, M. J., Kornell, N., & Bjork, R. A. (2010). The costs and benefits of providing feedback during learning. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 17(6), 797–801.
40. Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass's estimator of effect size and related estimators. journal of. Educational Statistics, 6(2), 107–128.
41. Hedges, L. V., Tipton, E., & Johnson, M. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(1), 39–65.
42. Higgins, J. P., & Green, S. (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration. Version 5.1.0, www.handbook.cochrane.org
43. Hoaglin, D. C., & Iglewicz, B. (1987). Fine-tuning some resistant rules for outlier labeling. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82(400), 1147–1149.
44. Hopewell, S., McDonald, S., Clarke, M. J., & Egger, M. (2007). Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
45. *Horn, G. C. (2009). Rubrics and revision: What are the effects of 3 RD graders using rubrics to self-assess or peer-assess drafts of writing? (Unpublished doctoral thesis), Boise State University
46. Hox, J. J. (1998). Multilevel modeling: When and why. In I. Balderjahn, R. Mathar, & M. Schader (Eds.), Classification, data analysis, and data highways (pp. 147–154). New Yor: Springer Verlag.
47. *Hsia, L. H., Huang, I., & Hwang, G. J. (2016). A web-based peer-assessment approach to improving junior high school students’ performance, self-efficacy and motivation in performing arts courses. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(4), 618–632.
48. *Hsu, T. C. (2016). Effects of a peer assessment system based on a grid-based knowledge classification approach on computer skills training. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(4), 100-111.
49. *Hussein, M. A. H., & Al Ashri, El Shirbini A. F. (2013). The effectiveness of writing conferences and peer response groups strategies on the EFL secondary students' writing performance and their self efficacy (A Comparative Study). Egypt: National Program Zero.
50. *Hwang, G. J., Hung, C. M., & Chen, N. S. (2014). Improving learning achievements, motivations and problem-solving skills through a peer assessment-based game development approach. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(2), 129–145.
51. *Hwang, G. J., Tu, N. T., & Wang, X. M. (2018). Creating interactive E-books through learning by design: The impacts of guided peer-feedback on students’ learning achievements and project outcomes in science courses. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(1), 25–36.
52. *Kamp, R. J., van Berkel, H. J., Popeijus, H. E., Leppink, J., Schmidt, H. G., & Dolmans, D. H. (2014). Midterm peer feedback in problem-based learning groups: The effect on individual contributions and achievement. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 19(1), 53–69.
53. *Karegianes, M. J., Pascarella, E. T., & Pflaum, S. W. (1980). The effects of peer editing on the writing proficiency of low-achieving tenth grade students. The Journal of Educational Research, 73(4), 203-207.
54. *Khonbi, Z. A., & Sadeghi, K. (2013). The effect of assessment type (self vs. peer) on Iranian university EFL students’ course achievement. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 1552-1564.
55. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254.
56. Könings, K. D., van Zundert, M., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2019). Scaffolding peer-assessment skills: Risk of interference with learning domain-specific skills? Learning and Instruction, 60, 85–94.
57. *Kurihara, N. (2017). Do peer reviews help improve student writing abilities in an EFL high school classroom? TESOL Journal, 8(2), 450–470.
58. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.
59. *Li, L., & Gao, F. (2016). The effect of peer assessment on project performance of students at different learning levels. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(6), 885–900.
60. *Li, L., & Steckelberg, A. (2004). Using peer feedback to enhance student meaningful learning. Chicago: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
61. Li, H., Xiong, Y., Zang, X., Kornhaber, M. L., Lyu, Y., Chung, K. S., & Suen, K. H. (2016). Peer assessment in the digital age: a meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher ratings. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(2), 245–264.
62. *Lin, Y.-C. A. (2009). An examination of teacher feedback, face-to-face peer feedback, and google documents peer feedback in Taiwanese EFL college students’ writing. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Alliant International University, San Diego, United States
63. Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical Meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks: SAGE publications.
64. *Liu, C.-C., Lu, K.-H., Wu, L. Y., & Tsai, C.-C. (2016). The impact of peer review on creative self-efficacy and learning performance in Web 2.0 learning activities. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(2):286-297
65. Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30–43.
66. *McCurdy, B. L., & Shapiro, E. S. (1992). A comparison of teacher-, peer-, and self-monitoring with curriculum-based measurement in reading among students with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 26(2), 162-180.
67. Moeyaert, M., Ugille, M., Natasha Beretvas, S., Ferron, J., Bunuan, R., & Van den Noortgate, W. (2017). Methods for dealing with multiple outcomes in meta-analysis: a comparison between averaging effect sizes, robust variance estimation and multilevel meta-analysis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(6), 559–572.
68. *Montanero, M., Lucero, M., & Fernandez, M.-J. (2014). Iterative co-evaluation with a rubric of narrative texts in primary education. Journal for the Study of Education and Development, 37(1), 184-198.
69. Morris, S. B. (2008). Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest-control group designs. Organizational Research Methods, 11(2), 364–386.
70. *Olson, V. L. B. (1990). The revising processes of sixth-grade writers with and without peer feedback. The Journal of Educational Research, 84(1), 22–29.
71. Ossenberg, C., Henderson, A., & Mitchell, M. (2018). What attributes guide best practice for effective feedback? A scoping review. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 1–19.
72. *Ozogul, G., Olina, Z., & Sullivan, H. (2008). Teacher, self and peer evaluation of lesson plans written by preservice teachers. Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(2), 181.
73. Panadero, E., & Alqassab, M. (2019). An empirical review of anonymity effects in peer assessment, peer feedback, peer review, peer evaluation and peer grading. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–26.
74. Panadero, E., & Jonsson, A. (2013). The use of scoring rubrics for formative assessment purposes revisited: A review. Educational Research Review, 9, 129–144.
75. Panadero, E., Romero, M., & Strijbos, J. W. (2013). The impact of a rubric and friendship on peer assessment: Effects on construct validity, performance, and perceptions of fairness and comfort. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 39(4), 195–203.
76. *Papadopoulos, P. M., Lagkas, T. D., & Demetriadis, S. N. (2012). How to improve the peer review method: Free-selection vs assigned-pair protocol evaluated in a computer networking course. Computers & Education, 59(2), 182–195.
77. Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of second language writing, 8(3), 265–289.
78. Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: the science and design of educational assessment. Washington: National Academy Press.
79. Peters, O., Körndle, H., & Narciss, S. (2018). Effects of a formative assessment script on how vocational students generate formative feedback to a peer’s or their own performance. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33(1), 117–143.
80. *Philippakos, Z. A., & MacArthur, C. A. (2016). The effects of giving feedback on the persuasive writing of fourth-and fifth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 51(4), 419-433.
81. *Pierson, H. (1967). Peer and teacher correction: A comparison of the effects of two methods of teaching composition in grade nine English classes. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), New York University.
82. *Prater, D., & Bermudez, A. (1993). Using peer response groups with limited English proficient writers. Bilingual Research Journal, 17(1-2), 99-116.
83. Reinholz, D. (2016). The assessment cycle: A model for learning through peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(2), 301–315.
84. *Rijlaarsdam, G., & Schoonen, R. (1988). Effects of a teaching program based on peer evaluation on written composition and some variables related to writing apprehension. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), Amsterdam University, Amsterdam
85. Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESL writing class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23–30.
86. Rotsaert, T., Panadero, E., & Schellens, T. (2018). Anonymity as an instructional scaffold in peer assessment: its effects on peer feedback quality and evolution in students’ perceptions about peer assessment skills. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33(1), 75–99.
87. *Rudd II, J. A., Wang, V. Z., Cervato, C., & Ridky, R. W. (2009). Calibrated peer review assignments for the Earth Sciences. Journal of Geoscience Education, 57(5), 328-334.
88. *Ruegg, R. (2015). The relative effects of peer and teacher feedback on improvement in EFL students' writing ability. Linguistics and Education, 29, 73-82.
89. *Sadeghi, K., & Abolfazli Khonbi, Z. (2015). Iranian university students’ experiences of and attitudes towards alternatives in assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(5), 641–665.
90. *Sadler, P. M., & Good, E. (2006). The impact of self- and peer-grading on student learning. Educational Assessment, 11(1), 1-31.
91. Sanchez, C. E., Atkinson, K. M., Koenka, A. C., Moshontz, H., & Cooper, H. (2017). Self-grading and peer-grading for formative and summative assessments in 3rd through 12th grade classrooms: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(8), 1049.
92. Sawilowsky, S. S. (2009). New effect size rules of thumb. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 8(2), 26.
93. *Schonrock-Adema, J., Heijne-Penninga, M., van Duijn, M. A., Geertsma, J., & Cohen-Schotanus, J. (2007). Assessment of professional behaviour in undergraduate medical education: Peer assessment enhances performance. Medical Education, 41(9), 836-842.
94. Schwarzer, G., Carpenter, J. R., & Rücker, G. (2015). Meta-analysis with R. Cham: Springer.
95. *Sippel, L., & Jackson, C. N. (2015). Teacher vs. peer oral corrective feedback in the German language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 48(4), 688-705.
96. Sluijsmans, D. M., Brand-Gruwel, S., van Merriënboer, J. J., & Martens, R. L. (2004). Training teachers in peer-assessment skills: Effects on performance and perceptions. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 41(1), 59–78.
97. Smith, H., Cooper, A., & Lancaster, L. (2002). Improving the quality of undergraduate peer assessment: A case for student and staff development. Innovations in education and teaching international, 39(1), 71–81.
98. Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N., & Su, T. T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323(5910), 122–124.
99. Steel, P. D., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2002). Comparing meta-analytic moderator estimation techniques under realistic conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 96.
100. Stipek, D., & Iver, D. M. (1989). Developmental change in children's assessment of intellectual competence. Child Development, 521–538.
101. Strijbos, J. W., & Wichmann, A. (2018). Promoting learning by leveraging the collaborative nature of formative peer assessment with instructional scaffolds. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 33(1), 1–9.
102. Strijbos, J.-W., Narciss, S., & Dünnebier, K. (2010). Peer feedback content and sender's competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 291–303.
103. *Sun, D. L., Harris, N., Walther, G., & Baiocchi, M. (2015). Peer assessment enhances student learning: The results of a matched randomized crossover experiment in a college statistics class. PLoS One 10(12).
104. Tannacito, T., & Tuzi, F. (2002). A comparison of e-response: Two experiences, one conclusion. Kairos, 7(3), 1–14.
105. Team, R. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2017: R Core Team.
106. Topping, K. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249-276.
107. Topping, K. (2009). Peer assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 20–27.
108. Usher, N. (2018). Learning about academic writing through holistic peer assessment. (Unpiblished doctoral thesis), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
109. *van den Boom, G., Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2007). Effects of elicited reflections combined with tutor or peer feedback on self-regulated learning and learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 17(5), 532-548.
110. *van Ginkel, S., Gulikers, J., Biemans, H., & Mulder, M. (2017). The impact of the feedback source on developing oral presentation competence. Studies in Higher Education, 42(9), 1671-1685.
111. van Popta, E., Kral, M., Camp, G., Martens, R. L., & Simons, P. R. J. (2017). Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider. Educational Research Review, 20, 24–34.
112. van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., & van Merriënboer, J. (2010). Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction, 20(4), 270–279.
113. Vanderhoven, E., Raes, A., Montrieux, H., Rotsaert, T., & Schellens, T. (2015). What if pupils can assess their peers anonymously? A quasi-experimental study. Computers & Education, 81, 123–132.
114. Wang, J.-H., Hsu, S.-H., Chen, S. Y., Ko, H.-W., Ku, Y.-M., & Chan, T.-W. (2014a). Effects of a mixed-mode peer response on student response behavior and writing performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 51(2), 233–256.
115. *Wang, J. H., Hsu, S. H., Chen, S. Y., Ko, H. W., Ku, Y. M., & Chan, T. W. (2014b). Effects of a mixed-mode peer response on student response behavior and writing performance. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 51(2), 233-256.
116. *Wang, X.-M., Hwang, G.-J., Liang, Z.-Y., & Wang, H.-Y. (2017). Enhancing students’ computer programming performances, critical thinking awareness and attitudes towards programming: An online peer-assessment attempt. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(4), 58-68.
117. Wiliam, D. (2010). What counts as evidence of educational achievement? The role of constructs in the pursuit of equity in assessment. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 254–284.
118. Wiliam, D. (2018). How can assessment support learning? A response to Wilson and Shepard, Penuel, and Pellegrino. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 37(1), 42–44.
119. Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. (2004). Teachers developing assessment for learning: Impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 11(1), 49–65.
120. *Wise, W. G. (1992). The effects of revision instruction on eighth graders' persuasive writing (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), University of Maryland, Maryland
121. *Wong, H. M. H., & Storey, P. (2006). Knowing and doing in the ESL writing class. Language Awareness, 15(4), 283.
122. *Xie, Y., Ke, F., & Sharma, P. (2008). The effect of peer feedback for blogging on college students' reflective learning processes. The Internet and Higher Education, 11(1), 18-25.
123. Young, J. E., & Jackman, M. G.-A. (2014). Formative assessment in the Grenadian lower secondary school: Teachers’ perceptions, attitudes and practices. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 21(4), 398–411.
124. Yu, F.-Y., & Liu, Y.-H. (2009). Creating a psychologically safe online space for a student-generated questions learning activity via different identity revelation modes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(6), 1109–1123.