Forty-eight quantitative peer assessment studies comparing peer and teacher marks were subjected to meta-analysis. Peer assessments were found to resemble more closely teacher assessments when global judgements based on well understood criteria are used rather than when marking involves assessing several individual dimensions. Similarly, peer assessments better resemble faculty assessments when academic products and processes, rather than professional practice, are being rated. Studies with high design quality appear to be associated with more valid peer assessments than those which have poor experimental design. Hypotheses concerning the greater validity of peer assessments in advanced rather than beginner courses and in science and engineering rather than in other discipline areas were not supported. In addition, multiple ratings were not found to be better than ratings by singletons. The study pointed to differences between self and peer assessments, which are explored briefly. Results are discussed and fruitful areas for further research in peer assessment are suggested.

Assessment in higher education is commonly held to contribute to feedback to students on their learning and the certification of their achievement. This paper argues that this short-term focus must be balanced against a longer-term emphasis for learning-oriented assessment to foster future learning after graduation. The paper proposes that students need to become assessors within the context of participation in practice, that is, the kinds of highly contextualised learning faced in life and work. It discusses the kinds of practices that are needed to refocus assessment within higher education courses to this end.

Student self-assessment occurs when learners make judgements about aspects of their own performance. This paper focuses on one aspect of quantitative self-assessments: the comparison of student-generated marks with those generated by teachers. Studies including such comparisons in the context of higher education courses are reviewed and the following questions are addressed: (i) do students tend to over-or under-rate themselves vis-a-vis teachers?, (ii) do students of different abilities have the same tendencies?, (iii) do students in different kinds or levels of course tend to under-or over-rate themselves?, (iv) do students improve their ability to rate themselves over time or with practice?, (v) are the same tendencies evident when self-marks are used for formal assessment purposes?, and (vi) are there gender differences in self-rating? The paper also discusses methodological issues in studies of this type and makes recommendations concerning the analysis and presentation of information.

No abstract