"
Skip to Content
Version 1.1 – Updated August 2021

Peer- and self-grading

Overview

  • Influence: Peer- and self-grading
  • Domain: Teaching Strategies
  • Sub-Domain: Feedback
  • Potential to Accelerate Student Achievement: Potential to accelerate
  • Influence Definition: Student and peer assessment generally refers to specific judgements of ratings made by students about their achievements, often in relation to teacher-designed categories or rubrics. A claimed benefit is that self-grading is designed to enable students to make corrective changes and to think about their learning in terms of incremental improvement. Peer-grading requires that students actively participate in the judgement of their classmates’ work, enabling each student to think more objectively about the learning goals of the assignment and how those goals might be met.

Evidence

  • Number of meta-analyses: 4
  • Number of studies: 61
  • Number of students: 4,282
  • Number of effects: 86
  • Effect size: 0.42

Meta-Analyses

Meta-Analyses
Journal Title Author First Author's Country Article Name Year Published Variable Number of Studies Number of Students Number of Effects Effect Size
Journal of Educational Psychology Sanchez, Atkinson, Koenka, Moshontz, & Cooper USA The effects of teacher questioning levels on student achievement: A quantitative synthesis. 2017 Self-grading of work 20 3,656 20 0.34
Journal of Educational Psychology Sanchez, Atkinson, Koenka, Moshontz, & Cooper USA The effects of teacher questioning levels on student achievement: A quantitative synthesis. 2017 Peer-grading of work 11 626 11 0.29
Computer Assisted Language Learning Chen USA Technology-supported peer feedback in ESL/EFL writing classes: a research synthesis 2015 Peer feedback on ESL/EFL 11 0 36 0.60
Doctoral Dissertation Youde USA A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Reflective Self-Assessment on Academic Achievement in primary and secondary populations. 2019 Self-grading of work 19 0 19 0.46
TOTAL/AVERAGE 61 4,282 86 0.42

Confidence

The Confidence is the average of these four measures, each divided into five approximately equal groups and assigned a value from 1 to 5 based on the following criteria:

  • Number of Meta-analyses
    • 1 = 1
    • 2 = 2–3
    • 3 = 4–6
    • 4 = 7–9
    • 5 = 10+
  • Number of Studies
    • 1 = 1–10
    • 2 = 11–50
    • 3 = 51–200
    • 4 = 201–400
    • 5 = 400+
  • Number of Students
    • 1 = 1–2,500
    • 2 = 2,501–10,000
    • 3 = 10,000–20,000
    • 4 = 20,000–100,000
    • 5 = 100,001+
  • Number of Effects
    • 1 = 1–100
    • 2 = 101–300
    • 3 = 301–600
    • 4 = 601–1,200
    • 5 = 1,200+
Confidences
Number of Meta-Analyses Number of Studies Number of Students Number of Effects Overall Confidence
Confidence Factor 3 3 2 1 2
Back to top