Overview
Student self- and peer-assessment can support learning when judgments are anchored in usable criteria, interpreted as feedback, and followed by revision, strategy change, or another observable next step. The series moves from score-versus-feedback distinctions through the judgment-to-learning loop, self-assessment, peer assessment, comparative evidence, and design. Research reports positive average effects across self-regulated learning and affective outcomes, but heterogeneous studies, sparse direct comparisons, uneven reporting, and limited long-term evidence make this a conditional approach, not a guaranteed method.
Learning outcomes
- Student assessment contributes to learning when judgment is tied to criteria, interpretable evidence, and an actionable next move.
- A score or rubric is not formative by itself; its value depends on interpretation, revision, and monitoring a next attempt.
- Self-assessment adds internal monitoring, while peer assessment adds an external perspective and practice explaining quality.
- Evidence is positive on average but heterogeneous, with sparse direct comparisons and limited evidence for durable long-term gains.
Keywords
Preview every chapter · Unlock full text, audio, and video from chapter 4
PlansFAQ
When does self- or peer-assessment become feedback?
It becomes feedback when a learner connects a judgment to criteria and evidence, interprets the gap, and takes a next action such as revision, practice, or help-seeking.
What makes self-assessment useful for learning?
Self-assessment is most useful when it examines a specific task or process against usable criteria and leaves time to revise, practise, seek help, or change strategy.
What does peer assessment add beyond self-assessment?
Peer assessment adds an external reading of the work and gives the reviewer practice applying and explaining criteria; the recipient must still interpret that perspective.
How strong is the evidence for self- and peer-assessment?
Evidence shows positive average effects on self-regulated learning and affective outcomes, but heterogeneity, sparse direct comparisons, study-quality concerns, and limited long-term evidence make the conclusion conditional.