EDST5443 Chap.7 Self and Peer Assessment
Self and Peer Assessment
Self and peer assessment can make learners active interpreters of quality, but participation does not become productive simply because judgement is transferred from a teacher. Learners need an intelligible quality reference, opportunities to compare work, language for specific observations and a next action they can take.
This chapter compares the two practices, shows how modelling and calibration build judgement and addresses trust, accessibility, anonymity and the difference between useful peer information and delegated grading.
What this chapter covers
- 01
Self-assessment as evidence-based judgement rather than a confidence rating
- 02
Peer assessment as reciprocal analysis rather than correction or ranking
- 03
Criteria, exemplars and discussion as resources for developing quality concepts
- 04
Modelling how to notice, explain and suggest a feasible next move
- 05
Calibration through comparison and discussion of contrasting judgements
- 06
Trust, psychological safety, anonymity and learner preparation
- 07
Separating peer information from formal grading responsibility
- 08
Planning revision so that assessment participation changes subsequent work
Worked example · free
Repair an unsafe peer review routine
- +1Narrow the review to one or two taught criteria and model a comment on an anonymous excerpt.
- +1Use a protocol that asks for evidence in the draft and a question or feasible next move.
- +1Provide choice, respectful norms and an alternative arrangement where disclosure creates risk.
- +1Reserve time for writers to evaluate comments, plan revision and explain what they used or declined.
Key terms
- Self-assessment
- A learner’s reasoned judgement of work or progress against an understood quality reference.
- Peer assessment
- A process in which learners interpret evidence in peers’ work to support judgement and improvement.
- Calibration
- Development of more consistent judgement through comparison, explanation and discussion of quality.
- Quality reference
- Criteria, standards, exemplars or shared principles used to interpret work.
- Reviewer protocol
- A structured sequence that guides attention, evidence use and constructive response during peer review.
- Learner agency
- A learner’s supported capacity to make and justify decisions about goals, feedback and revision.
Self and Peer Assessment FAQ
Should peers assign marks?
Not necessarily. Learning can be better served when peers analyse evidence and propose next moves while formal grading remains with the responsible educator. The design should match the purpose, stakes and learners’ preparation.
What if peer comments are inaccurate?
Treat reviewing as a practice that needs modelling and calibration. Writers should evaluate comments against criteria and purpose rather than obey them automatically. Teacher monitoring can identify misconceptions that require a whole-group response.
Does anonymity solve trust problems?
Anonymity may reduce some interpersonal pressure, but it does not replace clear norms, preparation, accessibility and meaningful choice. It can also remove context that a writer considers important, so its use should be purposeful.
How is self-assessment different from confidence?
Confidence reports how certain a learner feels. Self-assessment requires evidence, a quality reference and a judgement that can guide a next action. Confidence may accompany the process but cannot substitute for it.
Assessment move
Build a comparison table for self-assessment and peer assessment with rows for evidence source, quality reference, judgement maker, next action and principal risk. Add one classroom or higher-education example to each cell and explain why the practice supports learning only under stated conditions.
Rehearse reviewer comments using a three-part structure: identify evidence in the work, connect it to a criterion and offer a question or feasible next move. Then switch roles and evaluate whether the suggestion fits the writer’s purpose. This reciprocal exercise prevents feedback from being treated as an instruction that must be obeyed.
For assessment design, plan the preparation before the peer exchange and the revision after it. Specify how exemplars will be discussed, how learners will practise applying criteria, how participation will be made accessible and what alternatives protect learners who face disclosure or relationship risks. Keep teacher responsibility visible in higher-stakes settings.
Peer information can enrich judgement without shifting formal accountability to students. In reflective writing, examine a moment when learner participation did or did not change subsequent work. Use literature to test your explanation, and avoid claiming that autonomy grew merely because the teacher spoke less. Agency requires usable resources, real choices and the capacity to justify action.
Develop two sample comments on the same excerpt: one that merely praises or corrects, and another that cites evidence and opens a decision. Ask a study partner to compare their likely effects on the author, then revise the stronger comment for precision and feasibility. Plan how the author will record a decision to use, adapt or decline the advice.
Include an alternative participation route for a learner who cannot safely share the same material. This rehearsal tests reviewer skill, writer agency and relational conditions together instead of treating peer assessment as a form handed out during class.
Working through Self and Peer Assessment in EDST5443? Sia is AskSia’s AI Education tutor — ask any EDST5443 Self and Peer Assessment question and get a clear, step-by-step explanation grounded in how EDST5443 is taught and assessed. Read this chapter free, then take your hardest questions to Sia.
