Quality control in peer assessment can be exercised proactively or reactively on students and their assessments¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2011 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Quality control is added as a new inventory variable, limited to control exercised directly on students and their assessments, and it may act proactively or reactively. → Gielen 2011
Evidence¶
Gielen 2011¶
Gielen, S., Dochy, F., & Onghena, P. (2011). An inventory of peer assessment diversity. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(2), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930903221444
q2 · i? · review · r2
A narrative-review description introducing the 'Quality control' variable: reactive examples include teachers re-checking student-awarded scores or automated systems detecting outlying scores, while proactive examples tie rewards or sanctions to feedback quality, as in Bloxham and West (2004) where a quarter of the assessor's mark depended on peer assessment quality.
"Quality control may act proactively or reactively. Reactive examples are teachers who run quality checks of scores awarded by students by assessing some of the work themselves"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- A secondary ENA adding ICAP engagement codes showed proactive interactions linked constructive engagement with adequate reasoning, while reactive dialogues emphasised procedural pairings — related
- Preselection of grammar points in proactive FOF reduced learners' repetition and fossilization of erroneous forms — related
- Both reactive and proactive aggression correlate positively with mild deviance, serious deviance, self-disclosure, and loyalty among high school girls — related
- Proactive FOF improved grammar more than reactive FOF at both beginner and upper-intermediate proficiency levels — related
- Peer assessment improves academic performance by a small average amount relative to no assessment or to teacher assessment — related
- Structured criteria in peer assessment are not shown to improve its effect on academic performance over freeform review — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
peer-assessment-quality-control-proactive-reactive |
title |
Quality control in peer assessment can be exercised proactively or reactively on students and their assessments |
description |
Quality control in peer assessment can be exercised proactively or reactively on students and their assessments |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2011 |
source_checked |
2026-10-20 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-16 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — gielen-2011 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.