Peers slightly under-mark their comrades' papers while self-assessors over-mark their own¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · design r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2009 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In the CA-2006 exam, peer marks were slightly below the teacher's: by 0.39 points for peer-only marks and 0.12 for peer marks incorporating self-assessment (Table 3), a difference a t-test did not find significant (Table 5). → Bouzidi 2009 q2 i? In the same exam, paper authors marked their own papers on average 0.83 points above the teacher, an over-marking. → Bouzidi 2009 (2)

Evidence¶

Bouzidi 2009¶

Bouzidi, L., & Jaillet, A. (2009). Can Online Peer Assessment be Trusted?. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 257-268. https://www.ifets.info/

q2 · i? · design · r2

Descriptive mean differences from the CA-2006 item analysis (Table 3): peer-only marks (PM) were below the teacher's by a printed average difference of 0.39, and peer marks incorporating the self-assessment (SPM) by 0.12. The article's text attributes the 0.12 to peers, but in Table 3 it is the SPM figure. Table 5's t-tests found neither the teacher-versus-peer nor the teacher-versus-SPM difference significant for CA-2006 (teacher mean 8.43, PM 8.13, SPM 8.40; Cohen's d = 0.11 for both).

"The students, with a positive average difference between their marks and those of the teacher (0.12), very slightly under-mark the papers of their peers."

Bouzidi 2009 (2)¶

Bouzidi, L., & Jaillet, A. (2009). Can Online Peer Assessment be Trusted?. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 257-268. https://www.ifets.info/

q2 · i? · design · r2

Descriptive mean difference from the same CA-2006 item analysis: self-assessors over-marked their own papers by a printed average difference of -0.83 relative to the teacher; no significance test is reported for this difference.

"On the other hand, the authors of the papers, with a negative average difference between their marks and those of the teacher (-0.83), over-mark their papers."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Combining peer assessment with self-assessment brings marks closer to the teacher's marks — related
• Peer assessment is equivalent to teacher assessment for exact-science exams with clear marking schemes — reports the opposite
• EL status had either a null effect or led to slight under-identification in SPED placement — related
• The strict-persona vulnerability replicates on an independent machine-learning exam, but its direction is exam-specific: seven of 17 models improve because the persona cancels their over-marking — related
• Graded Exemplars Shift an LLM Grader by the Level They Are Marked At — related
• The share of marks below the upper-second classification boundary fell by 24.7 percentage points, with effects significant at every threshold from 23 to 31 marks and at none above — related
• Showing an LLM Grader a Learner's Prior Performance Biases the Grade — related
• Item analysis flags items whose marking instructions mislead peer assessors — related