Students assessed their own work on average 7% higher than staff did¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · 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? On average, students rated their own work 7% higher than staff graders did. → Kulkarni 2015
Evidence¶
Kulkarni 2015¶
Kulkarni, C., Koh Pang Wei, Le, H., Chia, D., Papadopoulos, K., Cheng, J., Koller, D., Klemmer, S. R. (2015). Peer and Self Assessment in Massive Online Classes. In: Design Thinking Research, Understanding Innovation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06823-7_9
q2 · i? · associational · r2
Aggregate grading comparison from the large online class's peer and self assessment data. The paper reports that "students assessed their work 7 % higher than staff did" on average; no standardized effect size is printed.
"On average, students assessed their work 7 % higher than staff did."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Self Assessment Accuracy Is Low Without Training — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
- Students rated peers' work from their own country 3.6% higher than work from elsewhere — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
self-assessment-inflation-seven-percent |
title |
Students assessed their own work on average 7% higher than staff did |
description |
Students assessed their own work on average 7% higher than staff did |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2015 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-15 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — kulkarni-2015 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.