Validity and reliability of scaffolded peer assessment of writing from instructor and student perspectives

Kwangsu Cho, Christian D. Schunn, Roy W. Wilson

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

179 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Although peer reviewing of writing is a way to create more writing opportunities in college and university settings, the validity and reliability of peer-generated grades are a major concern. This study investigated the validity and reliability of peer-generated writing grades of 708 students across 16 different courses from 4 universities in a particular scaffolded reviewing context: Students were given guidance on peer assessment, used carefully constructed rubrics, and were provided clear incentives to take the assessment task seriously. Distinguishing between instructor and student perspectives of reliability and validity, the analyses suggest that the aggregate ratings of at least 4 peers on a piece of writing are both highly reliable and as valid as instructor ratings while (paradoxically) producing very low estimates of reliability and validity from the student perspective. The results suggest that instructor concerns about peer evaluation reliability and validity should not be a barrier to implementing peer evaluations, at least with appropriate scaffolds. Future research needs to investigate how to address student concerns about reliability and validity and to identify scaffolds that may ensure high levels of reliability and validity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)891-901
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Educational Psychology
Volume98
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2006 Nov 1

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Education
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Validity and reliability of scaffolded peer assessment of writing from instructor and student perspectives'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this