Making judgements: investigating the process of composing and receiving peer feedback

References

• Adelman, C., D. Jenkins, and S. Kemmis. 1980. Rethinking case study: Notes from the second cambridge conference. In Towards a science of the singular, ed. H. Simons, 47–61. University of East Anglia, Centre for Applied Research in Education, Occasional Publication, No. 10.
   Google Scholar
• Bloxham, S., and A. West. 2007. Learning to write in higher education: Students’ perceptions of an intervention in developing understanding of assessment criteria. Teaching in Higher Education 12, no.1: 77–89. doi: 10.1080/13562510601102180
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carless, D. 2006. Differing perceptions in the feedback process. Studies in Higher Education 31, no. 2: 219–33. doi: 10.1080/03075070600572132
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cartney, P. 2010. Exploring the use of peer assessment as a vehicle for closing the gap between feedback given and feedback used. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35, no. 5: 551–64. doi: 10.1080/02602931003632381
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cho, K., and C.D. Schunn. 2007. Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers and Education 48: 409–26. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2005.02.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowan, J. 2010. Developing the ability for making evaluative judgements. Teaching in Higher Education 15, no. 3: 323–34. doi: 10.1080/13562510903560036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denzin, N.K. 1989. Interpretative interactionism. Thousand Oaks, CA, London and New Delhi: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Erlandson, D.A., Harris, E.L., Skipper, B.L., Allen, S.D. 1993. Doing naturalistic inquiry: A guide to methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Falchikov, N. 2003. Involving students in assessment. Psychology Learning and Teaching 32, no. 2: 102–8. doi: 10.2304/plat.2003.3.2.102
   Google Scholar
• Gielen, S., E. Peeters, F. Dochy, P. Onghena, and K. Struyven. 2010. Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction 20, no. 4: 304–15. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giltrow, J., and Valiquette, M. 1994. Genres and knowledge: Students writing in the disciplines. In Teaching and Learning Genre, ed. A. Freedman and P. Medway, 47–62. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
   Google Scholar
• Hamilton, D. 1980. Some contrasting assumptions about case study research and survey analysis. In Towards a science of the singular, ed. H. Simons, 78–92. University of East Anglia, Centre for Applied Research in Education, Occasional Publication No. 10.
   Google Scholar
• HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council for England). 2010. National student survey findings and trends 2006 to 2009, Issues Paper. London: HEFCE. Available at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce1/pubs/hefce/2010/1018/10_18.pdf (accessed January 13, 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Kim, M. 2009. The impact of an elaborated assessee's role in peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 34, no. 1: 105–14. doi: 10.1080/02602930801955960
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kvale, S. 1996. Interviews—an introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lea, M.R., and B.V. Street. 1998. Student writing in higher education: An academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education 23, no. 2: 157–72. doi: 10.1080/03075079812331380364
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lillis, T. 2003. Student writing as ‘academic literacies’: Drawing on Bakhtin to move from critique to design. Language and Education 17, no. 3: 192–207. doi: 10.1080/09500780308666848
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln, Y.S., and E.G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln, Y.S., and E.G. Guba. 2000. Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions and emerging influences. In The Handbook of Qualitative Research, ed. N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, 163–88. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, London and New Delhi: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, N.F., and D. Carless. 2006. Peer feedback the learning element of peer assessment. Teaching in Higher Education 11, no. 3: 279–90. doi: 10.1080/13562510600680582
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McConlogue, T. 2012. But is it fair? Developing students’ understanding of grading complex written work through peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37, no. 5: 113–23. doi: 10.1080/02602938.2010.515010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McConnell, D. 2002. The experience of collaborative assessment in e-learning. Studies in Continuing Education 24, no. 1: 73–92. doi: 10.1080/01580370220130459
   Google Scholar
• Nicol, D. 2010. From monologue to dialogue: Improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35, no. 5: 501–17. doi: 10.1080/02602931003786559
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicol, D. 2011. Developing students’ ability to construct feedback. Presented at 8th Annual Enhancement Themes Conference, March 2–3, Heriot Watt University. Available at http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/resources/publications/graduates-for-the-21st-century (accessed January 13, 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Northedge, A. 2003. Rethinking teaching in the context of diversity. Teaching in Higher Education, 8, no. 1: 17–32. doi: 10.1080/1356251032000052302
   Google Scholar
• Patchan, M.M., D. Charney, and C.D. Schunn. 2009. A validation study of students’ end comments: Comparing comments by students, a writing instructor, and a content instructor. Journal of Writing Research 1, no. 2: 124–52. doi: 10.17239/jowr-2009.01.02.2
   Google Scholar
• Polanyi, Michael. 1964 [1958]. Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
   Google Scholar
• Price, M., K. Handley, J. Millar, and B. O'Donovan. 2010. Feedback: All that effort, but what is the effect? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35, no. 3: 277–89. doi: 10.1080/02602930903541007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Price, M., C. Rust, B. O'Donovan, K. Handley, and R. Bryant. 2013. Assessment literacy: The foundation for improving student learning. Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler, D.R. 2009. Indeterminacy in the use of preset criteria for assessment and grading. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 34, no. 2: 159–79. doi: 10.1080/02602930801956059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, D.R. 2010. Beyond feedback: Developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 35, no. 5: 535–50. doi: 10.1080/02602930903541015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sadler, D.R. 2014. Learning from assessment events: The role of goal knowledge. In Advances and innovations in university assessment and feedback: A festschrift in honour of Professor Dai Hounsell, ed. C. Kreber, C. Anderson, N. Entwistle, and J. McArthur. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stake, R.E. 1995. The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Simons, H. 1996. The paradox of case study. Cambridge Journal of Education 26, no. 2: 225–40. doi: 10.1080/0305764960260206
   Google Scholar
• Vu, T.T., and Dall'Alba, G. 2007. Students’ experience of peer assessment in a professional course. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 32, no. 5: 541–56. doi: 10.1080/02602930601116896
   Google Scholar
• Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wen, M.L., and C.-C. Tsai. 2008. Online peer assessment in an inservice science and mathematics teacher education course. Teaching in Higher Education 13, no. 1, 55–67. doi: 10.1080/13562510701794050
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin, R.K. 2009. Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Yorke, M. 2003. Formative assessment in higher education: Moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education 45: 477–501. doi: 10.1023/A:1023967026413
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar