Where it is used
Each entry identifies the volume, edition, chapter or appendix in which the work appears.
The evidence behind the series
Follow the research.
Explore every source.
Browse the scientific research and professional literature used across all seven volumes of The Science of Learning for Educators.
7book volumes
8author ranges
1searchable library
Search the collection
Find a paper, author or idea.
Choose an author range, search a title or concept, or narrow the collection by source type. Open any result to see where it appears in the books, read its evidence summary and follow available source links.
4 references
-
- Vol 3 RE: Chapters 9, 14, 16
evaluative judgementassessment literacypeer assessmentcomparative judgementexemplar analysisself-assessmentsustainable assessmentJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
Tai and colleagues define evaluative judgement as the capability to make decisions about the quality of one’s own and others’ work. It is essential for improving current performance and for future learning and professional practice, where teachers or supervisors may no longer supply detailed feedback.
Key ideas
The authors connect evaluative judgement with assessment literacy, self-assessment, peer assessment, feedback, and sustainable assessment, but argue that the concept provides a coherent long-term curriculum goal beyond any single technique. Learners develop it through repeated encounters with standards and varied examples, making and justifying comparative judgements, producing work, receiving information from multiple sources, and revising decisions. Rubrics can help but cannot fully articulate tacit or holistic dimensions of quality. Authentic disciplinary participation and dialogue with knowledgeable others are therefore important. For educators, assessment should give students consequential practice in judging—not only being judged.
Why it matters
Useful designs include analysing exemplars, comparing anonymous work, co-constructing criteria, peer review, calibration with expert decisions, self-assessment, and revision. Development should be distributed across a programme and evaluated as growing judgement, not assumed from one isolated activity.
-
- Vol 5 RE: Chapters 6, 9, 11, 14
- Vol 5 TE: App C
peer assessmentassessment criteriaformative feedbackpeer judgmentassessment reliabilitywriting assessmentfeedback literacyassessment safeguardsJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
Topping defines peer assessment as arrangements in which learners consider and specify the level, value, or quality of products or performances by equal-status peers. The review proposes a detailed typology showing that designs differ by subject, objectives, output, participant level, matching, directionality, anonymity, assessment format, and whether feedback or grades are involved.
Key ideas
Reviewing higher-education studies, it finds peer marks can reach adequate reliability and validity across many settings, although agreement depends on training, criteria, task, and aggregation. Evidence was strongest for positive formative effects in writing and in uses involving marks, grades, or tests; evidence for presentations, group projects, and professional skills was then more limited. Potential learning mechanisms include clarifying standards, comparing approaches, articulating judgement, receiving more feedback, and developing responsibility. Risks include friendship bias, collusion, status effects, anxiety, superficial comments, and use of peer scores for high-stakes decisions without sufficient safeguards.
Why it matters
Effective implementation requires explicit criteria, modelling and practice, constructive feedback, transparency about purpose, monitoring, and opportunities to act on feedback. The article frames peer assessment as a learning process, not simply inexpensive substitute marking.
View or buy the cited work >>Read a similar article free online >>
-
- Vol 3 RE: Chapter 8
- Vol 3 TE: App C
- Vol 4 RE: Chapter 9
- Vol 4 TE: App C
- Vol 5 TE: App C
peer learningpeer tutoringcooperative learningpeer assessmentreciprocal learningmetacognitive developmentsocial interdependenceimplementation fidelityJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
Topping reviews developments in peer learning from the early 1980s through the mid-2000s, concentrating on peer tutoring, cooperative learning, and peer assessment. The field had expanded beyond fixed, one-to-one tutoring into reciprocal, same-age and cross-age arrangements, whole-class cooperative structures, online interaction, and participation by learners with varied needs.
Key ideas
Research increasingly recognised benefits for helpers as well as those helped: explaining, questioning, monitoring, and responding can deepen the helper’s cognition, metacognition, communication, and confidence. The article integrates theoretical perspectives around cognitive conflict, elaboration, modelling, scaffolding, feedback, motivation, affect, and social interdependence rather than attributing effects to contact between peers alone. It stresses implementation integrity—roles, tasks, training, interaction quality, monitoring, and duration determine whether a named programme actually produces the intended learning processes. Cognitive gains matter alongside social and emotional outcomes, inclusion, cost-effectiveness, and sustainability.
Why it matters
Technology can widen access and mediate exchange but does not remove the need for purposeful structure. For educators, peer learning is a broad design family, not a single method: matching the format to goals, preparing participants, and examining both partners’ outcomes are essential.
View or buy the cited work >>Read a similar article free online >>
-
- Vol 3 RE: Chapter 14
- Vol 3 TE: App C
peer assessmentformative feedbackassessment criteriaself-regulated learningpeer judgmentfeedback qualityassessment reliabilityrevision practicesJournal article Evidence summaryAt a glance
This practice-oriented article explains peer assessment as learners judging work by peers of similar status, usually with formative purposes extending beyond a mark. Topping distinguishes qualitative comments or scores, anonymous or identified review, same- or cross-ability matching, reciprocal or one-way roles, individual or group products, and formative or summative use.
Key ideas
Peer assessment may increase feedback while helping students internalise criteria, compare strategies, explain judgements, and reflect on their own work. Reliability can be acceptable, particularly when multiple judgements are combined, but accuracy is not automatic. Students may lack domain knowledge, misunderstand standards, avoid criticism, favour friends, or distrust peer grades. Preparation therefore matters: teachers should clarify purposes and criteria, model examples, involve students in criteria where appropriate, train them to give specific constructive feedback, rehearse with low stakes, monitor exchanges, and provide opportunities for revision.
Why it matters
The teacher remains responsible for design and quality assurance. The central implication is that making and discussing judgements can itself produce learning; peer assessment should be reciprocal participation in evaluative practice, not merely delegated grading.
View or buy the cited work >>Read a similar article free online >>
A transparent research trail
More than a bibliography.
What it contributes
Evidence summaries explain the central idea and why the source matters to educators.
How to access it
Entries link to lawful full text where available, or to a publisher, library or purchase page.
Edition abbreviations
- TE
- Teacher Edition
- PE
- Practice Edition
- RE
- Research Edition
Citation checks
References are checked against publisher records, scholarly indexes, DOI or ISBN metadata, repositories and author records where available. An entry marked [Citation not verified] preserves the wording found in the relevant volume without attributing findings to an unconfirmed work.
From sources to a coherent pathway