Video · Teachers Media
Self Assessment And Peer To Marking
Self-assessment and peer marking are two of the most powerful — and most botched — moves in classroom practice. Done well, they build metacognition and give pupils real ownership of their learning. Done badly, they're a way of getting pupils to do the teacher's marking with none of the diagnostic value.
About this video
The research base for self- and peer-assessment is strong, particularly in the Black & Wiliam formative-assessment tradition. Pupils who can accurately assess their own work against criteria develop the metacognitive skills that support long-term independent learning. Pupils who give and receive structured peer feedback often internalise the criteria more deeply than they would from teacher marking alone.
The failure modes are well documented too. Pupils asked to peer-mark against criteria they don't understand produce meaningless ticks. Pupils asked to "give three stars and a wish" without training default to generic praise. Pupils self-assessing without seeing exemplars typically over-rate their own work. The problem isn't the technique; it's the preparation.
The preparation that works is largely about criteria and exemplars. Before pupils can assess anything against a standard, they need to see the standard — ideally in the form of concrete examples that make abstract descriptors ("well-organised", "coherent argument") visible in real work. Time spent looking at, sorting, and ranking exemplars pays back many times over when pupils then apply those criteria to their own or a peer's work.
Making peer- and self-assessment work
- Show the standard first. Pupils need to see high-quality (and low-quality) examples before they can assess anything against criteria.
- Narrow the focus. Peer-assess against one or two specific criteria, not a whole rubric. "Look for whether the introduction sets up a clear argument" beats "assess against the full success criteria".
- Structured feedback formats. Sentence stems, feedback protocols, structured critique routines all beat "give three stars and a wish".
- Redraft in response. Peer feedback is meaningless if pupils don't then do something with it. Build the redraft into the lesson.
- Model peer feedback yourself. Do a live peer-assessment of an anonymous piece of work at the front. Show what good critique looks and sounds like.
Discussion prompts
- When pupils self-assess in your class, are they identifying real strengths and gaps — or ticking boxes?
- What preparation do you do before asking pupils to peer-assess, and is it enough?
- How do you handle the pupil who over-rates their work, or the pupil who consistently rates a friend's work too kindly?
Try this in your classroom
- Before your next writing task, spend twenty minutes with the class ranking three anonymous exemplars from strongest to weakest. Get them to articulate why. Then use the same criteria for peer assessment.
- Try a single-criterion peer critique: "look at your partner's introduction and tell them one specific thing they could add to make it stronger". Notice how much sharper the feedback becomes.
- Build a redraft step into your next peer-assessment lesson. Twenty minutes of peer critique, twenty minutes of redraft. Compare the two versions.