Sluijsmans et al. (2001) and Van Zundert et al. (2010) concluded that, even though students in higher education seem to be able to assess their own peers, peer assessment and feedback should be combined with training or that students should at least have experience with peer assessment.
The mixed results regarding accuracy of peer assessment and feedback warrants further research and investigation using objective measures.
Based on this information, retraining of SPs using an innovative approach based on self and peer assessment and feedback was designed.
All but one of the peer assessment and feedback activities were within OSCEs, covering topics including history taking and communication skills; physical examination skills; and procedural skills.
However, there were mixed results regarding the accuracy of peer assessment and feedback, and no substantial evidence to conclude that participation as a peer tutor improves one's own examination performance.
These design principles include the following learning environment characteristics: learning objectives, learning task, behaviour modelling, opportunity to practice, intensity and timing of feedback, peer assessment and self-assessment.
It can be seen, once more, that there is a significant statistical relationship among them, so the students that were satisfied with teachers' group feedback, peer assessment and group reflection think they highly acquired this competency (Table 2).
As previously suggested, we also believe that peer assessment might offer valuable feedback for physicians or medical students behaving unprofessionally.
Two of these articles reported on peer feedback alone [ 33, 34] and although these are categorized as peer assessment, students were not assessing their peers, but providing feedback only to their peers during assessment activities.
The instructional intervention of asking assessees to reflect upon feedback after peer assessment did not increase learning gains significantly.
