Differences between self-assessment and peer assessment in oral presentations in higher education
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v81.119096Keywords:
Rubric, Formative assessment, Shared Assessment, University, Physical Education, Triadic AssessmentAbstract
Introduction and Objective: This study examined the differences between self‑assessment and peer‑assessment in the evaluation of theoretical–practical oral presentations in higher education.
Methodology: A total of 7,776 assessments were collected from 108 undergraduate students who evaluated their own presentations (n = 216) and those of their peers (n = 7,560) using a validated ten‑item rubric.
Results: Results showed that self‑assessment scores were consistently higher than peer‑assessment scores across all dimensions, with the largest discrepancies observed in delivery, activity design, content organisation, time distribution, and classroom management. Discussion: Peer‑assessment displayed stronger internal coherence and clearer differentiation between items, suggesting a more consistent application of performance criteria. In contrast, self‑assessment exhibited substantial inflation and greater heterogeneity, particularly in complex or multifaceted dimensions. Differences were smallest in teamwork and oral/non‑verbal communication, indicating that some competencies may be more challenging to judge objectively. While the study is limited to a single instructional context, its findings highlight the value of integrating structured peer‑assessment to support calibration, enhance evaluative judgement, and foster more reliable formative assessment practices.
Conclusion: Overall, the results emphasise the importance of combining multiple assessment modalities to strengthen students’ understanding of quality and promote meaningful engagement with evaluation criteria.
References
Alemdag, E., & Narciss, S. (2025). Promoting formative self-assessment through peer assessment: peer work quality matters for writing performance and internal feedback generation. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 22, 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-025-00522-4
Ardill, N. (2025). Peer feedback in higher education: student perceptions of peer review and strategies for learning enhancement. European Journal of Higher Education, 15(4), 696–721. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2025.2457466
Armengol Asparó, C., Mercader, C., & Ion, G. (2022). Making peer feedback more efficient: What condi-tions of its delivery make the difference? Higher Education Research & Development, 41(2), 226–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2020.1840527
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: princi-ples, policy & practice, 5(1), 7-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Carless, D., & Boud, D. (2018). The development of student feedback literacy: Enabling uptake of feed-back. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(8), 1315–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1463354
Carless, D., & Winstone, N. (2020). Teacher feedback literacy and its interplay with student feedback literacy. Teaching in Higher Education, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2020.1782372
Cheong, C. M., Luo, N., Zhu, X. H., Lu, Q., & Wei, W. (2023). Self assessment complements peer assess-ment for undergraduate students in an academic writing task. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(1), 135–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2069225
Double, K. S., McGrane, J. A., & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2020). The impact of peer assessment on academic performance: A meta analysis of control group studies. Educational Psychology Review, 32(2), 481–509. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3
Er, E., Dimitriadis, Y., & Gašević, D. (2021). A collaborative learning approach to dialogic peer feedback: A theoretical framework. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 46(4), 586–600. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1786497
Fleckney, P., Thompson, J., & Vaz-Serra, P. (2025). Designing effective peer assessment processes in higher education: a systematic review. Higher Education Research & Development, 44(2), 386–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2024.2407083
Gielen, M., & De Wever, B. (2015). Scripting the role of assessor and assessee in peer assessment in a wiki environment: Impact on peer feedback quality and product improvement. Computers & Education, 88, 370–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2015.07.012
Jongsma, M. V., Scholten, D. J., van Muijlwijk Koezen, J. E., & Meeter, M. (2023). Online versus offline peer feedback in higher education: A meta analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Re-search, 61(2), 329–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221114181
Li, H. L., Xiong, Y., Hunte, C. V., Guo, X. Y., & Tywoniw, R. (2020). Does peer assessment promote student learning? A meta analysis. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(2), 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1620679
Mandala, M., Schunn, C., Dow, S., Goldberg, M., Pearlman, J., Clark, W., & Mena, I. (2018). Impact of col-laborative team peer review on the quality of feedback in engineering design projects. Interna-tional Journal of Engineering Education, 34(4), 1299–1313.
Mercader, C., Ion, G., & Díaz Vicario, A. (2020). Factors influencing students’ peer feedback uptake: In-structional design matters. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 45(8), 1169–1180. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2020.1726283
Morris, R., Perry, T., & Wardle, L. (2021). Formative assessment and feedback for learning in higher education: A systematic review. Review of Education, 9, e3292. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3292
Panadero, E., & Alqassab, M. H. (2019). An empirical review of anonymity effects in peer assessment, peer feedback, peer review, peer evaluation and peer grading. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(8), 1253–1278. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1600186
Panadero, E., Amezua-Urrutia, A., Fernández Ruiz, J., Rodríguez-Hernández, C., & Fraile, J. (2026). As-sessment practices in Spanish universities: a nationwide update seven years on. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2026.2621276
Parmigiani, D., Nicchia, E., Murgia, E., & Ingersoll, M. (2024). Formative assessment in higher education: An exploratory study within programs for professionals in education. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1366215. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1366215
Parmigiani, D., Nicchia, E., Murgia, E., & Ingersoll, M. (2025). Learning with peers in higher education: Exploring strengths and weaknesses of formative assessment. Trends in Higher Education, 4(3), 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/higheredu4030048
Pinedo, L., Panadero, E., Fernández-Ruiz, J., & García-Pérez, D. (2025). Beyond the Accuracy Gap in Self-assessment: Exploring Reasons for (In)Accuracy and the Role of Individual Differences. As-sessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 32(4), 462–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969594X.2025.2565384
Rickey, N., Panadero, E. & DeLuca, C. (2025). How do students self-assess? examining the metacognitive processes of student self-assessment. Metacognition Learning 20, 25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-025-09430-4
Rodríguez-Rojas, F., Sánchez Oliver, A. J., Muñoz Llerena, A., Angosto, S., Muñoz López, A., & Grimaldi-Puyana, M. (2026). Evaluation of Theoretical Presentations in University Students of Sport Sci-ence: Differences Between Self-Assessment, Peer Assessment, and Teacher Assessment. SPORT TK–EuroAmerican Journal of Sport Sciences. In press
Sánchez-García, A., Sanchez-Oliver, A. J., & Grimaldi-Puyana, M. (2026). Triadic formative assessment in higher education: interaction effects between assessment modality and evaluator sex. Retos, 77, 346-357. https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v77.118382
Sánchez Oliver, A. J., Rodríguez Rojas, F. J., Feria Madueño, A., Muñoz López, A., Carnero Díaz, Ángel, Muñoz Llerena, A., Sañudo Corrales, B., Oviedo Caro, M. Ángel, Grimaldi Puyana, M., Bianchi, P., Domínguez, R., & Angosto, S. (2025). Validación de una herramienta para evaluar las presenta-ciones teórico-prácticas en la Educación Superior. Retos, 67, 903–916. https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v67.112987
Sánchez-Oliver, A. J., Sánchez-García, A., Feria-Madueño, A., Muñoz-López, A., Carnero Díaz, Á., Muñoz-Llerena, A., Sañudo-Corrales, B., Oviedo-Caro, M. Á., Grimaldi-Puyana, M., Bianchi, P., & Domín-guez, R. (2026). Evaluating oral presentations in university students: Self, peer, and hetero eval-uation. Journal of Sport and Health Research, In press.
Solis Trujillo, B.P., Velarde-Camaqui, D., Gonzales Nuñez, C.A., Castillo Silva, E.V. & Gonzalez Said de la Oliva, M.P. (2025) The current landscape of formative assessment and feedback in graduate studies: a systematic literature review. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1509983. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1509983
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Francisco José Rodríguez Rojas, Antonio Jesús Sanchez-Oliver, Moisés Grimaldi-Puyana
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and ensure the magazine the right to be the first publication of the work as licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of authorship of the work and the initial publication in this magazine.
- Authors can establish separate additional agreements for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in the journal (eg, to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Is allowed and authors are encouraged to disseminate their work electronically (eg, in institutional repositories or on their own website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as to a subpoena more Early and more of published work (See The Effect of Open Access) (in English).
This journal provides immediate open access to its content (BOAI, http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#openaccess) on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. The authors may download the papers from the journal website, or will be provided with the PDF version of the article via e-mail.
