Peer, Self, and Teacher Assessment: Reliability, Validity, and Bias
Annotatsiya
This section of the thesis analyses the three major forms of assessment used in higher education — teacher assessment, peer assessment, and self-assessment — with particular attention to their reliability, validity, and vulnerability to systematic bias. The study explores the theoretical foundations of each assessment type and evaluates their effectiveness through the works of prominent educational researchers such as Brookhart, Wiggins, Topping, Falchikov, Zimmerman, Messick, and others. The research demonstrates that assessment is not merely a tool for grading student performance but an essential component of learning, reflective thinking, and competency development.
The findings suggest that no single assessment method is universally superior; rather, effective educational assessment requires a balanced integration of teacher, peer, and self-assessment approaches. The thesis concludes that modern assessment practices should promote active student participation, critical thinking, metacognitive awareness, and lifelong learning competencies, all of which are central to the ongoing educational reforms in Uzbekistan.
Key words: Teacher assessment, peer assessment, self-assessment, reliability, validity, assessment bias, formative assessment, rubric-based assessment, inter-rater reliability, intra-rater reliability, authentic assessment, self-regulated learning, evaluative judgement, metacognition, competency-based assessment, learner-centred assessment, assessment fairness, assessment transparency, higher education reform in Uzbekistan.
Библиографические ссылки
1. Andrade, Heidi & Valtcheva, Anna (2009). “Promoting Learning and Achievement Through Self-Assessment.” Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 12–19.
2. Bloom, Benjamin S. et al. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longmans.
3. Boud, David & Falchikov, Nancy (1989). “Quantitative Studies of Student Self-Assessment in Higher Education.” Higher Education, 18(5), 529–549.
4. Brookhart, Susan M. (2013). How to Create and Use Rubrics for Formative Assessment and Grading. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
5. Carless, David (2006). “Differing Perceptions in the Feedback Process.” Studies in Higher Education, 31(2), 219–233.
6. Darling-Hammond, Linda & Snyder, Jon (2000). “Authentic Assessment of Teaching in Context.” Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5–6), 523–545.
7. Falchikov, Nancy (2005). Improving Assessment Through Student Involvement. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
8. Messick, Samuel (1989). “Validity.” In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
9. Pintrich, Paul R. (2000). “The Role of Goal Orientation in Self-Regulated Learning.” In M. Boekaerts et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation. San Diego: Academic Press.
10. Race, Phil, Brown, Sally & Smith, Brenda (2005). 500 Tips on Assessment. London: Routledge.
11. Topping, Keith J. (1998). “Peer Assessment Between Students in Colleges and Universities.” Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276.
12. Wiggins, Grant (1998). Educative Assessment: Designing Assessments to Inform and Improve Student Performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
13. Zimmerman, Barry J. (2002). “Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner.” Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.
14. Government of Uzbekistan (2019). Resolution on Improving Transparency and Fairness in Higher Education Assessment. Tashkent
