Abstract:
© 2016 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). The widespread usage of both peer assessment and rubrics has greatly increased in recent years. This trend has been attributed to both the rising popularity of web-based peer assessment tools, as well as widespread acceptance of a range of attributed benefits facilitated by the use of rubrics. Over the course of this paper the effects and applications of both peer assessment tools and rubrics are analysed, including research into the accuracy of the aforementioned attributed benefits. Emphasis is placed on the analysis and comparison of two popular forms of rubrics (holistic and specific). The results of this study have highlighted the rudimentary level of current research in this area. Furthermore the limited research that does exist is often biased, inconclusive and/or contradictory. With the state of existing research it is (currently) infeasible to factually state that a single rubric technique/form is superior; instead the decision as to what form of assessment to adhere to will likely be determined through situational applicability combined with a multitude of other comprising and external factors.
