A University of Hong Kong study reveals how rating accuracy improves writing

Peer and self-assessment have long been recognized as valuable tools for promoting learning in higher education writing classrooms. However, ratings are often treated as secondary to qualitative feedback, so little is known about how the accuracy of student ratings affects subsequent evaluation stages, including feedback, revision, and improvement.

This study, published online on June 9, 2025, in ECNU Review of Education, was conducted among 114 undergraduate students in Hong Kong SAR, China. A team of researchers led by Cheong from The University of Hong Kong found that accurate peer ratings directly improved the quality of peer feedback, which, in turn, supports higher-quality final drafts. Likewise, accurate self-ratings strengthen students’ ability to revise their own work, leading to measurable writing gains.

“Given that each component of the assessment is intimately linked to students’ comprehension, internalization, and utilization of the assessment criteria, rating accuracy may play a crucial role in determining whether students can fully engage in the assessment and derive its full benefits,” explain Cheong et al. 

The study reveals that rating accuracy plays a crucial role in classroom writing assessments. Specifically, peer rating accuracy indirectly improves writing performance by promoting effective revisions, while the accuracy of self-evaluation has a more direct impact. In this process, writing revision acts as a key mediator. These findings highlight the relationship among rating, feedback, and revision, emphasizing the need for integrated assessment practices.

“Our findings show how students can better leverage rating, feedback, and revision to improve their writing skills,” claim Cheong et al.

The study cautions against treating ratings and feedback as separate or superficial tasks. Instead, it emphasizes that rating should be incorporated as a regular part of peer and self-assessment, and suggests that teachers provide training or clear guidance to students, offer explicit criteria and exemplars to improve rating accuracy, and encourage students to engage deeply with feedback throughout the process.

***

Reference
DOI: 10.1177/20965311251346498