Peer assessment in interdisciplinary learning: Measuring reliability and engaging critical thinking

Peer assessment has gained recognition as a valuable pedagogical tool, yet its role in interdisciplinary learning remains underexplored. This study examines the reliability of peer assessment in an interdisciplinary oral evaluation setting, comparing student ratings with instructor evaluations over multiple sessions. A cohort of 41 students and 4 instructors assessed 15 presentations based on four criteria: communication, synthesis, illustration, and argumentation. Through ANOVA and regression analyses on 2409 grades, we observed a progressive alignment between student and instructor evaluations, with correlation coefficients improving from R = 0.55 (session 1) to R = 0.77 (session 3). Additionally, Cronbach’s alpha increased from 0.64 to 0.88, indicating increasing inter-rater reliability. Qualitative analysis of peer feedback revealed a shift from monodisciplinary to interdisciplinary reasoning, supporting the hypothesis that peer assessment fosters interdisciplinary understanding. A post-course survey confirmed this perception, with 85 % of students acknowledging an improved ability to assess interdisciplinary projects. These findings suggest that peer assessment is not only a valid evaluation method but also a learning process that fosters interdisciplinary competencies and engages students in critical thinking.