## 1 Introduction
### Peer Assessment
#### 1.2.1 Peer Assessment Software Tools  
In general terms, peer assessment can be carried out without the need for, or support of specialized software. For instance, a face-to-face discussion of a student or group presentation can also be considered a form of formative peer assessment, and feedback about an assignment can also be gathered in written form. However, there are several benefits associated with the use of dedicated software tools to support self- and peer assessment processes. First, all the information related to the process (assignment submission, self-assessment, peer grading. and feedback) is centralized in the same repository; second, anonymization is easily achieved by masking the identification of the student submitting the assignment and the student performing the peer review; third, random distribution of assignments and reviewers can be easily automated; fourth, it is possible to schedule the different phases of the process; finally, it is easy to allow different levels of access to instructors and students based on permissions. There are also different software systems to support online self- and peer assessment. Most often they are included as part of the most popular LMS or MOOC platforms (Self and Peer Assessment in Blackboard [40], Peer Review in Canvas [41; 42; 43], Open Response Assessments in edX [44], as well as different options in Moodle that are detailed later on), but they also can be offered as standalone platforms (e.g., peerscholar [45], Peerstudio [46], TEAMMATES [47], PeerWise [48], or Access Peer Assess Pro (Xorro) [49]) or be used either independently or integrated in a learning management system (e.g., ComPAIR [50; 51], Peerceptiv [52]). Most of these software tools generally differentiate the following four stages in the elaboration of a peer-graded assignment: creation and implementation of the activity in the platform, including (if necessary) the loading of information about participants; submission phase; reviewing and grading; results and reflection. Table 1 below shows the main characteristics of the different software tools (it was not possible to check the availability of functionalities in some platforms). The main differences across the different software solutions lie in how grades are calculated (e.g., median, average, composite scores, etc.) or other specific aspects of each of them (e.g., Canvas's peer \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline Self and Peer Assessment (Blackboard) & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes \\ Peer review (Canvas) & No & Yes & Yes & - & Yes & Yes & Yes & - & No & - & Yes & Yes \\ peerScholar & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & - & - & - \\ ComPAIR & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & - & - & Yes & Yes & \\ Open & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ Response & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & - & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & & Yes \\ Assessment & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ Peerceptiv & Yes & Yes & - & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & - & - & Yes \\ Peerstudio & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ TEAMMATES & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & & Yes & Yes & Yes \\ PeerWise & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & & & & \\ Access Peer & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ Asess Pro & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & Yes & - & - & Yes \\ (Xorro) & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparative table of the main software tools to support self- and peer assessment and their functionalities.