Learning to assess students using peer review

Pond, Keith; ul-Haq, Rehan

doi:10.1016/s0191-491x(97)86214-1

Cited by 38 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…• deliberate distortion of the grading through friendship, collusive, decibel or parasite marking (Pond and ul-Haq 1997); • student's dissatisfaction when their grades are low; • lack of experience; • distrust and personality clashes (Mindham 1998); • unreliability of students as assessor (Magin and Helmore 2001); • validity of the marks (Sambell et al 1997); • reliability of the marks.…”

Section: Background Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Peer assessment in thesis oral presentation

Liow

2008

European Journal of Engineering Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Background Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Peer assessment in thesis oral presentation

Liow

2008

European Journal of Engineering Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Table 1 summarises the criteria used in the module throughout the period of the study. The design of the criteria acknowledges that student ownership of criteria and assistance in their design is beneficial (Pond and ul-Haq, 1998). However, with an annual student cohort of 300 students, the generation of unique criteria each year through discussion with students was felt to be logistically too challenging.…”

Section: Our Use Of Peer Review In Student Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The project outcomes are assessed by a tutor and the final competency practised by students on the module is their judgement of others' contribution to their team project. The resultant peer review is then used to moderate the tutor awarded marks (as described in Pond and ul-Haq, 1997;Crawford, 2004 and2005) The Personal Effectiveness module provides 'authentic learning' (Dochy et.al., 1999) as it combines development of cognitive and meta-cognitive competencies such as analysis and selfreflection within a team-based project activity that adds social competency enhancement.…”

Section: Background and Deployment Of Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Student Experiences of Peer Review Marking of Team Projects

Pond¹

2007

IJME

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThis paper focuses on the student experience of peer review of team projects in a first year undergraduate module at Loughborough University Business School. A peer review mechanism has been used for a number of years (Pond et al., 1995) to help discriminate between team members' performance. It evolved from a paper-based system, following the design suggested AbstractPeer review of students is a partial response to critics of group work who cite drawbacks of "free riders" and de-motivation. It is often used to motivate and focus students on their own development within a group work setting. Pressures of time, budget and student numbers often obviate deeper study of alternative assessment techniques. The study reported in this paper, made possible by an HEA grant, allowed for analysis of a peer review mechanism that had been operating for a number of years alongside a new web-based system.The paper reviews criticisms of peer review techniques in existing literature and outlines how student experiences of peer review were researched. Qualitative outcomes are discussed alongside an analysis of quantitative data from the systems used.Key conclusions from this research are that the data collection method made no significant difference to the reported student experiences of peer review or to the peer review marks. The findings update and strengthen previous literature and provide important new insights into the emotional perspective of students. The findings from this research are being used to aid development of the webbased system and to establish 'good practice' guidance on the deployment of this valuable and innovative technique. by Goldfinch and Raeside (1990) and used annually since 1998, to a web-based mechanism (Willmot and Crawford, 2004), used for the first time in 2004/05. The paper describes a specific module where peer review has been deployed and reviews the extant literature on peer review systems, paying particular attention to criticisms of such assessment techniques. The paper goes on to outline a research methodology whereby student perspectives and experiences of peer review were collected. The outcomes of the focus group methodology are then discussed alongside a brief analysis of quantitative data from the peer review systems used. Keywords

show abstract

“…Benefits and characteristics of the application of the PR in educational contexts have been widely debated (see Topping, 1998 for an exhaustive review; Gielen, Tops, Dochy, Onghena, & Smeets, 2010;Lundstrom & Baker, 2009;Mulder, Pearce, & Baik, 2014;Pond & ul-Haq, 1997;Van Den Berg, Admiraal, & Pilot, 2006). According to Mulder et al (2014), during the activity, reviewers develop problem-solving skills, while reviewees learn how to cope with diversity of opinions; both improve negotiation skills and critical thinking.…”

Section: Techno-logymentioning

confidence: 99%

Dyads Versus Groups: Using Different Social Structures in Peer Review to Enhance Online Collaborative Learning Processes

Pozzi

Ceregini

Ferlino

et al. 2016

IRRODL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Peer Review (PR) is a very popular technique to support socio-constructivist and connectivist learning processes, online or face-to-face, at all educational levels, in both formal and informal contexts.The idea behind this technique is that sharing views and opinions with others by discussing with peers and receiving and providing formative feedback enriches the quality of learning. In this study, a class of trainee teachers conducts an online PR. The resulting interactions are analyzed and evaluated by the researchers through the application of an evaluation model based on both quantitative and qualitative data. In particular, two conditions are studied, namely the PR in groups versus the PR in dyads. Results show that students who carried out the PR in groups were less active from the cognitive point of view, while they devoted more effort to deal with organizational matters and discourse facilitation.

show abstract

Learning to assess students using peer review

Cited by 38 publications

References 6 publications

Peer assessment in thesis oral presentation

Peer assessment in thesis oral presentation

Student Experiences of Peer Review Marking of Team Projects

Dyads Versus Groups: Using Different Social Structures in Peer Review to Enhance Online Collaborative Learning Processes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About