Using peer ranking to enhance student writing

Allain, Rhett; Abbott, David; Deardorff, Duane L.

doi:10.1088/0031-9120/41/3/008

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To date, it is also not clear whether the accuracy of student grading can improve with experience and/or training. Allain et al (2006) and Gehringer (2001) advocate “grading the graders” to guard against low effort, but there are little if any data on techniques that might improve the accuracy of peer grading.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Accurate Is Peer Grading?

Freeman

Parks

2010

LSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previously we showed that weekly, written, timed, and peer-graded practice exams help increase student performance on written exams and decrease failure rates in an introductory biology course. Here we analyze the accuracy of peer grading, based on a comparison of student scores to those assigned by a professional grader. When students graded practice exams by themselves, they were significantly easier graders than a professional; overall, students awarded ≈25% more points than the professional did. This difference represented ≈1.33 points on a 10-point exercise, or 0.27 points on each of the five 2-point questions posed. When students graded practice exams as a group of four, the same student-expert difference occurred. The student-professional gap was wider for questions that demanded higher-order versus lower-order cognitive skills. Thus, students not only have a harder time answering questions on the upper levels of Bloom's taxonomy, they have a harder time grading them. Our results suggest that peer grading may be accurate enough for low-risk assessments in introductory biology. Peer grading can help relieve the burden on instructional staff posed by grading written answers—making it possible to add practice opportunities that increase student performance on actual exams.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Accurate Is Peer Grading?

Freeman

Parks

2010

LSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…From the methodology of social sciences (Mellenbergh, 2011), it is known that comparative ranking is generally easier than absolute ranking. We use the term "peer ranking" (following (Allain et al, 2006)) for comparative ranking in the context of peer review. Peer ranking, however, does not completely solve Problem 1: as part of the assessment process, our students need an absolute marking.…”

Section: Motivation and Problem Definitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-consistent Peer Ranking for Assessing Student Work - Dealing with Large Populations

Overveld¹,

Verhoeff²

2013

Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Assessing large populations of students puts a serious burden on teaching staff capacity. For open-format assignments, automation of the reviewing process can offer only limited support. Peer ranking is a partial solution to the problem, with the added benefit that students' critical reading skills are developed. We see two remaining problems, however: (1) for students, it is a major challenge to assign marks on an absolute scale, and (2) students' competence in reviewing may vary significantly-so not all peer reviews should have a similar weight in the process. To remedy these shortcomings, we suggest an approach to peer ranking, inspired by Jon Kleinberg's HITS-algorithm, where both the students' assignment results and the quality of their double anonymous peer reviews are algorithmically ranked. Based on preliminary model calculations, we estimate that this strategy may reduce the required effort for reviewing open-format assignments approximately by a factor of ten. A first large-scale pilot with this method will take place in undergraduate courses at Eindhoven University of Technology, spring 2013. Since this involves about 900 students, automated support is a must. We describe the peer reviewing facilities that were introduced in our web-based education support system named peach 3 .

show abstract

The Study of the Instructional Method to Develop Critical Thinking in Upper Secondary School Physics : Through the Unit of "the Movement of Objects"

Yamanaka

Kinoshita

2012

Journal of Research in Science Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using peer ranking to enhance student writing

Cited by 3 publications

References 6 publications

How Accurate Is Peer Grading?

How Accurate Is Peer Grading?

Self-consistent Peer Ranking for Assessing Student Work - Dealing with Large Populations

The Study of the Instructional Method to Develop Critical Thinking in Upper Secondary School Physics : Through the Unit of "the Movement of Objects"

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About