Web‐based peer assessment: feedback for students with various thinking‐styles

Abstract

This study used aptitude treatment interaction design to examine how feedback formats (specific vs. holistic) and executive thinking styles (high vs. low) affect web‐based peer assessment. An Internet‐based (anonymous) peer‐assessment system was developed and used by 58 computer science students who submitted assignments for peer review. The results indicated that while students with high executive thinking styles significantly improved over two rounds of peer assessment, low executive students did not improve through the cycles. In addition, high executive students contributed substantially better feedback than their low executive counterparts. In the second round of peer assessment, thinking style and feedback format interactively affected student learning. Low executive students receiving specific feedback significantly outperformed those receiving holistic feedback. In receiving holistic feedback, high executive thinkers outperformed their low executive counterparts. This study suggests that future web‐based peer assessment adopts a specific feedback format for all students.

Don't write, just mark: the validity of assessing student ability via their computerized peer-marking of an essay rather than their creation of an essay

“…In recent years computerized systems have been introduced in order to provide managed environments to support the use of peer-assessment systems (Davies, 2000;Bhalero & Ward, 2001;Bostock, 2001;Lin et al, 2001;Parsons, 2003) aimed at assessing the quality of essays and reports. Systems are now also being created that are attempting to utilize the inherent benefits of peer-assessment in other areas such as computer programming (Sitthiworachart & Joy, 2003;Lewis & Davies, 2004).…”

“…The method of peer-assessment detailed in this paper attempts to address this issue, and facilitate a method whereby these 'better' students will be able to demonstrate these skills and score higher. Lin et al (2001) noted that 'high executive students contributed substantially better feedback than the low executive thinkers'. It will be interesting to ascertain whether this maps to their ability in the marking of the work.…”

Closing the communications loop on the computerized peer-assessment of essays

“…The use of computerized systems to support peer-assessment is still in its relative infancy (Davies, 2000;Bhalerao and Ward, 2001;Dennis and Dempster, 2000;Bostock, 2001;Lin, Liu and Yuan, 2001). The de-personalization caused by the use of such systems has obviously reduced the tutor-student contact with response to feedback.…”

Peer feedback content and sender's competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency?

“…Many students express concerns about the fairness of peer assessment (Sluijsmans, Dochy, & Moerkerke, 1999) and students frequently voice that evaluation is a role of the teacher (Brown, Irving, Peterson, & Hirschfeld, 2009;Zhang, 1995). Furthermore, the perceived or actual ability of both assessor and assessee (Kali & Ronen, 2008;Lin, Liu, & Yuan, 2001) appears to affect peer ratings and might have an important effect on both acceptance of peer feedback and application during subsequent performance. The qualification "equal status students" in Topping's (1998) definition might be retained in the sense of age or class"level of students, but there are evidently individual differences that affect perceived status and may impact peer feedback perceptions and subsequent performance.…”