Peer Portal: Quality enhancement in thesis writing using self-managed peer review on a mass scale

Abstract

<p>This paper describes a specially developed online peer-review system, the Peer Portal, and the first results of its use for quality enhancement of bachelor’s and master’s thesis manuscripts. The peer-review system is completely student driven and therefore saves time for supervisors and creates a direct interaction between students without interference from supervisors. The purpose is to improve thesis manuscript quality, and thereby use supervisor time more efficiently, since peers review basic aspects of the manuscripts and give constructive suggestions for improvements. The process was initiated in 2012, and, in total, 260 peer reviews were completed between 1st January and 15th May, 2012. All peer reviews for this period have been analyzed with the help of content analysis. The purpose of analysis is to assess the quality of the students work. The results are categorized in four groups: 1) <em>excellent</em> (18.1%), 2) <em>good</em> (22.7%), 3) <em>fragmented</em> (18.5%), and 4) <em>poor</em> (40.7%). The overall result shows that almost 40% of the students produced excellent or good peer reviews and almost as many produced poor peer reviews. The result shows that the quality varies considerably. Explanations of these quality variations need further study. However, alternative hypotheses followed by some strategic suggestions are discussed in this study. Finally, a way forward in terms of improving peer reviews is outlined: 1) development of a peer wizard system and 2) rating of received peer reviews based on the quality categories created in this study. A Peer Portal version 2.0 is suggested, which will eliminate the fragmented and poor quality peer reviews, but still keep this review system student driven and ensure autonomous learning.</p>

Interaction Gaps in PhD Education and ICT as a Way Forward: Results from a Study in Sweden

“…However, for the respondent group in this study, this might not be the biggest concern, when designing an ICTSS. As shown by Table 1, higher priority interaction issues were the following: access to the structured online e-resources and information (also discussed by Jones, 2013; Aghaee et al, 2014), better online peer communication (also discussed by Christie & Jurado, 2013;Guilford, 2001;Aghaee & Hansson, 2013), and more appropriate timelines.…”

“…This study investigates the issues in PhD studies with respect to three main themes, discussed by Moore (1989) and Moore and Kearsley (1996). Sub-themes are inspired by the model from Jones (2013) and the issues discussed and illustrated by Christie and Jurado (2013), Aghaee (2013), and Aghaee and Hansson (2013). Figure 1 illustrates the major themes comprising issues and their subcomponents.…”

Open and anonymous peer review in a digital online environment compared in academic writing context

“…In addition, the participants indicated their preference for feedback from multiple peers, not just a single person. This is invaluable both for the author and reviewer (Aghaee & Hansson, 2013). Good students in particular indicated they did not benefit from singlepeer reviews.…”

“…Such interaction is also observable in the process called scaffolding (Weissberg, 2006), where one peer may draw another peer's attention to problematic aspects of a paper that had been overlooked (Ruecker, 2010). The expectation of the FL lecturer is to observe an improvement in the students' writing skills, since this is assumed to be beneficial for both authors and reviewers (Aghaee & Hansson, 2013).…”

Det fleksible engasjement

“…som ønsker å avlaste egen arbeidssituasjon for de trivielle oppgavene, og fokusere på det som har med studentens utvikling av egen forskning å gjøre. Informatikk og datakunnskapsstudenter har tydeligvis stort utbytte av dette (Aghaee & Hansson, 2013). Andre studenter opplever imidlertid ofte datakommunikasjonen som ugjennomtrengelig, og det «å se hva hverandre tenker» forblir et ideal i «nettpedagogenes» sinn.…”