The Impact of Self- and Peer-Grading on Student Learning

Sadler, Philip M.; Good, Eddie

doi:10.1207/s15326977ea1101_1

Cited by 405 publications

(305 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

260

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, there is little understanding of the impact of students' perceptions of peer reviewed work [16]. Moreover, the effects of the results of a "good" feedback are far from being characterized, whether in studies which relate the type of feedback with the improvement of the quality of the work and/or with the received grades or even from the perspective of the position of students as authors or reviewers [17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…level of cognitive skills, motivation) [20]. In particular some authors refer to the influence of the presence or absence of the teacher in the process of review/assessment [17] [24]. When feedback is given only by peers, it seems to be less enforcing [24] than when the involvement of the teacher is also present in the process.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The relations between the type of feedback and the quality of the work are on investigation. The discussion of its benefits from the perspective of the position of the students as reviewers or as writers [17] is still going on. On this latter aspect and according to Ozogul and Sullivan [30] the peer evaluation has PAPER COME TOGETHER: PEER REVIEW WITH ENERGY ENGINEERING STUDENTS the potential to be beneficial to both the assessor and the assessed students.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other research stresses the importance of feedback being more qualitative rather than quantitative, as well as done timely [28]. Aspects related to grading by students are also discussed in references [28] [2] [17], such as the students' skills to assign grades to their colleagues and to do the task of revision (when compared to the teacher's skills [24]). Peer grading on the other side seems to have very limited effects on the learning performance of both students involved [2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Peer grading on the other side seems to have very limited effects on the learning performance of both students involved [2]. However, some benefits are pointed out by Sadler and Good [17] in peer grading: it can substitute teacher's grading, when the results of these grading practices are comparable with those of teachers. Finally, the effects of feedback on assessed students are complex and difficult to evaluate, because they need close monitorization [2].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Come Together: Peer Review with Energy Engineering Students

Nascimento

2014

Int. J. Eng. Ped.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-Based on the quantitative and qualitative analysis of collected data, this work examines energy engineering students' perceptions towards web-based peer assessment, distinguishing their role as reviewers and as feedback receivers. It analyses the type of feedback in an attempt to evaluate students' written communication skills and identifies which factors are related to students' use and appreciation of feedback. Taking in account the conclusions of our previous case-study in the civil engineering course at University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD, Vila Real, Portugal) the results of this study allow us to deepen the reflexion on how to improve the design and implementation of future web-based peer assessment tasks in engineering courses.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Come Together: Peer Review with Energy Engineering Students

Nascimento

2014

Int. J. Eng. Ped.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Grading exams using large language models: A comparison between human and AI grading of exams in higher education using ChatGPT

Flodén

2024

British Educational Res J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compares how the generative AI (GenAI) large language model (LLM) ChatGPT performs in grading university exams compared to human teachers. Aspects investigated include consistency, large discrepancies and length of answer. Implications for higher education, including the role of teachers and ethics, are also discussed. Three Master's‐level exams were scored using ChatGPT 3.5, and the results were compared with the teachers' scoring and the grading teachers were interviewed. In total, 463 exam responses were graded. With each response being graded at least three times, a total of 1389 gradings were conducted. For the final exam scores, 70% of ChatGPT's gradings were within 10% of the teachers' gradings and 31% within 5%. ChatGPT tended to give marginally higher scores. The agreement on grades is 30%, but 45% of the exams received an adjacent grade. On individual questions, ChatGPT is more inclined to avoid very high or very low scores. ChatGPT struggles to correctly score questions closely related to the course lectures but performs better on more general questions. The AI can generate plausible scores on university exams that, at first glance, look similar to a human grader. There are differences but it is not unlikely that two different human graders could result in similar discrepancies. During the interviews, teachers expressed their surprise at how well ChatGPT's grading matched their own. Increased use of AI can lead to ethical challenges as exams are entrusted to a machine whose decision‐making criteria are not fully understood, especially concerning potential bias in training data.

show abstract

Calibrated peer review for computer‐assisted learning of biological research competencies

Clase

Gundlach

Pelaez

2010

Biochem Molecular Bio Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, both science and technology faculty have been recognizing biological research competencies that are valued but rarely assessed. Some of these valued learning outcomes include scientific methods and thinking, critical assessment of primary papers, quantitative reasoning, communication, and putting biological research into a historical and broader social context. This article presents examples of Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) assignments that illustrate a computer-assisted method to help students achieve biological research competencies. A new release of CPR is appropriate for engaging students online in reading and writing about investigations. A participant perception inventory was designed for use as a repeated measure to discriminate among beginning, middle, and ending student perceptions.Examples are provided to demonstrate how to assess student perceptions of what they gain from instruction related to science research competencies. Results suggest that students in a large enrollment class consider CPR to be useful for helping them learn about quantitative and categorical research variables; the use of the experimental method to test ideas; the use of controls; analysis, interpretation, and presentation of data; and how to critically read primary papers.

show abstract

The Impact of Self- and Peer-Grading on Student Learning

Cited by 405 publications

References 21 publications

Come Together: Peer Review with Energy Engineering Students

Come Together: Peer Review with Energy Engineering Students

Grading exams using large language models: A comparison between human and AI grading of exams in higher education using ChatGPT

Calibrated peer review for computer‐assisted learning of biological research competencies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About