Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Conference on Model and Data Engineering

MEDI 2018: Model and Data Engineering pp 137–149Cite as

Feedback-Oriented Assessor Model

Application: Allocation of Submissions in Online Peer Assessment

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 11163))

Abstract

Ensuring effective feedback for learners is an important factor in the success of the learning experience. In the context of MOOCs, instructors are unable to provide feedback to a big, heterogeneous community of participants. Different platforms and tools have adopted peer assessment to solve this problem. However, they have been faced with a large number of learners who do not have enough capacity to generate accurate assessments and meaningful feedback. This finding leads to relying on the intelligence of the mass in order to generate more valid and effective feedback. At this level, one limitation of most tools and platforms is that they create random groups of assessors without considering the individual characteristics of its members. For this reason, this article proposes an updated assessor model that focuses on the characteristics of learners related to assessment capacity and their ability to provide correct, objective and useful feedback for their peers. Based on this feedback-oriented assessor model, we consider the aforementioned characteristics in the context of an algorithm that creates groups of assessors and allocates submissions in order to optimize peer feedback.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Wanner, T., Palmer, E.: Formative self-and peer assessment for improved student learning: the crucial factors of design, teacher participation and feedback. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 43, 1–16 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Mills, J., Glover, C., Stevens, V.: Using assessment within course structures to drive student engagement with the learning process. In: Proceedings of the 2005 13th International Symposium Improving Students Learning: Improving Student Learning Through Assessment, Refocusing feedback. Alden Press, Oxford (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Suen, H.K.: Peer assessment for massive open online courses (MOOCs). Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 15(3), 312–327 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Anand, I.M., Djoudi, L.A.: Assessment issues for MOOCs and large scale examinations and robust, objective testing with reverse multiple-choice. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on e-Learning, e-Business, Enterprise Information Systems, and e-Government (EEE) (2015). The Steering Committee of the World Congress in Computer Science, Computer Engineering and Applied Computing (WorldComp)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Krathwohl, D.R.: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy: an overview. Theor. Pract. 41(4), 212–218 (2002)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Herman, J.L., Klein, D.C., Wakai, S.T.: American students’ perspectives on alternative assessment: do they know it’s different? Assess. Educ.: Principles Policy Pract. 4(3), 339–352 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bendou, A., Abrache, M.-A., Cherkaoui, C.: Contribution of pedagogical agents to motivate learners in online learning environments: the case of the PAOLE agent. In: Ben Ahmed, M., Boudhir, A.A. (eds.) SCAMS 2017. LNNS, vol. 37, pp. 344–356. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74500-8_32

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Yuan, J., Kim, C.: The effects of autonomy support on student engagement in peer assessment. Educ. Technol. Res. Develop. 66(1), 25–52 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Topping, K.J.: Peer assessment. Theor. Pract. 48(1), 20–27 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sluijsmans, D.M., et al.: Peer assessment in problem based learning. Stud. Educ. Eval. 27(2), 153–173 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Topping, K.J., et al.: Formative peer assessment of academic writing between postgraduate students. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 25(2), 149–169 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gielen, S., et al.: Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learn. Instr. 20(4), 304–315 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Choi, B., et al.: Socialization tactics in wikipedia and their effects. In: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ertmer, P.A., et al.: Using peer feedback to enhance the quality of student online postings: an exploratory study. J. Comput.-Mediated Commun. 12(2), 412–433 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Falchikov, N.: Peer feedback marking: developing peer assessment. Program. Learn. 32(2), 175–187 (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Arch-Int, N.: Multidimensional assessment of open-ended questions for enhancing the quality of peer assessment in e-Learning environments. In: Handbook of Research on Applied e-Learning in Engineering and Architecture Education, p. 263 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cho, K., MacArthur, C.: Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learn. Instr. 20(4), 328–338 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Casey, G.: Students as “assessors” and “assessees” in an era of social media. In: Assessment in Online and Blended Learning Environments, p. 55 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Panadero, E.: Is it safe? social, interpersonal, and human effects of peer assessment. In: Handbook of Human and Social Conditions in Assessment, p. 247 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Topping, K.: Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Rev. Educ. Res. 68(3), 249–276 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Van Gennip, N., et al.: Reactions to 360 feedback: the role of trust and trust-related variables. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Develop. Manage. 10(4), 362–379 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Elliott, N., Higgins, A.: Self and peer assessment–does it make a difference to student group work? Nurse Educ. Pract. 5(1), 40–48 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cho, K., Schunn, C.D.: The SWoRD is mightier than the pen: scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline. In: 2004 Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies. IEEE (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Using Workshop – MoodleDocs (2017). https://docs.moodle.org/29/en/Using_Workshop#Grade_for_assessment

  25. Purchase, H.C., Hamer, J.: Peer review in practice: eight years of experiences with Aropä. School of Computing Science University of Glasgow, 31 January 2017

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cho, K., Schunn, C.D.: Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: a web-based reciprocal peer review system. Comput. Educ. 48(3), 409–426 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lin, S.S.-J., Liu, E.-F., Yuan, S.-M.: Web based peer assessment: attitude and achievement. IEEE Trans. Educ. 44(2), 13 (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Li, L.: The role of anonymity in peer assessment. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 42(4), 645–656 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sluijsmans, D., Dochy, F., Moerkerke, G.: Creating a learning environment by using self-, peer-and co-assessment. Learn. Environ. Res. 1(3), 293–319 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Piech, C., et al.: Tuned models of peer assessment in MOOCs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1307.2579 (2013)

  31. Goldin, I.M.: Accounting for peer reviewer bias with bayesian models. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Intelligent Support for Learning Groups at the 11th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Citeseer (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lan, C.H., Graf, S., Lai, K.R.: Enrichment of peer assessment with agent negotiation. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 4(1), 35–46 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Staubitz, T., et al.: Improving the peer assessment experience on MOOC platforms. In: Proceedings of the Third ACM Conference on Learning@ Scale. ACM (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Lin, S.S., Liu, E.Z.-F., Yuan, S.-M.: Web-based peer assessment: feedback for students with various thinking-styles. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 17(4), 420–432 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Liu, N.-F., Carless, D.: Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment. Teach. High. Educ. 11(3), 279–290 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Abrache, M., Qazdar, A., Cherkaoui, C.: Involvement of learners’ characteristics within the allocation of submissions in the context of peer assessment in MOOCs. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 168(12), 7–11 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Abrache, M.-A., Qazdar, A., Bendou, A., Cherkaoui, C.: The allocation of submissions in online peer assessment: what can an assessor model provide in this context? In: Ben Ahmed, M., Boudhir, A.A. (eds.) SCAMS 2017. LNNS, vol. 37, pp. 276–287. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74500-8_25

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  38. Brown, G.A., Bull, J., Pendlebury, M.: Assessing Student Learning in Higher Education. Routledge, londin (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Fini, A.: The technological dimension of a massive open online course: the case of the CCK08 course tools. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 10(5), 6 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kulkarni, C., et al.: Peer and Self Assessment in Massive Online Classes, in Design Thinking Research, pp. 131–168. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06823-7_910

  41. Ngoon, T.J., et al.: Interactive Guidance Techniques for Improving Creative Feedback (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., Van Merriënboer, J.: Effective peer assessment processes: research findings and future directions. Learn. Instr. 20(4), 270–279 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Cook, S., et al.: Going’massive’: learner engagement in a MOOC environment. THETA 2015-Create, Connect, Consume-Innovating today for tomorrow (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Prescott, T.: How does using Turnitin in a formative way change student attitudes towards plagiarism (2012). plagiarismadviceorg/documents/Prescott_fullpaper.pdf. Accessed 4 Oct 2014

  45. Paré, D.E., Joordens, S.: Peering into large lectures: examining peer and expert mark agreement using peerScholar, an online peer assessment tool. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 24(6), 526–540 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Russell, J., et al.: Variability in students’ evaluating processes in peer assessment with calibrated peer review. J. Comput. Assist. Learn. 33(2), 178–190 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lynda, H., et al.: Peer assessment in MOOCs based on learners’ profiles clustering. In: 2017 8th International Conference on Information Technology (ICIT). IEEE (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Karabasevic, D., et al.: An Approach to criteria weights determination by integrating the DELPHI and the adapted SWARA methods. management. J. Sustain. Bus. Manage. Solutions Emerg. Econ. 17 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IRF-SIC Laboratory, FSA - Ibn Zohr University, Agadir, Morocco

    Mohamed-Amine Abrache, Khalid Megder & Chihab Cherkaoui

Authors
  1. Mohamed-Amine Abrache
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Khalid Megder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chihab Cherkaoui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohamed-Amine Abrache .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Cadi Ayyad University, Marrakesh, Morocco

    El Hassan Abdelwahed

  2. LIAS/ISAE-ENSMA, Futuroscope Chasseneuil Cedex, France

    Ladjel Bellatreche

  3. University of Bologna, Cesena, Italy

    Mattéo Golfarelli

  4. University of Lorraine, Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France

    Dominique Méry

  5. University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA

    Carlos Ordonez

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Abrache, MA., Megder, K., Cherkaoui, C. (2018). Feedback-Oriented Assessor Model. In: Abdelwahed, E., Bellatreche, L., Golfarelli, M., Méry, D., Ordonez, C. (eds) Model and Data Engineering. MEDI 2018. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 11163. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00856-7_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00856-7_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-00855-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-00856-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation