Skip to main content

Classroom Evaluation of a Scaffolding Intervention for Improving Peer Review Localization

  • Conference paper

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNPSE,volume 8474))

Abstract

A peer review system that automatically evaluates student feedback comments was deployed in a university research methods course. The course required students to create an argument diagram to justify a hypothesis, then use this diagram to write a paper introduction. Diagram and paper first drafts were both reviewed by peers. During peer review, the system automatically analyzed the quality of student comments with respect to localization (i.e. pinpointing the source of the comment in the diagram or paper). Two localization models (one for diagram and one for paper reviews) triggered a system scaffolding intervention to improve review quality whenever the review was predicted to have a ratio of localized comments less than a threshold. Reviewers could then choose to revise their comments or ignore the scaffolding. Our analysis of data from system logs demonstrates that diagram and paper localization models have high prediction accuracy, and that a larger portion of student feedback comments are successfully localized after scaffolded revision.

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

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., Struyven, K.: Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learning and Instruction 20(4), 304–315 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Cho, K.: Machine Classification of Peer Comments in Physics. In: Proceedings of 1st international conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM), pp. 192–196 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cho, K., Schunn, C.D.: Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system. Computers & Education 48(3), 409–426 (2007)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Kumar, A.N.: Error-Flagging support for testing and its effect on adaptation. In: Aleven, V., Kay, J., Mostow, J. (eds.) ITS 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6094, pp. 359–368. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Lippman, J., Elfenbein, M., Diabes, M., Luchau, C., Lynch, C., Ashley, K.D., Schunn, C.D.: To Revise or Not To Revise: What Influences Undergrad Authors to Implement Peer Critiques of Their Argument Diagrams? In: International Society for the Psychology of Science and Technology 2012 Conference, Poster (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Nelson, M.M., Schunn, C.D.: The nature of feedback: How different types of peer feedback affect writing performance. Instructional Science 37(4), 375–401 (2009)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Nguyen, H.V., Litman, D.J.: Identifying Localization in Peer Reviews of Argument Diagrams. In: Lane, H.C., Yacef, K., Mostow, J., Pavlik, P. (eds.) AIED 2013. LNCS, vol. 7926, pp. 91–100. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  8. Ramachandran, L., Gehringer, E.F.: Automated assessment of review quality using latent semantic analysis. In: 11th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), pp. 136–138 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Razzaq, L., Heffernan, N.T.: Hints: is it better to give or wait to be asked? In: Aleven, V., Kay, J., Mostow, J. (eds.) ITS 2010, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6094, pp. 349–358. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Scheuer, O., Loll, F., Pinkwart, N., McLaren, B.M.: Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning 5(1), 43–102 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Xiong, W., Litman, D.: Identifying problem localization in peer-review feedback. In: Aleven, V., Kay, J., Mostow, J. (eds.) ITS 2010, Part II. LNCS, vol. 6095, pp. 429–431. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. Xiong, W., Litman, D.: Automatically Predicting Peer-Review Helpfulness. In: Proceedings of 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (ACL-HLT), pp. 502–507 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Nguyen, H., Xiong, W., Litman, D. (2014). Classroom Evaluation of a Scaffolding Intervention for Improving Peer Review Localization. In: Trausan-Matu, S., Boyer, K.E., Crosby, M., Panourgia, K. (eds) Intelligent Tutoring Systems. ITS 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8474. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07221-0_34

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07221-0_34

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-07220-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-07221-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics