research-article

Open access

Peer and self assessment in massive online classes

Authors:

Chinmay Kulkarni,

Kathryn Papadopoulos,

Scott R. KlemmerAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), Volume 20, Issue 6

Article No.: 33, Pages 1 - 31

https://doi.org/10.1145/2505057

Published: 01 December 2013 Publication History

Abstract

Peer and self-assessment offer an opportunity to scale both assessment and learning to global classrooms. This article reports our experiences with two iterations of the first large online class to use peer and self-assessment. In this class, peer grades correlated highly with staff-assigned grades. The second iteration had 42.9% of students’ grades within 5% of the staff grade, and 65.5% within 10%. On average, students assessed their work 7% higher than staff did. Students also rated peers’ work from their own country 3.6% higher than those from elsewhere. We performed three experiments to improve grading accuracy. We found that giving students feedback about their grading bias increased subsequent accuracy. We introduce short, customizable feedback snippets that cover common issues with assignments, providing students more qualitative peer feedback. Finally, we introduce a data-driven approach that highlights high-variance items for improvement. We find that rubrics that use a parallel sentence structure, unambiguous wording, and well-specified dimensions have lower variance. After revising rubrics, median grading error decreased from 12.4% to 9.9%.

References

[1]

L. Alben. 1996. Defining the criteria for effective interaction design. Interactions 3, 3 (1996), 11--15.

Digital Library

[2]

T. M. Amabile. 1982. Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43, 2 (1982), 997--1013.

[3]

J. R. Anderson and G. H. Bower. 1972. Recognition and retrieval processes in free recall. Psychological Review 79, 2 (1972), 97--123.

[4]

H. G. Andrade. 2005. Teaching with rubrics: The good, the bad, and the ugly. College Teaching 53, 1 (2005), 27--31.

[5]

R. E. Bennett. 1998. Validity and automated scoring: It's not only the scoring. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 17, 4 (1998).

[6]

R. E. Bennett, M. Steffen, M. K. Singley, M. Morley, and D. Jacquemin. 1997. Evaluating an automatically scorable, open-ended response type for measuring mathematical reasoning in computer-adaptive tests. Journal of Educational Measurement 34, 2 (1997), 162--76.

[7]

D. Boud. 1995. Enhancing Learning through Self Assessment. Routledge.

[8]

D. Boud. 2000. Sustainable assessment: rethinking assessment for the learning society. Studies in Continuing Education 22, 2 (2000), 151--167.

[9]

L. B. Breslow, D. E. Pritchard, J. DeBoer, G. S. Stump, A. D. Ho, and D. T. Seaton. 2013. Studying learning in the worldwide classroom: Research into edX's first MOOC. Research & Practice in Assessment 8 (2013), 13--25.

[10]

B. Buxton. 2007. Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design. Morgan Kaufmann.

Digital Library

[11]

J. J. Cadiz, A. Balachandran, E. Sanocki, A. Gupta, J. Grudin, and Gavin Jancke. 2000. Distance learning through distributed collaborative video viewing. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported cooperative Work. ACM, 135--144.

Digital Library

[12]

P. A. Carlson and F. C. Berry. 2003. Calibrated Peer Review and assessing learning outcomes. In Proceedings of the Frontiers in Education Conference, Vol. 2. STIPES.

[13]

S. Carter, J. Mankoff, S. R. Klemmer, and T. Matthews. 2008. Exiting the cleanroom: On ecological validity and ubiquitous computing. Human--Computer Interaction 23, 1 (2008), 47--99.

[14]

K. Cennamo, S. A Douglas, M. Vernon, C. Brandt, B. Scott, Y. Reimer, and M. McGrath. 2011. Promoting creativity in the computer science design studio. In Proceedings of the 42nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM, 649--654.

Digital Library

[15]

C. Cheshire and J. Antin. 2008. The social psychological effects of feedback on the production of Internet information pools. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13, 3 (2008), 705--727.

[16]

E. H. Chi. 2009. A position paper onliving laboratories”: Rethinking ecological designs and experimentation in human-computer interaction. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Part I: New Trends. Springer-Verlag, 597--605.

Digital Library

[17]

D. Chinn. 2005. Peer assessment in the algorithms course. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 37, 3 (2005), 69--73.

Digital Library

[18]

R. Conti, H. Coon, and T. M. Amabile. 1996. Evidence to support the componential model of creativity: Secondary analyses of three studies. Creativity Research Journal 9, 4 (1996), 385--389.

[19]

A. T. Corbett, K. R. Koedinaer, and W. Haaley. 2002. Cognitive tutors: From the research classroom to all classrooms. In P. S. Goodman, Ed., Technology Enhanced Learning: Opportunities for Change. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 235.

[20]

P. Dai, Mausam D., and D. S. Weld. 2010. Decision-theoretic control of crowd-sourced workflows. In Proceedings of the 24th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI'10).

Digital Library

[21]

D. P. Dannels and K. N. Martin. 2008. Critiquing critiques a genre analysis of feedback across novice to expert design studios. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 22, 2 (2008), 135--159.

[22]

B. De La Harpe, J. F. Peterson, N. Frankham, R. Zehner, D. Neale, E. Musgrave, and R. McDermott. 2009. Assessment focus in studio: What is most prominent in architecture, art and design&quest; International Journal of Art & Design Education 28, 1 (2009), 37--51.

[23]

S. P. Dow, A. Glassco, J. Kass, M. Schwarz, D. L. Schwartz, and S. R. Klemmer. 2010. Parallel prototyping leads to better design results, more divergence, and increased self-efficacy. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 17, 4 (2010), 18.

Digital Library

[24]

S. Dow, A. Kulkarni, S. Klemmer, and B. Hartmann. 2012. Shepherding the crowd yields better work. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM, 1013--1022.

Digital Library

[25]

A. Drexler, R. Chafee, and others. 1977. The Architecture of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

[26]

B. Efron and R. Tibshirani. 1993. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Vol. 57. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL.

[27]

J. Ehrlinger, K. Johnson, M. Banner, D. Dunning, and J. Kruger. 2008. Why the unskilled are unaware: Further explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetent. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105, 1 (2008), 98--121.

[28]

N. Falchikov and J. Goldfinch. 2000. Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research 70, 3 (2000), 287--322.

[29]

D. Fallman. 2003. Design-oriented human-computer interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 225--232.

Digital Library

[30]

E. B. Feldman. 1994. Practical art criticism. Prentice Hall New York.

[31]

J. Forlizzi and K. Battarbee. 2004. Understanding experience in interactive systems. In Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques. ACM, 261--268.

Digital Library

[32]

A. Fox and D. Patterson. 2012. Crossing the software education chasm. Communications of the ACM 55, 5 (2012), 44--49.

Digital Library

[33]

A. D Galinsky and G. B Moskowitz. 2000. Counterfactuals as behavioral primes: Priming the simulation heuristic and consideration of alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 36, 4 (2000), 384--409.

[34]

T. Gallien and J. Oomen-Early. 2008. Personalized versus collective instructor feedback in the online courseroom: Does type of feedback affect student satisfaction, academic performance and perceived connectedness with the instructor&quest; International Journal on E-Learning 7, 3 (2008), 463--476.

[35]

R. D. Gerdeman, A. A. Russell, and K. J. Worden. 2007. Web-Based student writing and reviewing in a large biology lecture course. Journal of College Science Teaching 36, 5 (2007), 46--52.

[36]

S. Greenberg. 2009. Embedding a design studio course in a conventional computer science program. In Creativity and HCI: From Experience to Design in Education. Springer, 23--41.

[37]

S. Guo, A. Parameswaran, and H. Garcia-Molina. 2012. So who won&quest;: dynamic max discovery with the crowd. In Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Management of Data. ACM, 385--396.

Digital Library

[38]

M. A. Hearst. 2000. The debate on automated essay grading. Intelligent Systems and Their Applications, IEEE 15, 5 (2000), 22--37.

Digital Library

[39]

S. Hsi and A. M. Agogino. 1995. Scaffolding knowledge integration through designing multimedia case studies of engineering design. In Proceedings of the 1995 Frontiers in Education Conference. Vol. 2. IEEE, 4d1--1.

Digital Library

[40]

S. W. Huang and W. T. Fu. 2013. Enhancing reliability using peer consistency evaluation in human computation. In Proceedings of ACM 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Work. ACM.

Digital Library

[41]

P. G. Ipeirotis, F. Provost, and J. Wang. 2010. Quality management on amazon mechanical turk. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD Workshop on Human Computation. ACM, 64--67.

Digital Library

[42]

J. C. Kaufman, J. Baer, J. C. Cole, and J. D. Sexton. 2008. A comparison of expert and nonexpert raters using the consensual assessment technique. Creativity Research Journal 20, 2 (2008), 171--178.

[43]

F. Khatib, F. DiMaio, S. Cooper, M. Kazmierczyk, M. Gilski, S. Krzywda, H. Zabranska, I. Pichova, J. Thompson, Z. Popović, and others. 2011. Crystal structure of a monomeric retroviral protease solved by protein folding game players. Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 18, 10 (2011), 1175--1177.

[44]

H. Kim and P. Hinds. 2012. Harmony vs. disruption: The effect of iterative prototyping on teams creative processes and outcomes in the West and the East. In Proceedings of the ICIC: International Conference on Intercultural Collaboration. ACM.

[45]

A. Kittur, J. Nickerson, M. Bernstein, E. Gerber, A. Shaw, J. Zimmerman, M. Lease, and J. Horton. 2013. The future of crowd work. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Coooperative Work (CSCW'13).

Digital Library

[46]

R. F. Kizilcec, C. Piech, and E. Schneider. 2013. Deconstructing disengagement: Analyzing Learner subpopulations in massive open online courses. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge. 170--179.

Digital Library

[47]

S. R. Klemmer, B. Hartmann, and L. Takayama. 2006. How bodies matter: Five themes for interaction design. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. ACM, 140--149.

Digital Library

[48]

R. E. Kraut and P. Resnick. 2011. Evidence-Based Social Design: Mining the Social Sciences to Build Online Communities. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

[49]

J. E. Kuebli, R. D. Harvey, and J. H. Korn. 2008. Critical thinking in critical courses: Principles and applications. In D. S. Dunn, J. S. Halonen, and R. A. Smith, Eds. Teaching Critical Thinking in Psychology: A Handbook of Best Practices. Wiley-Blackwell, New York, 137.

[50]

J. Kurhila. 2012. Human-Computer Interaction by Coursera opened for credit for the students of the Department. Retrieved December 13, 2013 from http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/en/uutiset/72025.

[51]

B. Lawson. 2006. How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. Architectual Press.

[52]

T. Lewin. 2012a. Education site expands slate of universities and courses. The New York Times. September 19, 2012.

[53]

T. Lewin. 2012b. One course, 150,000 students. The New York Times. July 18, 2012.

[54]

T. Lewin. 2013a. College of future could be come one, come all. The New York Times. November 19, 2012.

[55]

T. Lewin. 2013b. Five online courses are eligible for college credit. The New York Times. February 6, 2013.

[56]

T. Lewin. 2013c. Students rush to web classes, but profits may be much later. The New York Times. January 6, 2013.

[57]

T. Lewin. 2013d. Universities abroad join partnerships on the web. The New York Times. February 20, 2013.

[58]

J. L. Little and E. L. Bjork. 2012. Pretesting with multiple-choice questions facilitates learning. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society.

[59]

A. B. Markman and D. Gentner. 1993. Splitting the differences: A structural alignment view of similarity. Journal of Memory and Language 32 (1993), 517--517.

[60]

J. Marlow, L. Dabbish, and J. Herbsleb. 2013. Impression formation in online peer production: activity traces and personal profiles in github. In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. ACM, 117--128.

Digital Library

[61]

F. G. Martin. 2012. Will massive open online courses change how we teach&quest; Communications of the ACM 55, 8 (2012), 26--28.

Digital Library

[62]

N. Mazar, O. Amir, and D. Ariely. 2008. The dishonesty of honest people: A theory of self-concept maintenance. Journal of Marketing Research 45, 6 (2008), 633--644.

[63]

P. A. Murtaugh, L. D. Burns, and J. Schuster. 1999. Predicting the retention of university students. Research in Higher Education 40, 3 (1999), 355--371.

[64]

D. J. Nicol and D. Macfarlane-Dick. 2006. Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in Higher Education 31, 2 (2006), 199--218.

[65]

J. Nielsen. 1993. Iterative user-interface design. Computer 26, 11 (1993), 32--41.

Digital Library

[66]

J. Nielsen. 1994. Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 152--158.

Digital Library

[67]

L. Palen. 1999. Social, individual and technological issues for groupware calendar systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: The CHI Is the Limit. ACM, 17--24.

Digital Library

[68]

A. Pendleton-Jullian. 2010. Four (+1) Studios. CreateSpace Independent Publishing.

[69]

W. G. Perry. 1970. Forms of Intellectual Development in the College Years. Holt, New York.

[70]

P. R. Pintrich. 1995. Understanding self-regulated learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 1995, 63 (1995), 3--12.

[71]

P. Pintrich and A. Zusho. 2007. Student motivation and self-regulated learning in the college classroom. In R. P. Perry and J. C. Smart, Eds. The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: An Evidence-based Perspective. Springer, 731--810.

[72]

Y. J. Reimer and S. A. Douglas. 2003. Teaching HCI design with the studio approach. Computer Science Education 13, 3 (2003), 191--205.

[73]

E. Roberts, J. Lilly, and B. Rollins. 1995. Using undergraduates as teaching assistants in introductory programming courses: An update on the Stanford experience. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 27, 1 (1995), 48--52.

Digital Library

[74]

D. Schön. 1985. The Design Studio: An exploration of its traditions and potential. London: Royal Institute of British Architects (1985).

[75]

A. Snodgrass and R. Coyne. 2006. Interpretation in architecture: Design as a Way of Thinking. Routledge.

[76]

R. Socher, B. Huval, C. D. Manning, and A. Y. Ng. 2012. Semantic compositionality through recursive matrix-vector spaces. In Proceedings of the 2012 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP'12).

Digital Library

[77]

C. A. Stanley and M. E. Porter. 2002. Engaging Large Classes: Strategies and Techniques for College Faculty. ERIC.

[78]

J. Surowiecki. 2005. The Wisdom of Crowds. Anchor.

Digital Library

[79]

M. Szpir. 2002. Clickworkers on Mars. American Scientist 90, 3 (2002).

[80]

D. Tinapple, L. Olson, and John Sadauskas. 2013. CritViz: Web-based software supporting peer critique in large creative classrooms. Bulletin of the IEEE Technical Committee on Learning Technology 15, 1 (2013), 29.

[81]

M. Tohidi, W. Buxton, R. Baecker, and A. Sellen. 2006. Getting the right design and the design right. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 1243--1252.

Digital Library

[82]

J. E. Tomayko. 1991. Teaching software development in a studio environment. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 23, 1 (1991), 300--303.

Digital Library

[83]

K. Topping. 1998. Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research 68, 3 (1998), 249--276.

[84]

B. Uluoglu. 2000. Design knowledge communicated in studio critiques. Design Studies 21, 1 (2000), 33--58.

[85]

A. Venables and R. Summit. 2003. Enhancing scientific essay writing using peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 40, 3 (2003), 281--290.

[86]

J. Widom. 2012. From 100 Students to 100,000. ACM SIGMOD Blog. Retreived December 13, 2013 from http://wp.sigmod.org/&quest;p=165.

[87]

T. Winograd. 1990. What can we teach about human-computer interaction&quest;(plenary address). In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 443--448.

Digital Library

[88]

O. F. Zaidan and C. Callison-Burch. 2011. Crowdsourcing translation: Professional quality from non-professionals. In Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Vol. 1. 1220--1229.

Digital Library

[89]

B. J. Zimmerman and D. H. Schunk. 2001. Reflections on theories of self-regulated learning and academic achievement. Self-regulated Learning and Academic Achievement: Theoretical Perspectives 2 (2001), 289--307.

Cited By

Pongen L(2024)EXPLORING THE INTEGRATION OF DIGITAL COMMUNICATION TOOLS IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION: A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWShodhGyan-NU: Journal of Literature and Culture Studies10.29121/shodhgyan.v2.i2.2024.202:2Online publication date: 10-Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.29121/shodhgyan.v2.i2.2024.20
Ou CThajchayapong PJoyner DJoyner DKim MWang XXia M(2024)Open, Collaborative, and AI-Augmented Peer Assessment: Student Participation, Performance, and PerceptionsProceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale10.1145/3657604.3664705(496-500)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3657604.3664705
Malik AWoodrow JWang CPiech CMonga MLonati VBarendsen ESheard JPaterson J(2024)TeachNow: Enabling Teachers to Provide Spontaneous, Realtime 1:1 Help in Massive Online CoursesProceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3649217.3653629(708-714)Online publication date: 3-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3649217.3653629
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Peer and self assessment in massive online classes
1. Applied computing
  1. Education
2. Human-centered computing
  1. Collaborative and social computing

Recommendations

Improving the Peer Assessment Experience on MOOC Platforms
L@S '16: Proceedings of the Third (2016) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have revolutionized higher education by offering university-like courses for a large amount of learners via the Internet. The paper at hand takes a closer look on peer assessment as a tool for delivering ...
Investigating Learners’ Views of Assessment Types in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)
Design for Teaching and Learning in a Networked World
Abstract
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are changing the contours of the teaching and learning landscape. Assessment covers an important part of this landscape and may be a key driver for learning. This paper presents preliminary results of a ...
Implementation and Experience of the Online Peer Grading System for Our Real Class
SIGUCCS '15: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM SIGUCCS Annual Conference

In an online learning course like MOOC (Massive Open Online Course), peer grading is useful for scaling the grades of assignments to the large number of students. Peer grading is also attractive because it reduces the burden of teachers and gives rich ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction

ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction Volume 20, Issue 6

December 2013

155 pages

ISSN:1073-0516

EISSN:1557-7325

DOI:10.1145/2562181

Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2013 Owner/Author.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 December 2013

Accepted: 01 July 2013

Revised: 01 July 2013

Received: 01 March 2013

Published in TOCHI Volume 20, Issue 6

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed

Funding Sources

Division of Information and Intelligent Systems
Hasso Plattner Design Thinking Program

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

215
Total Citations
View Citations
10,598
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)538
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)59

Reflects downloads up to 21 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Pongen L(2024)EXPLORING THE INTEGRATION OF DIGITAL COMMUNICATION TOOLS IN LANGUAGE EDUCATION: A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWShodhGyan-NU: Journal of Literature and Culture Studies10.29121/shodhgyan.v2.i2.2024.202:2Online publication date: 10-Aug-2024
https://doi.org/10.29121/shodhgyan.v2.i2.2024.20
Ou CThajchayapong PJoyner DJoyner DKim MWang XXia M(2024)Open, Collaborative, and AI-Augmented Peer Assessment: Student Participation, Performance, and PerceptionsProceedings of the Eleventh ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale10.1145/3657604.3664705(496-500)Online publication date: 9-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3657604.3664705
Malik AWoodrow JWang CPiech CMonga MLonati VBarendsen ESheard JPaterson J(2024)TeachNow: Enabling Teachers to Provide Spontaneous, Realtime 1:1 Help in Massive Online CoursesProceedings of the 2024 on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3649217.3653629(708-714)Online publication date: 3-Jul-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3649217.3653629
Alipour SElahimanesh SJahanzad SMohammadi IMorassafar PNeshaei STefagh M(2024)Improving Grading Fairness and Transparency with Decentralized Collaborative Peer AssessmentProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36373508:CSCW1(1-24)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3637350
Peng ZChen QShen ZMa XOulasvirta A(2024)DesignQuizzer: A Community-Powered Conversational Agent for Learning Visual DesignProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36373218:CSCW1(1-40)Online publication date: 26-Apr-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3637321
Zarkoob HLeyton-Brown KStephenson BStone JBattestilli LRebelsky SShoop L(2024)Mechanical TA 2: Peer Grading with TA and Algorithmic SupportProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3626252.3630891(1470-1476)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3626252.3630891
Zhang LChen TZong YGao XStephenson BStone JBattestilli LRebelsky SShoop L(2024)A Peer Grading Approach for Open-ended Programming Projects Based on Binary System and Swiss SystemProceedings of the 55th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education V. 110.1145/3626252.3630767(1484-1490)Online publication date: 7-Mar-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3626252.3630767
Lin ZYan HZhao L(2024)Exploring an effective automated grading model with reliability detection for large‐scale online peer assessmentJournal of Computer Assisted Learning10.1111/jcal.1297040:4(1535-1551)Online publication date: 12-Mar-2024
https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12970
Lin XZhan ZZhang XXiong J(2024)Exploring the Effectiveness of a SPOC Learning Analytics System Based on Attribution Theory: Evaluation Framework and Educational ExperimentIEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies10.1109/TLT.2023.326827617(98-111)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/TLT.2023.3268276
Perdue MSandland JJoshi ALiu J(2024)Exploring the Integration of Social Practice into MOOC Peer Assessment2024 IEEE Digital Education and MOOCS Conference (DEMOcon)10.1109/DEMOcon63027.2024.10747943(1-6)Online publication date: 16-Oct-2024
https://doi.org/10.1109/DEMOcon63027.2024.10747943
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Issue’s Table of Contents