skip to main content
10.1145/1227310.1227406acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessigcseConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Lightweight preliminary peer review: does in-class peer review make sense?

Published: 07 March 2007 Publication History

Abstract

Peer review is widely recognized for advancing student learning, in particular for developing reflective processes like critical thinking. The classroom is ripe for peer review because the subject matter is fresh and in-depth interactivity is possible. Yet the limited time available in class conflicts with peer review's deliberative nature. We hypothesize that peer review -- at least the initial stages of it -- can be supported in the classroom with tools for facilitating the rapid identification of interesting issues for discussion. The potential benefits of such a tool include: furthering the student-focus of in-class active learning activities, further implanting critical analysis skills through frequent in-class use, supporting immediate feedback, and enabling comparison of student and instructor-modeled critical analysis.This paper explores tool support for in-class lightweight preliminary peer-review (LPPR): peer review that is instigated in the classroom, but does not necessarily end there. We proposed that students classify peer solutions in 4 dimensions: correctness, comprehension (e.g., "do I understand this solution"), worthiness for discussion, and similarity to the evaluator's own solution. We designed an LPPR extension to Ubiquitous Presenter, and then conducted an exploratory study in a mock classroom setting. We found that LPPR can quickly identify a subset of student solutions that warrant immediate discussion, and that modest amounts of reflection arise from the LPPR process.

References

[1]
R. Anderson, R. Anderson, B. Simon, S. Wolfman, T. VanDeGrift, and K. Yasuhara. Experiences with a Tablet PC Based Lecture Presentation System in Computer Science Courses. SIGCSE 2004.
[2]
T. Denning, W. G. Griswold, B. Simon, and M. Wilkerson. Multimodal Communication in the Classroom: What does it mean for us? SIGCSE 2006.
[3]
A. Fekete, J. Kay, J. Kingston, and K. Wimalaratne, Supporting reflection in introductory computer science. SIGCSE 2000.
[4]
E. Gehringer, Electronic Peer Review and Peer Grading in Computer-Science Courses. SIGCSE 2001.
[5]
S. E. George, Learning and the reflective journal in computer science. In Proc. of the Australasian Conference on Computer Science - Volume 4. 2002.
[6]
R. Pargas, D. Shah. Things are Clicking in Computer Science Courses. SIGCSE 2006.
[7]
S. Sullivan. Reciprocal Peer Reviews, SIGCSE 1994.
[8]
K. Topping. Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research 68:3, Fall 1998, pp. 249--276.
[9]
A. Trivedi, D. Kar, H. Patterson-McNeill. Automatic Assignment Management and Peer Evaluation. CCSC South Central, 2003.

Cited By

View all

Index Terms

  1. Lightweight preliminary peer review: does in-class peer review make sense?

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    SIGCSE '07: Proceedings of the 38th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education
    March 2007
    634 pages
    ISBN:1595933611
    DOI:10.1145/1227310
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part 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 components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 07 March 2007

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. active learning
    2. educational technology
    3. peer review

    Qualifiers

    • Article

    Conference

    SIGCSE07
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 1,595 of 4,542 submissions, 35%

    Upcoming Conference

    SIGCSE TS 2025
    The 56th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education
    February 26 - March 1, 2025
    Pittsburgh , PA , USA

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)9
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
    Reflects downloads up to 09 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media