| Title: |
Student Peer Assessment Using Adaptive Comparative Judgment: Grading Accuracy versus Quality of Feedback |
| Language: |
English |
| Authors: |
Demonacos, Constantinos; Ellis, Steven; Barber, Jill |
| Source: |
Practitioner Research in Higher Education. 2019 12(1):50-59. |
| Availability: |
University of Cumbria. Fusehill Street, Carlisle, Cumbria, CA1 2HH, United Kingdom. Tel: +44-1228-616338; e-mail: riple@cumbria.ac.uk; Web site: http://ojs.cumbria.ac.uk/index.php/prhe |
| Peer Reviewed: |
Y |
| Page Count: |
10 |
| Publication Date: |
2019 |
| Document Type: |
Journal Articles; Reports - Research |
| Education Level: |
Higher Education; Postsecondary Education |
| Descriptors: |
Student Evaluation; Peer Evaluation; Grading; Accuracy; Feedback (Response); Summative Evaluation; Evaluative Thinking; College Students; Pharmaceutical Education; Judges; Evaluation Methods |
| ISSN: |
1755-1382 |
| Abstract: |
In this study we explored the potential of adaptive comparative judgement (ACJ) as a medium for peer assessment and for the giving and receiving of peer feedback. ACJ is a marking protocol in which the assessor (or judge) merely compares two answers and chooses a winner. Repeated judgements and a suitable sorting algorithm allow marks to be derived from a rank order of scripts. Feedback can be added to each script. In this case study (a 500 word report in year 3 of a pharmacy programme) each student gave feedback to 10 others and the overall feedback standard was high, but, as judges, students were inconsistent with one another and with staff assessment. This contrasts with a previous exercise, in which a robust assessment was achieved but feedback was less good. A hierarchical marking scheme and explicit feedback guidelines may be key to optimising ACJ-based student peer assessment. |
| Abstractor: |
As Provided |
| Entry Date: |
2019 |
| Accession Number: |
EJ1212981 |
| Database: |
ERIC |