REVIEW 1 cited by
Systematic Review of Approaches to Improve Peer Assessment at Scale
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Peer Assessment is a task of analysis and commenting on student's writing by peers, is core of all educational components both in campus and in MOOC's. However, with the sheer scale of MOOC's & its inherent personalised open ended learning, automatic grading and tools assisting grading at scale is highly important. Previously we presented survey on tasks of post classification, knowledge tracing and ended with brief review on Peer Assessment (PA), with some initial problems. In this review we shall continue review on PA from perspective of improving the review process itself. As such rest of this review focus on three facets of PA namely Auto grading and Peer Assessment Tools (we shall look only on how peer reviews/auto-grading is carried), strategies to handle Rogue Reviews, Peer Review Improvement using Natural Language Processing. The consolidated set of papers and resources so used are released in https://github.com/manikandan-ravikiran/cs6460-Survey-2.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Optimizing Peer Grading: A Systematic Literature Review of Reviewer Assignment Strategies and Quantity of Reviewers
A systematic review of 87 peer-grading studies finds random assignment is the most common strategy and that 3-5 reviews per submission balances grading accuracy with student workload.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.