Peering into large lectures: examining peer and expert mark agreement using peerScholar, an online peer assessment tool
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As class sizes increase, methods of assessments shift from costly traditional approaches (e.g. expert‐graded writing assignments) to more economic and logistically feasible methods (e.g. multiple‐choice testing, computer‐automated scoring, or peer assessment). While each method of assessment has its merits, it is peer assessment in particular, especially when made available online through a Web‐based interface (e.g. our peerScholar system), that has the potential to allow a reintegration of open‐ended writing assignments in any size class – and in a manner that is pedagogically superior to traditional approaches. Many benefits are associated with peer assessment, but it was the concerns that prompted two experimental studies ( n = 120 in each) using peerScholar to examine mark agreement between and within groups of expert (graduate teaching assistants) and peer (undergraduate students) markers. Overall, using peerScholar accomplished the goal of returning writing into a large class, while producing grades similar in level and rank order as those provided by expert graders, especially when a grade accountability feature was used.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it