Utilizing peer interactions to promote learning through a web-based peer assessment system
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
Peer assessment is an instructional strategy in which students evaluate each other’s performance for the purpose of improving learning. Despite its accepted use in higher education, researchers and educators have reported concerns such as students’ time on task, the impact of peer pressure on the accuracy of marking, and students’ lack of ability to make critical judgments about peers’ work. This study explored student perceptions of a web-based peer assessment system. Findings conclude that web-based peer assessment can be effective in minimizing peer pressure, reducing management workload, stimulating student interactions, and enhancing student understanding of marking criteria and critical assessment skills. Résumé : L’évaluation par les pairs est une stratégie pédagogique au cours de laquelle l’étudiant évalue la performance de l’autre dans un but d’amélioration de l’apprentissage. Malgré son usage répondu aux études supérieures, les chercheurs et les enseignants ont mentionné certaines préoccupations, notamment en ce qui a trait au temps que les étudiants consacrent à cette tâche, à l’impact de la pression des pairs sur la justesse de l’évaluation, ainsi qu’à l’inaptitude des étudiants à poser un jugement critique sur le travail de leurs pairs. La présente étude explore les perceptions des étudiants à l’égard d’un système d’évaluation en ligne par les pairs. Nos résultats nous permettent de conclure que l’évaluation en ligne par les pairs peut constituer un moyen efficace de réduire la pression des pairs, de diminuer le travail de gestion, de stimuler les interactions entre étudiants et d’améliorer la compréhension des critères d’évaluation par les étudiants ainsi que leurs compétences d’évaluation critique.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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