ComPAIR: A New Online Tool Using Adaptive Comparative Judgement to Support Learning with Peer Feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peer feedback is a useful strategy in teaching and learning, but its effectiveness particularly in introductory courses can be limited by the relative newness of students to both the body of knowledge upon which they are being asked to provide feedback and the skill set involved in providing good feedback. This paper applies a novel approach to facilitating novice feedback: making use of students’ inherent ability to compare. The ComPAIR application discussed in this article scaffolds peer feedback through comparisons, asking students to choose the “better” of two answers in a series of pairings offered in an engaging online context. In contrast to other peer-feedback approaches that seek to train novices to be able to provide expert feedback (such as calibrated peer review) or to crowdsource grading, ComPAIR focuses upon the benefits to be gained from the critical process of comparison and ranking. The tool design is based on the longstanding psychological principle of comparative judgement, by which novices who may not yet have the compass to assess others’ work confidently can still rank content as “better” with accuracy. Data from 168 students in pilot studies in English, Physics and Math courses at the University of British Columbia are reviewed. Though the use of ComPAIR required little classroom time, students perceived this approach to increase their facility with course content, their ability assess their own work, and their capacity to provide feedback on the work of others in a collaborative learning environment.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.005 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".