Relation of Personality to Grades and Grading in Undergraduate Peer Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peer reviews offer a unique assessment of post-secondary students’ writing, wherein students grade fellow students’ (or peers’) essay submissions according to a provided rubric. Previous research found that students’ personality dimensions were related to the grades that students both gave and received through peer assessment. The present study examined the association between personality factors on grader leniency and grades received during a peer review assignment in an introductory psychology course. Participants completed an online survey to assess academic entitlement, learning/grade orientation, narcissism, and the 5-factor personality traits; these were later joined to peer review grades received and given. Results showed that rater leniency was negatively related to learning orientation, conscientiousness, and grade orientation. Moreover, the strongest predictors of grades received included academic entitlement, conscientiousness, and narcissism. Implications of these findings, plus directions for future research, are discussed. Keywords: peer review, rater leniency, personality, academic achievement L’évaluation par les pairs constitue un processus exceptionnel d’évaluation de l’écriture d’étudiants de niveau postsecondaire. Des étudiants notent les rédactions de leurs camarades de classe (leurs « pairs ») en utilisant une grille d’évaluation qui leur est fournie. Des recherches ont montré que les aspects de la personnalité des étudiants ont une incidence sur les notes que ceux-ci donnent ou reçoivent. La présente étude examine le lien entre, d’une part, les facteurs liés à la personnalité et, d’autre part, la clémence des évaluateurs et les notes reçues au cours d’une évaluation par les pairs dans un cours d’introduction à la psychologie. Les participants ont rempli un sondage en ligne pour mesurer leurs attentes en matière de notes, leur intérêt pour l’apprentissage ou pour les notes, leur narcissisme et les cinq traits centraux de la personnalité. Les réponses au sondage ont ensuite été combinées aux évaluations par les pairs que les participants ont rendues et reçues. Les résultats montrent que la clémence de l’évaluateur est liée de façon négative à l’intérêt en matière d’apprentissage, au caractère consciencieux et à l’intérêt pour les notes. Qui plus est, les principaux indicateurs des notes reçues comprennent l’attente de recevoir de bonnes notes, le caractère consciencieux et le narcissisme. L’article examine les conséquences de ces résultats et indique la direction à prendre pour des recherches à venir. Mots clés : évaluation par les pairs, clémence de l’évaluateur, personnalité, rendement universitaire
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 | 0.004 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".