Peer assessment is an efficient and effective learning assessment method that has been used widely in diverse fields in higher education. Despite its many benefits, a fundamental problem in peer assessment is that participants lack the motivation to assess others’ work faithfully and fairly. Nonconsensus is a common challenge that makes the reliability of peer assessment a primary concern in practices. This research proposes a motivation model that uses review deviation and radicalness to identify nonconsensus in peer assessment. The proposed model is implemented as a software module in a peer code review system called EduPCR4. EduPCR4 is able to monitor peer assessment results and trigger teacher’s arbitration when it detects possible nonconsensus. An empirical study conducted in a university-level C programing course showed that the proposed model and its implementation helped to improve the peer assessment practices in many aspects.
ChangC.-C.TsengK.-H.ChouP.-N.ChenY.-H. (2011) Reliability and validity of web-based portfolio peer assessment: A case study for a senior high school’s students taking computer course. Computers & Education57(1): 1306–1316. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.014.
2.
ChenN. S.WeiC. W.WuK. T.UdenL. (2009) Effects of high level prompts and peer assessment on online learners’ reflection levels. Computers & Education52(2): 283–291. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.08.007.
3.
FalchikovN. (1995) Peer feedback marking: Developing peer assessment. Innovations in Education and Training International32(2): 175–187. doi:10.1080/1355800950320212.
4.
FreemanM. (1995) Peer assessment by groups of group work. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education20(3): 289–300. doi:10.1080/0260293950200305.
5.
HanrahanS.IssacsG. (2001) Assessing self- and peer-assessment: The students' views. Higher Education Research & Development20(1): 53–70. doi:10.1080/07294360123776.
6.
HigginsR.HartleyP.SkeltonA. (2002) The conscientious consumer: Reconsidering the role of assessment feedback in student learning. Studies in Higher Education27(1): 53–64. doi:10.1080/03075070120099368.
7.
KaneJ. S.LawlerE. E. (1978) Methods of peer assessment. Psychological Bulletin85(3): 555–586. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.85.3.555.
8.
LaiK. R.LanC. H. (2006) Modeling peer assessment as agent negotiation in a computer supported collaborative learning environment. Educational Technology & Society9(3): 16–26. Retrieved from www.ifets.info/journals/9_3/ets_9_3.pdf#page=21.
9.
Li, X. (2007). Incorporating a code of review process into the assessment. In S. Mann & N. Bridgeman (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications 20th NACCQ Conference. (pp. 125–131). Hamilton, New Zealand. Retrieved from http://130.217.226.8/handle/10652/2218.
LinH.-S.HongZ.-R.WangH.-H.LeeS.-T. (2011) Using reflective peer assessment to promote students’ conceptual understanding through asynchronous discussions. Journal of Educational Technology & Society14(3): 178–189. Retrieved from www.ifets.info/others/download_pdf.php?j_id=52&a_id=1161.
12.
MurakamiC.ValvonaC.BroudyD. (2012) Turning apathy into activeness in oral communication classes: Regular self- and peer-assessment in a TBLT programme. System40(3): 407–420. doi:10.1016/j.system.2012.07.003.
13.
PapinczakT.YoungL.GrovesM. (2007) Peer assessment in problem-based learning: A qualitative study. Advances in Health Sciences Education12(2): 169–186. doi:10.1007/s10459-005-5046-6.
14.
RubinR. F.TurnerT. (2012) Student performance on and attitudes toward peer assessments on advanced pharmacy practice experience assignments. Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning4(2): 113–121. doi:10.1016/j.cptl.2012.01.011.
15.
Sancho-ThomasP.Fuentes-FernándezR.Fernández-ManjónB. (2009) Learning teamwork skills in university programming courses. Computers & Education53(2): 517–531. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.03.010.
16.
SegersM.DochyF.CascallarE. (2003) Optimising new modes of assessment: In search of qualities and standardsVol. 1, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
17.
SluijsmansD.Brand-GruwelS.Van MerriënboerJ. (2002) Peer assessment training in teacher education: Effects on performance and perceptions. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education27(5): 443–454. doi:10.1080/0260293022000009311.
18.
StrijbosJ.-W.SluijsmansD. (2010) Unravelling peer assessment: Methodological, functional, and conceptual developments. Learning and Instruction20(4): 265–269. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.002.
19.
ToppingK. J. (1998) Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research68(3): 249–276. doi:10.3102/00346543068003249.
20.
TsengS.-C.TsaiC.-C. (2007) On-line peer assessment and the role of the peer feedback: A study of high school computer course. Computers & Education49(4): 1161–1174. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2006.01.007.
21.
Van ZundertM.SluijsmansD.Van MerriënboerJ. (2010) Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction20(4): 270–279. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.08.004.
22.
VickermanP. (2009) Student perspectives on formative peer assessment: An attempt to deepen learning?Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education34(2): 221–230. doi:10.1080/02602930801955986.
23.
WangY.LiH.FengY.JiangY.LiuY. (2012) Assessment of programming language learning based on peer code review model: Implementation and experience report. Computers & Education59(2): 412–422. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2012.01.007.
24.
WangY.LiY.CollinsM.LiuP. (2008) Process improvement of peer code review and behavior analysis of its participants. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin40(1): 107–111. doi:10.1145/1352322.1352171.
