BayesRank: A bayesian approach to ranked peer grading

L@S 2015 - 2nd ACM Conference on Learning at Scale

Volumn , Issue , 2015, Pages 177-183

  Waters, Andrew E ^a   Tinapple, David ^b   Baraniuk, Richard G ^a  

^a RICE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BAYESIAN NETWORKS; GRADING;

BAYESIAN APPROACHES; CLASS SIZE; COMPUTATIONAL ANALYSIS; EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS; FORMATIVE FEEDBACKS; GRADING METHODS; REAL-WORLD;

LEARNING TO RANK;

EID: 84928039016     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2724660.2724672     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (20)

1. Albert, J. H., and Chib, S. Bayesian analysis of binary and polychotomous response data. Journal of the American Statistical Association 88, 422 (1993), 669-679.
2. Bass, B. M., and Avolio, B. J. Potential biases in leadership measures: How prototypes, leniency, and general satisfaction relate to ratings and rankings of transformational and transactional leadership constructs. Educational and Psychological Measurement 49, 3 (1989), 509-527.
3. Bradley, R. A., and Terry, M. E. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs: I: The method of paired comparisons. Biometrika (1952), 324-345.
4. Cover, T. M., and Thomas, J. A. Elements of information theory. John Wiley & Sons, 2012.
5. Elig, T. W., and Frieze, I. H. Measuring causal attibutions for success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37, 4 (1979), 621.
6. Gelman, A., Carlin, J., Stern, H., Dunson, D., Vehtari, A., and Rubin, D. Bayesian Data Analysis. CRC press, 2013.
7. Hoff, P. D. A First Course in Bayesian Statistical Methods. Springer, 2009.
8. Johnson, V. E., and Albert, J. H. Ordinal Data Modeling. Springer, 1999.
9. Krosnick, J. A. Survey research. Annual review of psychology 50, 1 (1999), 537-567.
10. Kulkarni, C., Wei, K. P., Le, H., Chia, D., Papadopoulos, K., Cheng, J., Koller, D., and Klemmer, S. R. Peer and self assessment in massive online classes. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) 20, 6 (2013), 33.
11. Lan, A. S., Waters, A. E., Studer, C., and Baraniuk, R. G. Sparse factor analysis for learning and content analytics. J. Machine Learning Research 15 (June 2014), 1959-2008.
12. Lundstrom, K., and Baker, W. To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 18, 1 (2009), 30-43.
13. Mallows, C. L. Non-null ranking models. i. Biometrika (1957), 114-130.
14. Piech, C., Huang, J., Chen, Z., Do, C., Ng, A., and Koller, D. Tuned models of peer assessment in MOOCs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1307.2579 (2013).
15. Plackett, R. L. The analysis of permutations. Applied Statistics (1975), 193-202.
16. Raman, K., and Joachims, T. Methods for ordinal peer grading. arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.3656 (2014).
17. Reckase, M. D. Multidimensional Item Response Theory. Springer, 2009.
18. Shah, N. B., Bradley, J. K., Parekh, A., Wainwright, M., and Ramchandran, K. A case for ordinal peer-evaluation in MOOCs. In NIPS Workshop on Data Driven Education (2013).
19. Tinapple, D. The CritViz Peer Review System, 2014 (accessed October 21, 2014). http://critviz.com/.
20. Xiong, W., Litman, D., and Schunn, C. Improving research on and instructional quality of peer feedback through natural language processing. Journal of Writing Research 4, 2 (2012), 155-176.