Peer assessment enhances student learning: The results of a matched randomized crossover experiment in a college statistics class

PLoS ONE

Volumn 10, Issue 12, 2015, Pages

  Sun, Dennis L ^a   Harris, Naftali ^b   Walther, Guenther ^b   Baiocchi, Michael ^b,c  

^a CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COLLEGE; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LEARNING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STATISTICS; STUDENT; EDUCATION; FEMALE; MALE; PEER REVIEW; PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZATION; WEB BROWSER;

CROSS-OVER STUDIES; EDUCATIONAL MEASUREMENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PEER REVIEW; RANDOM ALLOCATION; STUDENTS; WEB BROWSER;

EID: 84956941365     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0143177     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Bangert-Drowns RL, Kulik C-LC, Kulik JA, Morgan M (1991). The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61, 213-238
2. Hattie J, Timperley H. The Power of Feedback Review of Educational Research, 77, 1 (2007).
3. Kulik JA, Kulik CC (1988). Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Review of Educational Research, 58(1), 79-97.).
4. Linn MC, Gerard LF, Ryoo K, Liu L, Rafferty AN (2014). "Computer-guided inquiry to improve science learning." Science, 344, 155-156. doi: 10.1126/science.1245980
5. Leacock C, Chodorow M. Computers and the Humanities. 37, 389 (2003).
6. von Ahn L, Maurer B, McMillen C, Abraham D, Blum M. reCAPTCHA: human-based character recognition via Web security measures. Science 321, 1465 (2008). doi: 10.1126/science.1160379
7. Cooper S, Khatib F, Treuille A, Barbero J, Lee J, Beenen M, et al. Predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online game. Nature 466, 756 (2010). doi: 10.1038/nature09304
8. Falchikov N. Improving assessment through student involvement ( Routledge, 2005).
9. Kulkarni C, Wei KP, Le H, Cia D, Papadopoulos K, Cheng J, et al. Peer and self assessment in massive online classes. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 20 (2013).
10. Topping K. Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Rev. Ed. Res. 68, 249 (1998).
11. Falchikov N, Goldfinch J. Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-Analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Rev. Ed. Res. 70, 287 (2000).
12. Bloom BS. The 2 Sigma Problem: The Search for Methods of Group Instruction as Effective as One-To-One Tutoring. Educ. Res. 13, 4 (1984).
13. Topping KJ. Peer Assessment. Theory into Practice 48, 20 (2009).
14. Supreme Court of the United States, Owasso v. Falvo (2002).
15. Tinapple D, Olson L, Sadauska J. CritViz: Web-based software supporting peer critique in large creative classrooms. Bull. IEEE Tech. Com. on Learn. Tech., 15, 1 (2013).
16. Gerdeman RD, Russelll AA, Worden KJ. Web-based student writing and reviewing in a large biology lecture course. J. Coll. Sci. Teaching, 36, 5 (2007).
17. Sadler PM, Good E. The Impact of Self-And Peer-Grading on Student Learning. Ed. Assess. 11, 1 (2006).
18. Freeman S, Parks JW. How Accurate is Peer Grading? CBE Life Sci. Ed. 9, 482 (2010).
19. Miyake A, Kost-Smith LE, Finkelstein ND, Pollock SJ, Cohen GL, Ito TA. Reducing the gender achievement gap in college science: A classroom study of values affirmation. Science 330, 1234 (2010). doi: 10.1126/science.1195996
20. Haak DC, HilleRisLambers J, Pitre E, Freeman S. Increased structure and active learning reduce the achievement gap in introductory biology. Science 332, 1213 (2011). doi: 10.1126/science.1204820