Two Peers Are Better than One: Aggregating Peer Reviews for Computing Assignments is Surprisingly Accurate

dc.contributor.authorReily, Ken
dc.contributor.authorFinnerty, Pam Ludford
dc.contributor.authorTerveen, Loren
dc.date.accessioned2023-06-08T11:44:31Z
dc.date.available2023-06-08T11:44:31Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.description.abstractScientific peer review, open source software development, wikis, and other domains use distributed review to improve quality of created content by providing feedback to the work's creator. Distributed review is used to assess or improve the quality of a work (e.g., an article). However, it can also provide learning benefits to the participants in the review process. We developed an online review system for beginning computer programming students; it gathers multiple anonymous peer reviews to give students feedback on their programming work. We deployed the system in an introductory programming class and evaluated it in a controlled study. We find that: peer reviews are accurate compared to an accepted evaluation standard, that students prefer reviews from other students with less experience than themselves, and that participating in a peer review process results in better learning outcomes.en
dc.identifier.doi10.1145/1531674.1531692
dc.identifier.urihttps://dl.eusset.eu/handle/20.500.12015/4862
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherAssociation for Computing Machinery
dc.relation.ispartofProceedings of the 2009 ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work
dc.subjecteducation
dc.subjectcollaboration
dc.subjectpeer review
dc.titleTwo Peers Are Better than One: Aggregating Peer Reviews for Computing Assignments is Surprisingly Accurateen
gi.citation.publisherPlaceNew York, NY, USA
gi.citation.startPage115–124
gi.conference.locationSanibel Island, Florida, USA

Files

Collections