Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS:
Title: Evaluating the effectiveness of live peer assessment as a vehicle for the development of higher order practice in computer science education
Author: Bennett, Steve
ISNI:       0000 0004 6353 2696
Awarding Body: University of Hertfordshire
Current Institution: University of Hertfordshire
Date of Award: 2017
Availability of Full Text:
Access from EThOS:
Access from Institution:
This thesis concerns a longitudinal study of the practice of Live Peer Assessment on two University courses in Computer Science. By Live Peer Assessment I mean a practice of whole-class collective marking using electronic devices of student artefacts demonstrated in a class or lecture theatre with instantaneous aggregated results displayed on screen immediately after each grading decision. This is radically different from historical peer-assessment in universities which has primarily been asynchronous process of marking of students' work by small subsets of the cohort (e.g. 1 student artefact is marked by < 3 fellow students). Live Peer Assessment takes place in public, is marked by (as far as practically possible) the whole cohort, and results are instantaneous. This study observes this practice, first on a level 4 course in E-Media Design where students' main assignment is a multimedia CV (or resume) and secondly on a level 7 course in Multimedia Specification Design and Production where students produce a multimedia information artefact in both prototype and final versions. In both cases, students learned about these assignments from reviewing works done by previous students in Live Peer Evaluation events where they were asked to collectively publicly mark those works according to the same rubrics that the tutors would be using. In this level 4 course, this was used to help students get a better understanding of the marks criteria. In the level 7 course, this goal was also pursued, but was also used for the peer marking of students' own work. Among the major findings of this study are: • In the level 4 course student attainment in the final assessment improved on average by 13% over 4 iterations of the course, with very marked increase among students in the lower percentiles • The effectiveness of Live Peer Assessment in improving student work comes from o Raising the profile of the marking rubric o Establishing a repertoire of example work o Modelling the 'noticing' of salient features (of quality or defect) enabling students to self-monitor more effectively • In the major accepted measure of peer-assessment reliability (correlation between student awarded marks and tutor awarded marks) Live Peer Assessment is superior to traditional peer assessment. That is to say, students mark more like tutors when using Live Peer Assessment • In the second major measure (effect-size) which calculates if students are more strict or generous than tutors, (where the ideal would be no difference), Live Peer Assessment is broadly comparable with traditional peer assessment but this is susceptible to the conditions under which it takes place • The reason for the better greater alignment of student and tutor marks comes from the training sessions but also from the public nature of the marking where individuals can compare their marking practice with that of the rest of the class on a criterion by criterion basis • New measures proposed in this thesis to measure the health of peer assessment events comprise: Krippendorf's Alpha, Magin's Reciprocity Matrix, the median pairwise tutor student marks correlation, the Skewness and Kurtosis of the distribution of pairwise tutor student marking correlations • Recommendations for practice comprise that: o summative peer assessment should not take place under conditions of anonymity but that very light conditions of marking competence should be enforced on student markers (e.g. > 0.2 correlation between individual student marking and that of tutors) o That rubrics can be more suggestive and colloquial in the conditions of Live Peer Assessment because the marking criteria can be instantiated in specific examples of student attainment and therefore the criteria may be less legalistically drafted because a more holistic understanding of quality can be communicated.
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID:  DOI: Not available
Keywords: Live Peer Assessment ; Rubrics ; Feed-Forward ; Feedback ; Community of Practice ; Reflective Practice ; Academic Quality