Iterative Design and Classroom Evaluation of Automated Formative Feedback for Improving Peer Feedback Localization

A peer-review system that automatically evaluates and provides formative feedback on free-text feedback comments of students was iteratively designed and evaluated in college and high-school classrooms. Classroom assignments required students to write paper drafts and submit them to a peer-review system. When student peers later submitted feedback comments on the papers to the system, Natural Language Processing was used to automatically evaluate peer feedback quality with respect to localization (i.e., pinpointing the source of the comment in the paper being reviewed). These evaluations in turn triggered immediate formative feedback by the system, which was designed to increase peer feedback localization whenever a feedback submission was predicted to have a ratio of localized comments less than a threshold. System feedback was dynamically generated based on the results of localization prediction. Reviewers could choose to either revise their feedback comments to address the system’s feedback or could ignore the feedback. Our analysis of data from system logs demonstrates that our peer feedback localization prediction model triggered the formative feedback with high precision, particularly when peer feedback comments were written by college students. Our findings also show that although students often incorrectly disagree with the system’s feedback, when they do revise their peer feedback comments, the system feedback was successful in increasing peer feedback localization (although the sample size was low). Finally, while most peer comments were revised immediately after the system feedback, the desired revision behavior also occurred further after such system feedback.

[1]  C. Reich Peer assessment. , 1985, Canadian Medical Association journal.

[2]  Edward F. Gehringer,et al.  Identifying Content Patterns in Peer Reviews Using Graph-based Cohesion , 2015, FLAIRS Conference.

[3]  Jan-Willem Strijbos,et al.  Peer feedback content and sender's competence level in academic writing revision tasks: Are they critical for feedback perceptions and efficiency? , 2010 .

[4]  R. Hurst,et al.  To Revise or Not to Revise? , 2000 .

[5]  Avril Thomson,et al.  Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective , 2014 .

[6]  Edward F. Gehringer,et al.  Automated Assessment of Review Quality Using Latent Semantic Analysis , 2011, 2011 IEEE 11th International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies.

[7]  Diane J. Litman,et al.  Improving Peer Feedback Prediction: The Sentence Level is Right , 2014, BEA@ACL.

[8]  Christian D. Schunn,et al.  The nature of feedback: how different types of peer feedback affect writing performance , 2009 .

[9]  Kwangsu Cho Machine Classification of Peer Comments in Physics , 2008, EDM.

[10]  Bernard P. Veldkamp,et al.  Effects of feedback in a computer-based assessment for learning , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[11]  V. Shute Focus on Formative Feedback , 2008 .

[12]  C. MacArthur,et al.  Student revision with peer and expert reviewing , 2010 .

[13]  Edward F. Gehringer,et al.  A User Study on the Automated Assessment of Reviews , 2013, AIED Workshops.

[14]  Patrick Onghena,et al.  Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning , 2009 .

[15]  Christian D. Schunn,et al.  Natural Language Processing techniques for researching and improving peer feedback , 2012 .

[16]  Wilfried Admiraal,et al.  Design principles and outcomes of peer assessment in higher education , 2006 .

[17]  Genevieve Newton,et al.  Effective Use of Peer Assessment in a Graduate Level Writing Assignment: A Case Study , 2014 .

[18]  Ian H. Witten,et al.  The WEKA data mining software: an update , 2009, SKDD.

[19]  M. Josephine Ellis Peer feedback on writing: Is on-line actually better than on-paper? , 2011 .

[20]  Diane J. Litman,et al.  Instant Feedback for Increasing the Presence of Solutions in Peer Reviews , 2016, HLT-NAACL Demos.

[21]  Gregory R. Crane,et al.  Identifying Quotations in Reference Works and Primary Materials , 2008, ECDL.

[22]  Christian D. Schunn,et al.  Students’ perceptions about peer assessment for writing: their origin and impact on revision work , 2011 .

[23]  Diane J. Litman,et al.  Automatically Predicting Peer-Review Helpfulness , 2011, ACL.

[24]  Larry Ambrose,et al.  The power of feedback. , 2002, Healthcare executive.

[25]  Chi Baik,et al.  Peer review in higher education: Student perceptions before and after participation , 2014 .

[26]  Kristi Lundstrom,et al.  To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing , 2009 .

[27]  Zhenghao Chen,et al.  Tuned Models of Peer Assessment in MOOCs , 2013, EDM.

[28]  Diane J. Litman,et al.  Identifying Localization in Peer Reviews of Argument Diagrams , 2013, AIED.

[29]  Trude Heift,et al.  Corrective feedback and learner uptake in CALL , 2004, ReCALL.

[30]  Richard G. Baraniuk,et al.  BayesRank: A Bayesian Approach to Ranked Peer Grading , 2015, L@S.

[31]  John Hattie,et al.  Prompting secondary students’ use of criteria, feedback specificity and feedback levels during an investigative task , 2014 .

[32]  Prodromos Malakasiotis,et al.  Paraphrase Recognition Using Machine Learning to Combine Similarity Measures , 2009, ACL.

[33]  Neil T. Heffernan,et al.  Hints: Is It Better to Give or Wait to Be Asked? , 2010, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[34]  Christian D. Schunn,et al.  Learning writing by reviewing in science , 2007, CSCL.

[35]  Ilya M. Goldin,et al.  Accounting for Peer Reviewer Bias with Bayesian Models , 2012 .

[36]  Amruth N. Kumar Error-Flagging Support for Testing and Its Effect on Adaptation , 2010, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[37]  Christian D. Schunn,et al.  Scaffolded writing and rewriting in the discipline: A web-based reciprocal peer review system , 2007, Comput. Educ..

[38]  Linda B. Nilson,et al.  Improving Student Peer Feedback , 2003 .

[39]  Bram de Wever,et al.  Structuring the peer assessment process: a multilevel approach for the impact on product improvement and peer feedback quality , 2015, J. Comput. Assist. Learn..

[40]  Dana R. Ferris,et al.  Written corrective feedback for individual L2 writers , 2013 .

[41]  Roberto Carlos dos Santos Pacheco,et al.  Peer Review in Education: Promoting Collaboration, Written Expression, Critical Thinking, and Professional Responsibility , 2004, Education and Information Technologies.

[42]  Gert Rijlaarsdam,et al.  The effect of instruction type and dyadic or individual emulation on the quality of higher-order peer feedback in EFL , 2010 .

[43]  Edward F. Gehringer,et al.  Automated Assessment of the Quality of Peer Reviews using Natural Language Processing Techniques , 2017, International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education.

[44]  Douglas G Altman,et al.  Analysis of continuous data from small samples , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[45]  Zuhair Bandar,et al.  Sentence similarity based on semantic nets and corpus statistics , 2006, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering.

[46]  Kwangsu Cho,et al.  Learning by reviewing , 2011 .

[47]  Diana Inkpen,et al.  Semantic text similarity using corpus-based word similarity and string similarity , 2008, ACM Trans. Knowl. Discov. Data.

[48]  Diane J. Litman,et al.  Identifying Problem Localization in Peer-Review Feedback , 2010, Intelligent Tutoring Systems.

[49]  Rada Mihalcea,et al.  Measuring the Semantic Similarity of Texts , 2005, EMSEE@ACL.

[50]  Christian D. Schunn,et al.  Assessing Reviewer's Performance Based on Mining Problem Localization in Peer-Review Data , 2010, EDM.

[51]  Susanne Narciss,et al.  Designing and Evaluating Tutoring Feedback Strategies for Digital Learning Environments on the Basis of the Interactive Tutoring Feedback Model. , 2013 .