A Fuzzy Group Decision Making Model for Ordinal Peer Assessment

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) are becoming an increasingly popular choice for education but, to reach their full extent, they require the resolution of new issues like assessing students at scale. A feasible approach to tackle this problem is peer assessment, in which students also play the role of assessor for assignments submitted by others. Unfortunately, students are unreliable graders so peer assessment often does not deliver accurate results. In order to mitigate this issue, we propose a new model for ordinal peer assessment based on the principles of fuzzy group decision making. In our approach, each student is asked to rank a few random submissions from the best to the worst and to specify, with a set of intuitive labels, at what extent each submission is better than the following one in the ranking. Students’ provided rankings are then transformed in fuzzy preference relations, expanded to estimate missing values and aggregated through OWA operators. The aggregated relation is then used to generate a global ranking between the submissions and to estimate their absolute grades. Experimental results are presented and show better performances with respect to other existing ordinal and cardinal peer assessment techniques both in the reconstruction of the correct ranking and on the estimation of students’ grades.

[1]  P. Carlson,et al.  TM AND ASSESSING LEARNING OUTCOMES , 2003 .

[2]  P. A. Carlson,et al.  Calibrated peer review/sup TM/ and assessing learning outcomes , 2003, 33rd Annual Frontiers in Education, 2003. FIE 2003..

[3]  Atila Abdulkadiroglu,et al.  RANDOM SERIAL DICTATORSHIP AND THE CORE FROM RANDOM ENDOWMENTS IN HOUSE ALLOCATION PROBLEMS , 1998 .

[4]  K. Robert Lai,et al.  Enrichment of Peer Assessment with Agent Negotiation , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies.

[5]  Chee Peng Lim,et al.  A new fuzzy peer assessment methodology for cooperative learning of students , 2015, Appl. Soft Comput..

[6]  David George Glance,et al.  The pedagogical foundations of massive open online courses , 2013, First Monday.

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

[8]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Integrating three representation models in fuzzy multipurpose decision making based on fuzzy preference relations , 1998, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[9]  R. Yager Families of OWA operators , 1993 .

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

[11]  Jian Ma,et al.  Fuzzy set approach to the assessment of student-centered learning , 2000, IEEE Trans. Educ..

[12]  Soung Hie Kim,et al.  An interactive procedure for multiple attribute group decision making with incomplete information: Range-based approach , 1999, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[13]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  A note on the reciprocity in the aggregation of fuzzy preference relations using OWA operators , 2003, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[14]  Toby Walsh,et al.  The PeerRank Method for Peer Assessment , 2014, ECAI.

[15]  P.-C.-F. Daunou,et al.  Mémoire sur les élections au scrutin , 1803 .

[16]  Alain Jaillet,et al.  Can Online Peer Assessment be Trusted? , 2009, J. Educ. Technol. Soc..

[17]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Computing with words in decision making: foundations, trends and prospects , 2009, Fuzzy Optim. Decis. Mak..

[18]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Individual and Social Strategies to Deal with Ignorance Situations in Multi-Person Decision Making , 2009, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak..

[19]  Robert LIN,et al.  NOTE ON FUZZY SETS , 2014 .

[20]  Moni Naor,et al.  Rank aggregation methods for the Web , 2001, WWW '01.

[21]  Carlos Delgado Kloos,et al.  Delving into Participants’ Profiles and Use of Social Tools in MOOCs , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies.

[22]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  A Consensus Model for Group Decision Making With Incomplete Fuzzy Preference Relations , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems.

[23]  R. Plackett The Analysis of Permutations , 1975 .

[24]  C. L. Mallows NON-NULL RANKING MODELS. I , 1957 .

[25]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[26]  Lotfi A. Zadeh,et al.  A COMPUTATIONAL APPROACH TO FUZZY QUANTIFIERS IN NATURAL LANGUAGES , 1983 .

[27]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Group Decision-Making Model With Incomplete Fuzzy Preference Relations Based on Additive Consistency , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics).

[28]  R. A. Bradley,et al.  RANK ANALYSIS OF INCOMPLETE BLOCK DESIGNS , 1952 .

[29]  Ying-Ming Wang,et al.  Fuzzy preference relations: Aggregation and weight determination , 2007, Comput. Ind. Eng..

[30]  Ioannis Caragiannis,et al.  Aggregating Partial Rankings with Applications to Peer Grading in Massive Online Open Courses , 2014, AAMAS.

[31]  R. A. Bradley,et al.  Rank Analysis of Incomplete Block Designs: I. The Method of Paired Comparisons , 1952 .

[32]  Jian Ma,et al.  A method for repairing the inconsistency of fuzzy preference relations , 2006, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[33]  Thorsten Joachims,et al.  Methods for ordinal peer grading , 2014, KDD.

[34]  Nicola Capuano,et al.  Towards Adaptive Peer Assessment for MOOCs , 2015, 2015 10th International Conference on P2P, Parallel, Grid, Cloud and Internet Computing (3PGCIC).

[35]  Maomi Ueno,et al.  Item Response Theory for Peer Assessment , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies.