Reviewer Assignment Strategy of Peer Assessment: Towards Managing Collusion in Self-assignment

Peer assessment is an efficient and effective learning process that has been widely used in diverse fields in the higher education. Despite of its many benefits, collusion is a common challenge that makes the reliability of peer assessment a primary concern in practices, especially when self-assignment strategy is applied in reviewer assignment. This research aims to propose a model of collusion management that applies cooccurrence network as a means to identify collusion. The proposed model is implemented as a software module in a peer code review system called EduPCR. EduPCR is able to monitor this measure and trigger instructor’s inquiries to collusion suspects when it identifies suspected collusion. A verification implemented in a university-level C Programming course shows that the proposed collusion management model is reasonable and the identification algorithm is practical in diverse peer assessment contexts. Keywords—peer assessment, reviewer assignment, collusion, cooccurrence network, self-assignment strategy, EduPCR

[1]  Christian D. Schunn,et al.  Writing to Learn and Learning to Write through SWoRD , 2016 .

[2]  R. Blank.  The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review , 1991 .

[3]  D. Voltmer,et al.  Incorporating student peer-review into an introduction to engineering design course , 2005, Proceedings Frontiers in Education 35th Annual Conference.

[4]  Ying Liu,et al.  Assessment of programming language learning based on peer code review model: Implementation and experience report , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[5]  Yang Song,et al.  Collusion in educational peer assessment: How much do we need to worry about it? , 2017, 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE).

[6]  Aliisa Mylonas,et al.  Developing Procedures for Implementing Peer Assessment in Large Classes Using an Action Research Process , 2002 .

[7]  Debasis Kundu,et al.  Estimating parameters in the damped exponential model , 2001, Signal Process..

[8]  N. Falchikov.  Peer Feedback Marking: Developing Peer Assessment , 1995 .

[9]  Xiaosong Li.  Incorporating a code review process into the assessment , 2007 .

[10]  Philip Vickerman,et al.  Student perspectives on formative peer assessment: an attempt to deepen learning? , 2009 .

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

[12]  Mark Freeman,et al.  Peer Assessment by Groups of Group Work , 1995 .

[13]  Thomas Lagkas,et al.  How to improve the peer review method: Free-selection vs assigned-pair protocol evaluated in a computer networking course , 2012, Comput. Educ..

[14]  Ying Liu,et al.  Toward Motivating Participants to Assess Peers’ Work More Fairly , 2015 .

[15]  Fu-Quan Sun,et al.  How to Choose an Appropriate Reviewer Assignment Strategy in Peer Assessment System? Considering Fairness and Incentive , 2018 .

[16]  Jeffrey S. Kane,et al.  Methods of peer assessment. , 1978 .