Classroom Evaluation of a Scaffolding Intervention for Improving Peer Review Localization

A peer review system that automatically evaluates student feedback comments was deployed in a university research methods course. The course required students to create an argument diagram to justify a hypothesis, then use this diagram to write a paper introduction. Diagram and paper first drafts were both reviewed by peers. During peer review, the system automatically analyzed the quality of student comments with respect to localization (i.e. pinpointing the source of the comment in the diagram or paper). Two localization models (one for diagram and one for paper reviews) triggered a system scaffolding intervention to improve review quality whenever the review was predicted to have a ratio of localized comments less than a threshold. Reviewers could then choose to revise their comments or ignore the scaffolding. Our analysis of data from system logs demonstrates that diagram and paper localization models have high prediction accuracy, and that a larger portion of student feedback comments are successfully localized after scaffolded revision.

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

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

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

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

[5]  Carolyn Penstein Rosé,et al.  The Beginning of a Beautiful Friendship? Intelligent Tutoring Systems and MOOCs , 2015, AIED.

[6]  Niels Pinkwart,et al.  Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning DOI 10.1007/s11412-009-9080-x Computer-supported argumentation: A review of the state of the art , 2009 .

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

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

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

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

[11]  John Seely Brown,et al.  Intelligent Tutoring Systems , 2016, Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

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

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

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