Lightweight preliminary peer review: does in-class peer review make sense?

ABSTRACT

Peer review is widely recognized for advancing student learning, in particular for developing reflective processes like critical thinking. The classroom is ripe for peer review because the subject matter is fresh and in-depth interactivity is possible. Yet the limited time available in class conflicts with peer review's deliberative nature. We hypothesize that peer review -- at least the initial stages of it -- can be supported in the classroom with tools for facilitating the rapid identification of interesting issues for discussion. The potential benefits of such a tool include: furthering the student-focus of in-class active learning activities, further implanting critical analysis skills through frequent in-class use, supporting immediate feedback, and enabling comparison of student and instructor-modeled critical analysis.This paper explores tool support for in-class lightweight preliminary peer-review (LPPR): peer review that is instigated in the classroom, but does not necessarily end there. We proposed that students classify peer solutions in 4 dimensions: correctness, comprehension (e.g., "do I understand this solution"), worthiness for discussion, and similarity to the evaluator's own solution. We designed an LPPR extension to Ubiquitous Presenter, and then conducted an exploratory study in a mock classroom setting. We found that LPPR can quickly identify a subset of student solutions that warrant immediate discussion, and that modest amounts of reflection arise from the LPPR process.

REFERENCES

• 1: Richard Anderson , Ruth Anderson , Beth Simon , Steven A. Wolfman , Tammy VanDeGrift , Ken Yasuhara, Experiences with a tablet PC based lecture presentation system in computer science courses, Proceedings of the 35th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, March 03-07, 2004, Norfolk, Virginia, USA
• 2: Tamara Denning , William G. Griswold , Beth Simon , Michelle Wilkerson, Multimodal communication in the classroom: what does it mean for us?, Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, March 03-05, 2006, Houston, Texas, USA
• 3: Alan Fekete , Judy Kay , Jeff Kingston , Kapila Wimalaratne, Supporting reflection in introductory computer science, Proceedings of the thirty-first SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, p.144-148, March 07-12, 2000, Austin, Texas, United States
• 4: Edward F. Gehringer, Electronic peer review and peer grading in computer-science courses, Proceedings of the thirty-second SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer Science Education, p.139-143, February 2001, Charlotte, North Carolina, United States
• 5: Susan E. George, Learning and the reflective journal in computer science, Proceedings of the twenty-fifth Australasian conference on Computer science, p.77-86, January 01, 2002, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
• 6: Roy P. Pargas , Dhaval M. Shah, Things are clicking in computer science courses, Proceedings of the 37th SIGCSE technical symposium on Computer science education, March 03-05, 2006, Houston, Texas, USA
• 7: Sarah L. Sullivan, Reciprocal peer reviews, Proceedings of the twenty-fifth SIGCSE symposium on Computer science education, p.314-318, March 10-12, 1994, Phoenix, Arizona, United States
• 8: K. Topping. Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research 68:3, Fall 1998, pp. 249--276.
• 9: A. Trivedi , Dulal C. Kar , Holly Patterson-McNeill, Automatic assignment management and peer evaluation, Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, v.18 n.4, p.30-37, April 2003

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  K. Computing Milieux
  K.3 COMPUTERS AND EDUCATION
      K.3.1 Computer Uses in Education

General Terms:
Human Factors

Keywords:
active learning, educational technology, peer review