An accountability feature allowing students to grade received reviews improved the correlation between expert and peer marks in peerScholar¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · reviewr3·q2
Currency · newest study 2009 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? In peerScholar, the correlation between expert and peer marks was low but increased after introducing a facility for students to grade the reviews they received. → Luxton-Reilly 2009
Evidence¶
Luxton-Reilly 2009¶
Luxton-Reilly, A. (2009). A systematic review of tools that support peer assessment. Computer Science Education, 19(4), 209-232. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993400903384844
q2 · i? · review · r3
The review reports that Pare´ and Joordens (2008) found "a small but significant difference between expert and peer marks" and that "the correlation between the expert and peer marks was low, but increased after they introduced the facility for students to grade the reviews they received." No correlation coefficient is printed.
"Pare´ and Joordens (2008) found a small but significant difference between expert and peer marks in psychology courses using the peerScholar system. The correlation between the expert and peer marks was low, but increased after they introduced the facility for students to grade the reviews they received."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Peer marks correlate with teacher marks, with a mean correlation of 0.69 across studies in a meta-analysis — related
- Grading students on the quality of their reviews rather than on peer-assessed marks reduced tensions and improved student-instructor mark correlations — related
- Peer marks and grades show acceptably high reliability with teachers' marks in most comparison studies, but a substantial minority report low reliability — a broader claim this one bears on
- Holistic peer feedback correlated significantly with tutor marks while specific-criteria rubric feedback did not in the PEARS system — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
peerscholar-accountability-improves-expert-peer-correlation |
title |
An accountability feature allowing students to grade received reviews improved the correlation between expert and peer marks in peerScholar |
description |
An accountability feature allowing students to grade received reviews improved the correlation between expert and peer marks in peerScholar |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
weak |
newest_evidence |
2009 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-16 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — luxton-reilly-2009 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.