CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 42Online Learning and AnalyticsStudent Assessment and FeedbackOnline and Blended Learning

Peer assessment in MOOCs: The relationship between peer reviewers’ ability and authors’ essay performance

Open access
Huisman, Bart, Admiraal, Wilfried, Pilli, Olga, van de Ven, Maarten, Saab, Nadira·2018·British Journal of Educational Technology
DOI 10.1111/bjet.12520
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In a relatively short period of time, massive open online courses (MOOCs) have become a considerable topic of research and debate, and the number of available MOOCs is rapidly growing. Along with issues of formal recognition and accreditation, this growth in the number of MOOCs being developed increases the relevance of assessment quality. Within the context of a typical xMOOC, the current study focuses on peer assessment of essay assignments. In the literature, two contradicting theoretical arguments can be found: that learners should be matched with same‐ability peers (homogeneously) versus that students should be matched with different‐ability peers (heterogeneously). Considering these arguments, the relationship between peer reviewers’ ability and authors’ essay performance is explored. Results indicate that peer reviewers’ ability is positively related to authors’ essay performance. Moreover, this relationship is only established for intermediate and high ability authors; essay performance of lower ability authors appeared not to be related to the ability of their reviewing peers. Results are discussed in relation to the matching of learners and instructional design of peer assessment in MOOCs.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bjet.12520

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • 'Ability and skills' is an important matching principle given there is accumulating evidence that it can affect the processes and outcomes of peer assessment.

    “we stress that 'ability and skills' is an important matching principle given there is accumulating evidence that it can affect the processes and outcomes of peer assessment (e.g.Alqassab et al., 2018;Huisman et al., 2018;Patchan & Schunn, 2016;Patchan et al., 2013).”

    From A systematic review of peer assessment design elements (2023) · cites this paper as Huisman et al., 2018

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Cohen, J. C. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  2. Downes, S. (2008). Places to go: connectivism & connected knowledge. Innovate: Journal of Online Educa- tion, 5, 1-6.
  3. Raffaghelli, J. E., Cucchiara, S. & Persico, D. (2015). Methodological approaches in MOOC research: retrac- ing the myth of Proteus. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46, 488-509.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Huisman, B., Admiraal, W., Pilli, O., van de Ven, M., & Saab, N.
Affiliations
  • Leiden University (NL)
  • Girne American University (CY)
Corresponding author
Huisman, Bart
ORCID
Venue
British Journal of Educational Technology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-12
Volume
49
Issue
1
Pages
101-110
ISSN
  • 0007-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8535
DOI
10.1111/bjet.12520
OpenAlex
W2560809755
Cited by
42
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
3.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • British Journal of Educational Technology (publishedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
Keywords
peer assessment, massive open online courses, peer matching, xMOOC, assessment quality

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review