Evaluation Of Student Engagement With Peer Feedback Based On Student-Generated MCQs
Open accessAbstract
In this paper, we describe the usage patterns found on four different modules and analyse the detailed outcomes of two case studies based around the usage of the PeerWise system which encourages students to create multiple choice questions (MCQs) for their peers and allows them to evaluate and write comments on MCQs written by their peers. The case studies evaluated data collected from using PeerWise with different student cohorts taking the same modules over two consecutive academic years. Between the years interventions were introduced to attempt to increase student engagement. It was noted that although increased levels of participation were observed in cohorts on different modules the authors are aware that other factors often can have a strong influence, including the awarding of marks for participation, the year of study and students perceived value. This evaluation seems to show that the early and specific interventions applied did have an influence on the pattern of student usage by increasing the student engagement with the PeerWise system.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The SGQ approach helps students develop a deeper understanding of the subject matter, shifting from mere knowledge acquisition to active use of knowledge and a sense of ownership over the content they are learning.
“This approach helps students develop a deeper understanding of the subject matter, shifting from mere knowledge acquisition to active use of knowledge and a sense of ownership over the content they are learning [43].”
From Fostering computational thinking in young students through student generated challenges in tangible mobile augmented reality games (2025) · cites this paper as [43]
Cites
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1 · Cited by 6,887 · see citing works
Awareness and coordination in shared workspaces
Dourish, P., & Bellotti, V. (1992) · Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work - CSCW '92 · doi:10.1145/143457.143468 · Cited by 2,550 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gardeli, A., & Vosinakis, S. (2025) · Discover Education · doi:10.1007/s44217-025-00899-4 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
- Authors
- Devon, J., Paterson, J. H., Moffat, D. C., & McCrae, J.
- Affiliations
- Glasgow Caledonian University (GB)
- ORCID
- Paterson, James H
- Venue
- Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2012-06
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 27-37
- ISSN
- 1473-7507 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1985529610
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 1.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Innovation in Teaching and Learning in Information and Computer Sciences (publishedVersion)
- ResearchOnline (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Keywords
- PeerWise, peer feedback, student engagement, peer assessment, usage patterns, university teaching
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
