Probabilistic Graphical Models for Boosting Cardinal and Ordinal Peer Grading in MOOCs
Open accessAbstract
With the enormous scale of massive open online courses (MOOCs), peer grading is vital for addressing the assessment challenge for open-ended assignments or exams while at the same time providing students with an effective learning experience through involvement in the grading process. Most existing MOOC platforms use simple schemes for aggregating peer grades, e.g., taking the median or mean. To enhance these schemes, some recent research attempts have developed machine learning methods under either the cardinal setting (for absolute judgment) or the ordinal setting (for relative judgment). In this paper, we seek to study both cardinal and ordinal aspects of peer grading within a common framework. First, we propose novel extensions to some existing probabilistic graphical models for cardi- nal peer grading. Not only do these extensions give su- perior performance in cardinal evaluation, but they also outperform conventional ordinal models in ordinal eval- uation. Next, we combine cardinal and ordinal models by augmenting ordinal models with cardinal predictions as prior. Such combination can achieve further performance boosts in both cardinal and ordinal evaluations, suggesting a new research direction to pursue for peer grading on MOOCs. Extensive experiments have been conducted using real peer grading data from a course called “Science, Technology, and Society in China I” offered by HKUST on the Coursera platform.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Follow-up work extended these models to allow for more complex reliability-grade correlations (PG4 and PG5) and to more explicitly account for differences between a single grader's reported grades (PG6 and PG7).
“Follow-up work by others further extended these models to allow for more complex reliability-grade correlations (the PG4 and PG5 models of Mi and Yeung 2015) and to more explicitly account for differences between a single grader's reported grades (the PG6 and PG7 models of Wang et al. 2019).”
From Better Peer Grading through Bayesian Inference (2023) · cites this paper as Mi and Yeung 2015
The extensions can be added to the PG5 model of Mi and Yeung (2015), additionally modeling correlations between students' submission grades and reliabilities.
“In Appendix B, we show how these extensions could be added to the PG5 model of Mi and Yeung (2015), additionally modeling correlations between students' submission grades and reliabilities.”
From Better Peer Grading through Bayesian Inference (2023) · cites this paper as Mi and Yeung (2015)
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
Peer-review practices of psychological journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again
Peters, D. P., & Ceci, S. J. (1982) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00011183 · Cited by 1,079 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Some examples include ranking search results (Aslam and Montague 2001; Joachims 2002), reviewing conference or journal papers (Peters and Ceci 1982; Harnad 2000; Rowland 2002), admitting college students, as well as voting for candidates as a social choice problem (Coughlin 1992; Arrow 2012).”
BackgroundThe Impact of Self- and Peer-Grading on Student Learning
Sadler, P., & Good, E. (2006) · Educational Assessment · doi:10.1207/s15326977ea1101_1 · Cited by 535 · cited 1× · see citing works
“A practical approach to tackle this problem is peer grading or peer assessment (Godlee et al. 2003; Sadler and Good 2006), in which students also play the role of graders in grading a small number of assignments submitted by other students according to the rubrics or benchmarks provided by the…”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 24
- Anderson, A.; Huttenlocher, D.; Kleinberg, J.; and Leskovec, J. 2014. Engaging with massive online courses. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on World Wide Web , 687-698.
- Arrow, K. J. 2012. Social Choice and Individual Values , volume 12. Yale University Press.
- Aslam, J. A., and Montague, M. 2001. Models for metasearch. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval , 276-284.
- Barnett, W. 2003. The modern theory of consumer behavior: Ordinal or cardinal? The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 6(1):41-65.
- Chu, W., and Ghahramani, Z. 2005. Preference learning with Gaussian processes. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Machine learning , 137-144.
- Coughlin, P. J. 1992. Probabilistic Voting Theory . Cambridge University Press.
- de Alfaro, L., and Shavlovsky, M. 2014. Crowdgrader: Crowdsourcing the evaluation of homework assignments. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education , 415-420.
- Dwork, C.; Kumar, R.; Naor, M.; and Sivakumar, D. 2001. Rank aggregation methods for the web. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on World Wide Web , 613622.
- F¨ urnkranz, J., and H¨ ullermeier, E. 2003. Pairwise preference learning and ranking. In Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Machine Learning , 145-156.
- F¨ urnkranz, J., and H¨ ullermeier, E. 2010. Preference Learning . Springer.
- Godlee, F.; Jefferson, T.; Callaham, M.; Clarke, J.; Altman, D.; Bastian, H.; Bingham, C.; and Deeks, J. 2003. Peer Review In Health Sciences . BMJ Books London.
- Harnad, S. 2000. The invisible hand of peer review. Exploit Interactive 5(April).
- Howe, J. 2006. The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired Magazine 14(6):1-4.
- Joachims, T. 2002. Optimizing search engines using clickthrough data. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , 133-142.
- Litchfield Jr, J. T., and Wilcoxon, F. 1955. Rank correlation method. Analytical Chemistry 27(2):299-300.
- Par´ e, D. E., and Joordens, S. 2008. Peering into large lectures: examining peer and expert mark agreement using peerScholar, an online peer assessment tool. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 24(6):526-540.
- Patricia, G.; Nardine, O.; and Carles, S. 2014. Collaborative assessment. In Extended Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Educational Data Mining (EDM 2014) .
- Piech, C.; Huang, J.; Chen, Z.; Do, C.; Ng, A.; and Koller, D. 2013. Tuned models of peer assessment in MOOCs. In Proceedings for the 6th International Conference on Educational Data Mining. , 153-160.
- Raman, K., and Joachims, T. 2014. Methods for ordinal peer grading. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data mining .
- Rowland, F. 2002. The peer-review process. Learned Publishing 15(4):247-258.
- Shah, N. B.; Bradley, J. K.; Parekh, A.; Wainwright, M.; and Ramchandran, K. 2013. A case for ordinal peer-evaluation in moocs. In NIPS Workshop on Data Driven Education .
- Shah, N. B.; Balakrishnan, S.; Bradley, J.; Parekh, A.; Ramchandran, K.; and Wainwright, M. 2014. When is it better to compare than to score? arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.6618 . · arXiv
- Stewart, N.; Brown, G. D.; and Chater, N. 2005. Absolute identification by relative judgment. Psychological Review 112(4):881-911.
- Walsh, T. 2014. The peerrank method for peer assessment. In Proceedings of the 21th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence .
Cited by
Sorted by citations
MOOCs Meet Measurement Theory: A Topic-Modelling Approach
He, J., Rubinstein, B., Bailey, J., Zhang, R., Milligan, S., & Chan, J. (2016) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v30i1.10151 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Better Peer Grading through Bayesian Inference
Zarkoob, H., D'Eon, G., Podina, L., & Leyton-Brown, K. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i5.25757 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mi, F., & Yeung, D.-Y.
- Affiliations
- Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HK)
- ORCID
- Yeung, Dit-Yan
- Venue
- Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
- Published
- 2015-02-10
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2159-5399 (ISSN-L)
- 2374-3468
- OpenAlex
- W2293476956
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 2.86
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
- AAAI Publications (The Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI)) (submittedVersion)
- Rare & Special e-Zone (The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Intelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
- Keywords
- peer grading, massive open online courses, probabilistic graphical models, open-ended tasks, automated grading
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