The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Using Peer Grading And Proofreading To Ratchet Student Expectations In Preparing Accounting Cases
Open accessAbstract
Accounting educators struggle with ways to incorporate the development of critical thinking and communication skills into the curriculum. Case analysis is one tool for developing these skills. We examine whether students case analysis scores improve as a result of participation in peer grading and peer review. We find that students improve their ability to perform case analyses after both evaluating and being evaluated by student peers. Students initially experience an Expectation Ratcheting learning effect after evaluating the case of a peer. Subsequently, students experience an Enhanced Feedback learning effect from the comments and suggestions made by the peers who evaluated (proofread) their cases.
Overview
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
Verification
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“These studies have typically compared the formative effect of peer assessment with either teacher assessment (e.g., Chaney and Ingraham 2009; Sippel and Jackson 2015; van Ginkel et al. 2017) or no assessment conditions (e.g., Kamp et al. 2014; L. Li and Steckelberg 2004; Schonrock-Adema et al. 2007).”
From The Impact of Peer Assessment on Academic Performance: A Meta-analysis of Control Group Studies (2020) · cites this paper as Chaney and Ingraham 2009
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Peer Grading of Essays in a Principles of Microeconomics Course
Kerr, P. M., Park, K. H., & Domazlicky, B. R. (1995) · Journal of Education for Business · doi:10.1080/08832323.1995.10117778 · Cited by 35
Feedback strategies: Critique and evaluation of oral and written assignments
Hirsch, M. L., & Gabriel, S. L. (1995) · Journal of Accounting Education · doi:10.1016/0748-5751(95)00015-e · Cited by 19
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Accounting Education Change Commission, "Position Statement No. One, Objectives of Education for Accountants," Issues in Accounting Education, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 307-312, 1990.
- Campbell, J.E. and W.F. Lewis, "Using Cases in Accounting Classes," Issues in Accounting Education, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 276-283, 1991.
- Scofield, B.W. and L. Combes, "Designing and Managing Meaningful Writing Assignments," Issues in Accounting Education, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 71-85, 1993.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Impact of Peer Assessment on Academic Performance: A Meta-analysis of Control Group Studies
Double, K. S., McGrane, J. A., & Hopfenbeck, T. N. (2020) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-019-09510-3 · Cited by 446
Does peer assessment promote student learning? A meta-analysis
Li, H., Xiong, Y., Hunter, C. V., Guo, X., & Tywoniw, R. (2019) · Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education · doi:10.1080/02602938.2019.1620679 · Cited by 423
The Impact of Peer Assessment on Academic Performance: A Meta-analysis of Control Group StudiesPreprint
Double, K. S. (2018) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.31234/osf.io/c4rkv · Cited by 9
Setiawan, E. (2016) · JABE (Journal of Accounting and Business Education) · doi:10.26675/jabe.v1i1.6726 · Cited by 1
Sulikah, S., & Nasikh, N. (2018) · JABE (Journal of Accounting and Business Education) · doi:10.26675/jabe.v3i1.11559
Metadata
- Authors
- Chaney, B. A., & Ingraham, L. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Montana (US)
- San Jose State University (US)
- Venue
- American Journal of Business Education (AJBE)
- Publisher
- Clute Institute
- Published
- 2009-05-01
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 39-48
- ISSN
- 1942-2504 (ISSN-L)
- 1942-2512
- OpenAlex
- W2114329852
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- American Journal of Business Education (AJBE) (publishedVersion)
- San Jose State University Scholar Works (San Jose State University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Accounting › Accounting Education and Careers
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Social Sciences › Education › Management and Marketing Education
- Keywords
- peer grading, peer review, proofreading, case analysis, accounting education, critical thinking, communication skills, feedback, student performance
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
