The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Person-Centered Learning using Peer Review Method – An Evaluation and a Concept for Student-Centered Classrooms
Open accessAbstract
Using peer assessment in the classroom to increase student engagement by actively involving the pupils in the assessment process has been practiced and researched for decades. In general, the literature suggests using peer review for project-based exercises. This paper analyzes the applicability of peer assessment to smaller exercises at secondary school level and makes recommendations for its use in computer science courses. Furthermore, a school pilot project introducing student-centered classrooms, called “learning office”, is described. Additionally, a concept for the implementation of peer assessment in such student-centered classrooms is outlined. We introduced two traditional secondary school classes consisting of a total of 57 students to the peer assessment method within the scope of the same software engineering course. The peer students assessed two of 13 exercises using the Moodle workshop activity. The students evaluated these two exercises using an anonymous online questionnaire. At the end of the course, they rated each of the 13 exercises regarding their learning motivation. Overall, the anonymous feedback on the peer review exercises was very positive. The students not only obtained more feedback, but also received it in a timelier manner compared to regular teacher assessment. The results of the overall rating of all 13 exercises revealed that the two peer reviewed exercises have been rated significantly better than the other eleven exercises assessed by the teacher. Evidence therefore suggests that peer review is a viable option for small- and medium-sized exercises in the context of computer science education at secondary school level under certain conditions, which we discuss in this paper.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“However, qualitative studies show that students and staff have divided opinions regarding the “workshop” tool for peer assessment (Divjak & Maretić, 2017; Dolezal et al., 2018; Wilson et al., 2015).”
From A systematic review on trends in using Moodle for teaching and learning (2022) · cites this paper as Dolezal et al., 2018
In the citing paper
“In studies that have used peer assessments to allow students to grade their peers, some students reported the peer assessment method as “unfair and “unprofessional” (Divjak & Maretić, 2017; Dolezal et al., 2018; Wilson et al., 2015).”
From A systematic review on trends in using Moodle for teaching and learning (2022) · cites this paper as Dolezal et al., 2018
In the citing paper
“However, peer assessments using “workshop” are still time-consuming for both the teacher and students and could lose their charm if they are overused (Dolezal et al., 2018).”
From A systematic review on trends in using Moodle for teaching and learning (2022) · cites this paper as Dolezal et al., 2018
Citations
Cites
Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences
Guitton, H., & Siegel, S. (1958) · Revue économique · doi:10.2307/3498751 · Cited by 35,279
Individual Comparisons by Ranking Methods
Wilcoxon, F. (1945) · Biometrics Bulletin · doi:10.2307/3001968 · Cited by 15,354
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957) · Cited by 9,433
The proof and measurement of association between two things
Spearman, C. (1904) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1412159 · Cited by 8,039
Architectural styles and the design of network-based software architectures
Fielding, R. T., & Taylor, R. N. (2000) · Cited by 5,094
A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance
HOCHBERG, Y. (1988) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/75.4.800 · Cited by 4,829
VII. Note on regression and inheritance in the case of two parents
Pearson, K. (1895) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London · doi:10.1098/rspl.1895.0041 · Cited by 3,726
Student (1908) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/6.1.1 · Cited by 1,363
Richardson, L., & Ruby, S. (2007) · CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · Cited by 1,053
How assessment frames student learning
Gibbs, G. (2006) · doi:10.4324/9780203969670-13 · Cited by 189
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 16 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A systematic review on trends in using Moodle for teaching and learning
Gamage, S. H. P. W., Ayres, J. R., & Behrend, M. B. (2022) · International Journal of STEM Education · doi:10.1186/s40594-021-00323-x · Cited by 360
Mobile E-Portfolios on Google Sites: A Tool for Enhancing Project-Based Learning
Ánh, T. T. N., & Ngoc, T. N. (2023) · International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) · doi:10.3991/ijim.v17i11.39673 · Cited by 32
Benraghda, A., Radzuan, N. R. M., & Lardhi, F. A. S. (2022) · Cogent Education · doi:10.1080/2331186x.2022.2123472 · Cited by 21
Does Peer Code Review Change My Mind on My Submission?
Strickroth, S. (2023) · ACM Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education (ITiCSE) · doi:10.1145/3587102.3588802 · Cited by 15
Organizing Peer Correction in Tertiary STEM Education: An Approach and its Evaluation
Heller, N., & Bry, F. (2019) · International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP) · doi:10.3991/ijep.v9i4.10201 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Dolezal, D., Posekany, A., Roschger, C., Koppensteiner, G., Motschnig, R., & Pucher, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Applied Sciences Technikum Wien (AT)
- Universität für Weiterbildung Krems (AT)
- Tgm (AT)
- University of Vienna (AT)
- Venue
- International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP)
- Published
- 2018-02-28
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 127
- ISSN
- 2192-4880 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2791086057
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 6.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Student Assessment and Feedback
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Keywords
- peer assessment, peer review, student-centered learning, student-centered learning environment, software engineering education, student engagement, student motivation
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