Cited by 23Student Assessment and FeedbackTeaching and Learning ProgrammingInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

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 access

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.3991/ijep.v8i1.8099

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 16 references

1 of the 16 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 23

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
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