A Comparison of Methods to Correct Errors in Peer Assessment Ratings in Massive Open Online Courses

Yao XIONG,K. Hoi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1005-8427.2016.01.002
2016-01-01
Abstract:Peer assessment is one of the most important assessment methods in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), especially for open-ended assignments or projects. However, for the purpose of summative evaluation, peer assessment results are generally not trusted. This is because peer raters, who are novices, would produce more random errors and systematic biases in ratings than would expert raters, due to peer raters’lack of content expertise and rating experience. In this paper, two major approaches that are designed to improve the accuracy of peer assessment results are reviewed and compared. The first approach is designed to calibrate accuracy of individual peer raters before actual peer assessments so that differential weights can be assigned to raters based on accuracy. The second approach is designed to remedy peer rating errors post hoc. Differences in assumptions, parameterization and estimation methods, and implementation issues are discussed. The development of methods to improve MOOCs peer assessment results is still in its infancy. Most of the methods reviewed in this paper have yet to be implemented and evaluated in real-life applications. We hope the discussion and comparison of different methods in this paper will provide some theoretical and methodological background for further research into MOOC peer assessment.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?