Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Peer Assessment Improvement Using Fuzzy Logic

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Innovations in Smart Cities Applications Edition 2 (SCA 2018)

Abstract

Peer assessment, consists of a prearrangement between learners to consider and specify the level, value, or quality of a product or performance or other equal-status learners. The practice imposes itself when trying to evaluate a large number of students, teachers are practically obliged to use peer assessment, especially in Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). However, the novice students, unlike their teachers, are not formed to assess others contributions. Therefore, their evaluations are unreliable and may be biased. Here we try to improve the peer assessment outcome, using fuzzy logic to model opinions, those opinions are weighed according to their validity, then aggregated in order to achieve consensus, hence reliable evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Lewis Gaillet, L.: A Foreshadowing of modern theories and practices of collaborative Learning: The work of scottish rhetorician george Jardine. In: Presented at the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Cincinnati OH, Mar 19 (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  2. García-Peñalvo, F.J., Fidalgo-Blanco, Á., Sein-Echaluce, M.L.: An adaptive hybrid MOOC model: disrupting the MOOC concept in higher education. Telemat. Inform. 35, 1018–1030 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Giovannella, C., Martens, A., Zualkernan, I.: Grand challenge problem 1: people centered smart “cities” through smart city learning. In: Grand Challenge Problems in Technology-Enhanced Learning II: MOOCs and Beyond. pp. 7–12. Springer, Cham (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Haber, J.: MOOCs. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (2014)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  5. Alario-Hoyos, C., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., Delgado-Kloos, C.G.H.A.P., Muñoz-Organero, M., Rodríguez-de-las-Heras, A.: Analysing the impact of Built-In and external social tools in a MOOC on educational technologies. In: Scaling up Learning for Sustained Impact. pp. 5–18. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Formanek, M., Wenger, M.C., Buxner, S.R., Impey, C.D., Sonam, T.: Insights about large-scale online peer assessment from an analysis of an astronomy MOOC. Comput. Educ. 113, 243–262 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ho, D., McAllister, S.: Are health professional competency assessments transferable across cultures? a preliminary validity study. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 43, 1069–1083 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wilson, M.J., Diao, M.M., Huang, L.: ‘I’m not here to learn how to mark someone else’s stuff’: an investigation of an online peer-to-peer review workshop tool. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 40, 15–32 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Usher, M., Barak, M.: Peer assessment in a project-based engineering course: comparing between on-campus and online learning environments. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 43, 745–759 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bordel, B., Alcarria, R., Martín, D., Sánchez-de-Rivera, D.: Improving MOOC student learning through enhanced peer-to-peer tasks. In: Digital Education: Out to the World and Back to the Campus. pp. 140–149. Springer, Cham (2017)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Mulder, R., Baik, C., Naylor, R., Pearce, J.: How does student peer review influence perceptions, engagement and academic outcomes? A case study. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 39, 657–677 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Meek, S.E.M., Blakemore, L., Marks, L.: Is peer review an appropriate form of assessment in a MOOC? Student participation and performance in formative peer review. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 42, 1000–1013 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Suen, H.K.: Peer assessment for massive open online courses (MOOCs). Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 15, 312–327 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Ashton, S., Davies, R.S.: Using scaffolded rubrics to improve peer assessment in a MOOC writing course. Distance Educ. 36, 312–334 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Love, K.G.: Comparison of peer assessment methods: reliability, validity, friendship bias, and user reaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 66, 451–457 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cho, K., Schunn, C.D., Wilson, R.W.: Validity and reliability of scaffolded peer assessment of writing from instructor and student perspectives. J. Educ. Psychol. 98, 891–901 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Speyer, R., Pilz, W., Van Der Kruis, J., Brunings, J.W.: Reliability and validity of student peer assessment in medical education: a systematic review. Med. Teach. 33, e572–e585 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Schunn, C., Godley, A., DeMartino, S.: The reliability and validity of peer review of writing in high school AP english classes. J. Adolesc. Adult Lit. 60, 13–23 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Salehi, M., Masoule, Z.S.: An investigation of the reliability and validity of peer, self-, and teacher assessment. South. Afr. Linguist. Appl. Lang. Stud. 35, 1–15 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Yoon, H.B., Park, W.B., Myung, S.-J., Moon, S.H., Park, J.-B.: Validity and reliability assessment of a peer evaluation method in team-based learning classes. Korean J. Med. Educ. 30, 23–29 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. James, S., Pan, L., Wilkin, T., Yin, L.: Online peer marking with aggregation functions. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems (FUZZ-IEEE). pp. 1–6 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kearney, E.M.: Assessing learning. In: On Becoming a Teacher. pp. 85–89. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam (2013)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Sale, D.: Assessing learning. In: The Challenge of Reframing Engineering Education. pp. 59–80. Springer, Singapore (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ettarres, Y.: Evaluation of online assignments and quizzes using Bayesian networks. In: Innovations in Smart Learning. pp. 39–44. Springer, Singapore (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Govindarajan, K., Boulanger, D., Seanosky, J., Bell, J., Pinnell, C., Kumar, V.S., Kinshuk.: Assessing learners’ progress in a smart learning environment using bio-inspired clustering mechanism. In: Innovations in Smart Learning. pp. 49–58. Springer, Singapore (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Zhu, M., Sari, A., Lee, M.M.: A systematic review of research methods and topics of the empirical MOOC literature (2014–2016). Internet High. Educ. 37, 31–39 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Staubitz, T., Petrick, D., Bauer, M., Renz, J., Meinel, C.: Improving the peer assessment experience on MOOC platforms. In: Proceedings of the Third (2016) ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale. pp. 389–398. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rust, C.: A briefing on assessment of large groups. In: LTSN Generic Centre: Assessment Series (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bali, M.: A new scholar’s perspective on open peer review. Teach. High. Educ. 20, 857–863 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Soh, K.C.: Peer review: has it a future? Eur. J. High. Educ. 3, 129–139 (2013)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Millard, W.B.: The wisdom of crowds, the madness of crowds: rethinking peer review in the web era. Ann. Emerg. Med. 57, A13–A20 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Clase, K.L., Gundlach, E., Pelaez, N.J.: Calibrated peer review for computer-assisted learning of biological research competencies. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. Bimon. Publ. Int. Union Biochem. Mol. Biol. 38, 290–295 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Purcell, M.E., Hawtin, M.: Piloting external peer review as a model for performance improvement in third-sector organizations. Nonprofit Manag. Leadersh. 20, 357–374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Wu, J.: Empirical analysis of evaluation of english teachers’ educational ability under MOOC environment. In: 2018 International Conference on Intelligent Transportation, Big Data Smart City (ICITBS). pp. 303–306 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Yin, Z.: Educational ability evaluation of japanese language teacher under MOOC environment. In: 2018 International Conference on Intelligent Transportation, Big Data Smart City (ICITBS). pp. 299–302 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Koç, E.S.: An evaluation of the effectiveness of committees of teachers according to the teachers’ views, ankara province sample. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 174, 3–9 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Song, Y., Hu, Z., Gehringer, E.F.: Collusion in educational peer assessment: How much do we need to worry about it?. In: 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). pp. 1–8 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Gielen, S., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., Struyven, K., Smeets, S.: Goals of peer assessment and their associated quality concepts. Stud. High. Educ. 36, 719–735 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Luo, H., Robinson, A.C., Park, J.-Y.: Peer grading in a MOOC: reliability, validity, and perceived effects. J. Asynchronous Learn. Netw. 18, 1–14 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Derrick, G.: The Evaluators’ Eye: Impact Assessment and Academic Peer Review. Palgrave Macmillan (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Roberts, T.S. (ed.): Self, Peer and Group Assessment in E-learning. Information Science Publishing, Hershey, PA (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Zheng, Q., Chen, L., Burgos, D.: Emergence and development of MOOCs. In: The Development of MOOCs in China. pp. 11–24. Springer, Singapore (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Waks, L.J.: The Evolution and Evaluation of Massive Open Online Courses: MOOCs in Motion. Palgrave Macmillan US (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Jackson, M., Marks, L.: Improving the effectiveness of feedback by use of assessed reflections and withholding of grades. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 41, 532–547 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Gamage, D., Whiting, M., Rajapakshe, T., Thilakarathne, H., Perera, I., Fernando, S.: Improving Assessment on MOOCs Through Peer Identification and Aligned Incentives. pp. 315–318 (2017). ArXiv170306169 Cs

    Google Scholar 

  46. Lui, A., Andrade, H.: Student Peer Assessment. In: Gunstone, R. (ed.) Encyclopedia of science education, pp. 1003–1005. Springer, Netherlands, Dordrecht (2015)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  47. Adachi, C., Tai, J.H.-M., Dawson, P.: Academics’ perceptions of the benefits and challenges of self and peer assessment in higher education. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 43, 294–306 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Alias, M., Masek, A., Salleh, H.H.M.: Self, peer and teacher assessments in problem based learning: are they in agreements? Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 204, 309–317 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Jones, I., Alcock, L.: Peer assessment without assessment criteria. Stud. High. Educ. 39, 1774–1787 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Orsmond, P., Merry, S., Reiling, K.: The importance of marking criteria in the use of peer assessment. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 21, 239–250 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Li, L.: The role of anonymity in peer assessment. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 42, 645–656 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Sridharan, B., Muttakin, M.B., Mihret, D.G.: Students’ perceptions of peer assessment effectiveness: an explorative study. Account. Educ. 27, 259–285 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Pitt, E., Winstone, N.: The impact of anonymous marking on students’ perceptions of fairness, feedback and relationships with lecturers. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 43, 1183–1193 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Rotsaert, T., Panadero, E., Schellens, T.: Anonymity as an instructional scaffold in peer assessment: its effects on peer feedback quality and evolution in students’ perceptions about peer assessment skills. Eur. J. Psychol. Educ. 33, 75–99 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Wahid, U., Chatti, M.A., Schroeder, U.: A systematic analysis of peer assessment in the MOOC era and future perspectives. In: Presented at the eLmL 2016, The Eighth International Conference on Mobile, Hybrid, and On-line Learning Apr 24 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  56. Gielen, S., Dochy, F., Onghena, P.: An inventory of peer assessment diversity. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 36, 137–155 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Xiong, Y., Suen, H.K.: Assessment approaches in massive open online courses: possibilities, challenges and future directions. Int. Rev. Educ. 64, 241–263 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8, 338–353 (1965)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Bellman, R.E., Zadeh, L.A.: Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Manag. Sci. 17, B141–B164 (1970)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  60. Capuano, N., Loia, V., Orciuoli, F.: A fuzzy group decision making model for ordinal peer assessment. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 10, 247–259 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Lubis, F.F., Rosmansyah, Y., Supangkat, S.H.: Experience in learners review to determine attribute relation for course completion. In: 2016 International Conference on ICT For Smart Society (ICISS). pp. 32–36 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  62. Ospina-Delgado, J., Zorio-Grima, A.: Innovation at universities: a fuzzy-set approach for MOOC-intensiveness. J. Bus. Res. 69, 1325–1328 (2016)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. El Alaoui, M.: SMART grid evaluation using fuzzy numbers and TOPSIS. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 353, 012019 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. El Alaoui, M., Ben-Azza, H., Zahi, A.: New multi-criteria decision-making based on fuzzy similarity, distance and ranking. In: Proceedings of the Third International Afro-European Conference for Industrial Advancement—AECIA 2016. pp. 138–148. Springer, Cham (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  65. Lee, H.-S.: Optimal consensus of fuzzy opinions under group decision making environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 132, 303–315 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  66. Chen, C.-T.: Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 114, 1–9 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Chen, C.-T., Lin, C.-T., Huang, S.-F.: A fuzzy approach for supplier evaluation and selection in supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 102, 289–301 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Skalna, I., Rębiasz, B., Gaweł, B., Basiura, B., Duda, J., Opiła, J., Pełech-Pilichowsk, T.: Advances in Fuzzy Decision Making—Theory and Practice. Springer International Publishing (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  69. El Alaoui, M., Ben-Azza, H., El Yassini, K.: Optimal weighting method for fuzzy opinions. In: Presented at the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Paris, France July 26 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  70. Chai, K.C., Tay, K.M., Lim, C.P.: A new fuzzy peer assessment methodology for cooperative learning of students. Appl. Soft Comput. 32, 468–480 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Moulay Ismail University, ENSAM Meknes, Morocco

    Mohamed El Alaoui & Hussain Ben-Azza

  2. Faculty of Science Meknes, Moulay Ismail University, Meknes, Morocco

    Khalid El Yassini

Authors
  1. Mohamed El Alaoui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Khalid El Yassini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hussain Ben-Azza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohamed El Alaoui .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Association Méditerranéenne des Sciences et Technologies, Tangier, Morocco

    Mohamed Ben Ahmed

  2. Association Méditerranéenne des Sciences et Technologies, Tangier, Morocco

    Anouar Abdelhakim Boudhir

  3. Faculty of Sciences, Présidence UAE, Tétouan, Morocco

    Ali Younes

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

El Alaoui, M., El Yassini, K., Ben-Azza, H. (2019). Peer Assessment Improvement Using Fuzzy Logic. In: Ben Ahmed, M., Boudhir, A., Younes, A. (eds) Innovations in Smart Cities Applications Edition 2. SCA 2018. Lecture Notes in Intelligent Transportation and Infrastructure. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11196-0_35

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation