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.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
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)
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)
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)
Haber, J.: MOOCs. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts (2014)
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)
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)
Ho, D., McAllister, S.: Are health professional competency assessments transferable across cultures? a preliminary validity study. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 43, 1069–1083 (2018)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Suen, H.K.: Peer assessment for massive open online courses (MOOCs). Int. Rev. Res. Open Distrib. Learn. 15, 312–327 (2014)
Ashton, S., Davies, R.S.: Using scaffolded rubrics to improve peer assessment in a MOOC writing course. Distance Educ. 36, 312–334 (2015)
Love, K.G.: Comparison of peer assessment methods: reliability, validity, friendship bias, and user reaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 66, 451–457 (1981)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Kearney, E.M.: Assessing learning. In: On Becoming a Teacher. pp. 85–89. Sense Publishers, Rotterdam (2013)
Sale, D.: Assessing learning. In: The Challenge of Reframing Engineering Education. pp. 59–80. Springer, Singapore (2014)
Ettarres, Y.: Evaluation of online assignments and quizzes using Bayesian networks. In: Innovations in Smart Learning. pp. 39–44. Springer, Singapore (2017)
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)
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)
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)
Rust, C.: A briefing on assessment of large groups. In: LTSN Generic Centre: Assessment Series (2001)
Bali, M.: A new scholar’s perspective on open peer review. Teach. High. Educ. 20, 857–863 (2015)
Soh, K.C.: Peer review: has it a future? Eur. J. High. Educ. 3, 129–139 (2013)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Derrick, G.: The Evaluators’ Eye: Impact Assessment and Academic Peer Review. Palgrave Macmillan (2018)
Roberts, T.S. (ed.): Self, Peer and Group Assessment in E-learning. Information Science Publishing, Hershey, PA (2006)
Zheng, Q., Chen, L., Burgos, D.: Emergence and development of MOOCs. In: The Development of MOOCs in China. pp. 11–24. Springer, Singapore (2018)
Waks, L.J.: The Evolution and Evaluation of Massive Open Online Courses: MOOCs in Motion. Palgrave Macmillan US (2016)
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)
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
Lui, A., Andrade, H.: Student Peer Assessment. In: Gunstone, R. (ed.) Encyclopedia of science education, pp. 1003–1005. Springer, Netherlands, Dordrecht (2015)
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)
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)
Jones, I., Alcock, L.: Peer assessment without assessment criteria. Stud. High. Educ. 39, 1774–1787 (2014)
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)
Li, L.: The role of anonymity in peer assessment. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 42, 645–656 (2017)
Sridharan, B., Muttakin, M.B., Mihret, D.G.: Students’ perceptions of peer assessment effectiveness: an explorative study. Account. Educ. 27, 259–285 (2018)
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)
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)
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)
Gielen, S., Dochy, F., Onghena, P.: An inventory of peer assessment diversity. Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 36, 137–155 (2011)
Xiong, Y., Suen, H.K.: Assessment approaches in massive open online courses: possibilities, challenges and future directions. Int. Rev. Educ. 64, 241–263 (2018)
Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8, 338–353 (1965)
Bellman, R.E., Zadeh, L.A.: Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Manag. Sci. 17, B141–B164 (1970)
Capuano, N., Loia, V., Orciuoli, F.: A fuzzy group decision making model for ordinal peer assessment. IEEE Trans. Learn. Technol. 10, 247–259 (2017)
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)
Ospina-Delgado, J., Zorio-Grima, A.: Innovation at universities: a fuzzy-set approach for MOOC-intensiveness. J. Bus. Res. 69, 1325–1328 (2016)
El Alaoui, M.: SMART grid evaluation using fuzzy numbers and TOPSIS. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 353, 012019 (2018)
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)
Lee, H.-S.: Optimal consensus of fuzzy opinions under group decision making environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 132, 303–315 (2002)
Chen, C.-T.: Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 114, 1–9 (2000)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11196-0_35
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-11195-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-11196-0
eBook Packages: Intelligent Technologies and RoboticsIntelligent Technologies and Robotics (R0)