Papers › Interactive and Iterative Peer Assessment

Interactive and Iterative Peer Assessment

28 Dec 2022arXiv:2212.13774links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Lihi Dery

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

Iterative peer grading activities may keep students engaged during in-class project presentations. Effective methods for collecting and aggregating peer assessment data are essential. Students tend to grade projects favorably. So, while asking students for numeric grades is a common approach, it often leads to inflated grades across all projects, resulting in numerous ties for the top grades. Additionally, students may strategically assign lower grades to others' projects so that their projects will shine. Alternatively, requesting students to rank all projects from best to worst presents challenges due to limitations in human cognitive capacity. To address these issues, we propose a novel peer grading model consisting of (a) an algorithm designed to elicit student evaluations and (b) a median-based voting protocol for aggregating grades to a single ranked order that reduces ties. An application based on our model was deployed and tested in a university course, demonstrating fewer ties between alternatives and a significant decrease in students' cognitive and communication burdens.

PaperPDFCode

Code

nlihin/R2R official report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections