Year: 2019
Type: article
Abstract: Adaptive Comparative Judgement is an alternative to conventional marking in which the assessor (or judge) merely compares two answers and chooses a winner. Repeated judgements and the use of a suitable sorting algorithm allow marked to be derived from a rank order of scripts. Feedback can be added to each script as it is judged. We have evaluated the use of adaptive comparative judgement for peer assessment and feedback using a case study in the third year of a Pharmacy programme. The exercise consisted of five parts each of 100 words. Each student conducted 10 judgements and left feedback, which was of overall very high quality. The assessment, however, was less successful. Students’ judgements were not very consistent with one another, nor with staff assessment. This contrasts with a previous exercise, in which the student assessment was of high reliability but the feedback was less good. This exercise was successful in promoting mutual support among students through the giving and receiving of feedback. We conclude, however, that for optimum use of adaptive comparative judgement for peer assessment, a hierarchical marking scheme is required, but students should be encouraged to give feedback on all aspects of the assessment.
Authors: Constantinos Demonacos, Steven R. Ellis, Jill Barber
Institution: University of Manchester
Language: English
Subfield: Education
Field: Social Sciences
Domain: Social Sciences
SDG: Quality education
Open Access status: diamond
OpenAlex ID: W2964188169