Peer assessment in large undergraduate classes: an evaluation of a procedure for marking laboratory reports and a review of related practices
Peer assessment in large undergraduate classes: an evaluation of a procedure for marking laboratory reports and a review of related practices
复制标题
DOI：
10.1152/advan.00115.2010
复制
发表时间：
2011-06-01
影响因子：
2.1
通讯作者：
Harris, Judy R.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Harris, Judy R.
Harris Jr.大学生班级的同侪评量：评量实验室报告的程序及相关实务的回顾。Adv Physiol Educ 35：178-187，2011; doi：10.1152/2010.-这项研究提供的证据表明，同行标记可以是一个可靠的工具，在大型队列评估实验室报告。它进行了为期4年的一年级本科生（类似于180名学生/队列）采取哺乳动物生理学课程，但所采用的程序将适用于任何其他实验室为基础的学科。这一过程被认为是有效的工作人员的时间，使总结性的实践报告被标记在< 1小时（< 5%的时间，以前所需的工作人员标记），促进快速反馈给学生对他们的表现。当样本的同行评估报告标记的一个成员的工作人员，有很好的相关性同行和工作人员的分数（r = 0.96-0.98），虽然同行授予的分数超过工作人员的分数平均为2.5- 3.0%。同伴标记的有效性是独立的性别的标记和工作人员的分数授予标记为同一件工作。学生的反馈基本上是积极的;他们报告说，所采用的程序是有效的，增加了他们的基本生理学的理解，并有助于他们的理解最佳做法，在提出一份实验室报告。百分之七十的学生同意，这是可以接受的同侪评估，以贡献一小部分（高达5%）的整体分数的课程。讨论的结果与其他同行标记的报告，特别是当用于评估一个学术产品或过程中的科学学科。
Harris JR. Peer assessment in large undergraduate classes: an evaluation of a procedure for marking laboratory reports and a review of related practices. Adv Physiol Educ 35: 178-187, 2011; doi:10.1152/advan.00115.2010.-This study provides evidence that peer marking can be a reliable tool for assessing laboratory reports in large cohorts. It was conducted over a 4-yr period with first-year undergraduates (similar to 180 students/cohort) taking a mammalian physiology course, but the procedure adopted would be applicable to any other laboratory-based discipline. The process was found to be efficient in staff time, enabling a summative practical report to be marked in < 1 h (< 5% of the time that had previously been required for staff marking), facilitating rapid feedback to students on their performance. When samples of the peer-assessed reports were marked by a single member of staff, there was excellent correlation between peer and staff marks (r = 0.96-0.98), although peer-awarded marks exceeded staff marks by an average of 2.5-3.0%. The validity of peer marking was independent of both the sex of the marker and the staff score awarded to the marker for the same piece of work. Feedback from students was largely positive; they reported that the procedure adopted was effective in increasing their understanding of the underlying physiology and contributed to their understanding of best practice in presenting a laboratory report. Seventy percent of students agreed that it was acceptable for peer assessment to contribute a small (up to 5%) component of the overall mark for the course. The results are discussed in relation to other reports of peer marking, particularly when used to assess an academic product or process in a scientific discipline.