English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In higher education courses, peer assessment activities are common forkeeping students engaged during presentations. Defining precisely how studentsassess the work of others requires careful consideration. Asking the studentfor numeric grades is the most common method. However, students tend to assignhigh grades to most projects. Aggregating peer assessments, therefore, resultsin all projects receiving the same grade. Moreover, students mightstrategically assign low grades to the projects of others so that theirprojects will shine. Asking students to order all projects from best to worstimposes a high cognitive load on them, as studies have shown that people findit difficult to order more than a handful of items. To address these issues, wepropose a novel peer rating model consisting of (a) an algorithm that elicitsstudent assessments and (b) a protocol for aggregating grades to produce asingle order. The algorithm asks students to evaluate projects and answerpairwise comparison queries. These are then aggregated into a ranking over theprojects. An application based on our model was deployed and tested in auniversity course and showed promising results, including fewer ties betweenalternatives and a significant reduction in the communication load on students.These results indicate that the model provides a simple, accurate, andefficient approach to peer review.

Forming a ranking from tied evaluations: a case of an online, interactive student peer assessment system