Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How to Stop Collusion in Peer Review Exercises: Evidence From the Classroom

  • Classroom
  • Published:
Resonance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this section of Resonance, we invite readers to pose questions likely to be raised in a classroom situation. We may suggest strategies for dealing with them, or invite responses, or both. “Classroom” is equally a forum for raising broader issues and sharing personal experiences and viewpoints on matters related to teaching and learning science.

Within classrooms, reciprocal rating or a two-way rating system is frequently used in peer reviews of students’ performances in group projects or assignments. Intentional distortion of assessment can be achieved in such scenarios through careful contracting between participants. This article shows how a modified score function can be used to stop such kind of collusion between students.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. W. Cheng and M. Warren, Making a difference: Using peers to assess individual students’ contributions to a group project, Teaching in higher education, Vol.5, No.2, pp.243–255, 2000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. K. Sambell, Involving students in the scholarship of assessment, Reconceptualising feedback in higher education: Developing dialogue with students, 80, 2013.

  3. K. J. Topping, Peer assessment, Theory into practice, Vol.48, No.l, pp.20–27, 2009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. B. O’donovan, M. Price and C. Rust, Know what i mean?enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria, Teaching in Higher Education, Vol.9, No.3, pp.325–335, 2004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. D. Nicol, A. Thomson and C. Breslin, Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: A peer review perspective, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol.39, No.1, pp.102–122, 2014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. P. Vickerman, Student perspectives on formative peer assessment: An attempt to deepen learning? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol.34, No.2, pp.221–230, 2009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. R. Conway, D. Kember, A. Sivan and M. Wu, Peer assessment of an individual’s contribution to a group project, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, Vol.18, No.1, pp.45–56, 1993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Y.-T Sung, K.-E Chang, T.-H. Chang and W.-C. Yu, How many heads are better than one? the reliability and validity of teenagers’ self-and peer assessments, Journal of Adolescence, Vol.33, No.1, pp.135–145, 2010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. J. Luft and H. Ingham, The johari window, a graphic model of interpersonal awareness, Proceedings of the western training laboratory in group development, 246, 1955.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Economics, Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode, Kozhikode, Kerala, India

    Anirban Ghatak

Authors
  1. Anirban Ghatak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anirban Ghatak.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ghatak, A. How to Stop Collusion in Peer Review Exercises: Evidence From the Classroom. Reson 27, 867–875 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12045-022-1379-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12045-022-1379-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation