Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

International Conference on Computer Supported Education

CSEDU 2015: Computer Supported Education pp 462–485Cite as

The Impact of Rubric-Based Peer Assessment on Feedback Quality in Blended MOOCs

Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS,volume 583)

Abstract

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have gained popularity in the past few years as a new form of open learning. Unlike assessment in classroom settings, the methodology to assess learning in open environments such as MOOCs represents a big challenge from the pedagogical perspective. Thus, there is a need to think about scalable assessment methods for accrediting and recognizing learning in MOOCs in an efficient and effective way. Peer Assessment is increasingly discussed in the recent MOOC literature as a potential solution to address this challenge. The problem remains, however, how to ensure the quality of the peer assessment feedback. In this paper, we investigate the potential of rubric-based peer assessment to make the assessment process in blended MOOCs (bMOOCs) more effective in terms of transparency, validity, and reliability. Moreover, we explore which peer assessment model fits best in a bMOOC context.

Keywords

  • Massive open online courses
  • Moocs
  • Blended MOOCs
  • bMOOCs
  • Peer assessment
  • Collaborative learning
  • Rubrics
  • Peer feedback

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Argyris, C., Schon, D.: Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Approach. Addision Wesley, Reading (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bruff, D.O., Fisher, D.H., McEwen, K.E., Smith, B.E.: Wrapping a MOOC: Student perceptions of an experiment in blended learning. MERLOT J. Online Learn. Teach. 9(2), 187–199 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Chatti, M.A., Jarke, M., Schroeder, U.: Double-loop learning. In: Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning, pp. 1035–1037 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chatti, M.A.: The LaaN theory. In: Personalization in Technology Enhanced Learning: A Social Software Perspective, pp. 19-42. Shaker Verlag, Aachen, Germany (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chatti, M.A., Lukarov, V., Thüs, H., Muslim, A., Yousef, A.M.F., Wahid, U., Greven, C., Chakrabarti, A., Schroeder, U.: Learning analytics: challenges and future research directions. eleed, iss. 10 (2014). (urn:nbn:de:0009-5-40350)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Clow, D.: MOOCs and the funnel of participation. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, pp. 185–189. ACM (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Coursera: How will my grade be determined?. http://help.coursera.org/customer/portal/articles/1163304-how-will-my-grade-be-determined. Accessed 20 January 2015

  8. Daniel, J.: Making sense of MOOCs: musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. J. Interact. Media Educ. 3 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Davis, H., Dikens, K., Leon-Urrutia, M., Sanchéz-Vera, M.M., White, S.: MOOCs for Universities and learners an analysis of motivating factors. In: Proceedings of CSEDU 2014 Conference, pp. 105–116. INSTICC (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Díez, J., Luaces, O., Alonso-Betanzos, A., Troncoso, A., Bahamonde, A.: Peer assessment in MOOCs using preference learning via matrix factorization. In: NIPS Workshop on Data Driven Education, December 2013

    Google Scholar 

  11. edX: Open Response Assessments. http://edx-guide-for-students.readthedocs.org/en/latest/SFD_ORA.html. Accessed 20 January 2015

  12. Ghadiri, K., Qayoumi, M.H., Junn, E., Hsu, P., Sujitparapitaya, S.: The transformative potential of blended learning using MIT edX’s 6.002 x online MOOC content combined with student team-based learning in class. Environment 8, 14 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gielen, S., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., Struyven, K., Smeets, S.: Goals of peer assessment and their associated quality concepts. Stud. High. Educ. 36(6), 719–735 (2011)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  14. Gielen, S., Peeters, E., Dochy, F., Onghena, P., Struyven, K.: Improving the effectiveness of peer feedback for learning. Learn. Instr. 20(4), 304–315 (2010)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  15. Totschnig, M., Willems, C., Meinel, C., Grünewald, F.: Designing MOOCs for the support of multiple learning styles. In: Hernández-Leo, D., Ley, T., Klamma, R., Harrer, A. (eds.) EC-TEL 2013. LNCS, vol. 8095, pp. 371–382. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  16. Hill, P.: Some validation of MOOC student patterns graphic (2013). http://mfeldstein.com/validation-mooc-student-patterns-graphic/

  17. Jordan, K.: MOOC completion rates: The data (2013). http://www.katyjordan.com/MOOCproject. Accessed 20 January 2015

  18. Kaplan, F., Bornet, C.A.M.: A preparatory analysis of peer-grading for a digital humanities MOOC. In: Digital Humanities 2014: Book of Abstracts no. EPFL-CONF-200911, pp. 227–229 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kop, R., Fournier, H., Mak, J.S.F.: A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support human beings? Participant support on massive open online courses. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance Learn. 12(7), 74–93 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kulkarni, C., Wei, K.P., Le, H., Chia, D., Papadopoulos, K., Cheng, J., Koller, D., Klemmer, S.R.: Peer and self assessment in massive online classes. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. (TOCHI) 20(6), 33 (2013)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  21. Luo, H., Robinson, A.C., Park, J.Y.: Peer Grading in a MOOC: reliability, validity, and perceived effects. Online Learn. Official J. Online Learn. Consortium 18(2) (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  22. McGarr, O., Clifford, A.M.: ‘Just enough to make you take it seriously’: exploring students’ attitudes towards peer assessment. High. Educ. 65(6), 677–693 (2013)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  23. McMullan, M., Endacott, R., Gray, M.A., Jasper, M., Miller, C.M., Scholes, J., Webb, C.: Portfolios and assessment of competence: a review of the literature. J. Adv. Nurs. 41(3), 283–294 (2003)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  24. Nielsen, J.: Usability inspection methods. In: Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 413–414. ACM (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Nonaka, I., Takeuchi, H.: The Knowledge-Creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ostashewski, N., Reid, D.: Delivering a MOOC using a social networking site: the SMOOC design model. In: Proceedings of IADIS International Conference on Internet Technologies and Society, pp. 217–220 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  27. O’Toole, R.: Pedagogical strategies and technologies for peer assessment in massively open online courses (MOOCs). Discussion Paper, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK (2013). http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/54602/

  28. Piech, C., Huang, J., Chen, Z., Do, C., Ng, A., Koller, D.: Tuned models of peer assessment in MOOCs (2013). arXiv preprint arXiv:1307.2579

  29. Prümper, J.: Der Benutzungsfragebogen ISONORM 9241/10: Ergebnisse zur Reliabilität und Validität. In: Software-Ergonomie 1997, pp. 253–262. Vieweg+Teubner Verlag (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sánchez-Vera, M.M., Prendes-Espinosa, M.P.: Beyond objective testing and peer assessment: alternative ways of assessment in MOOCs. RUSC Univ. Knowl. Soc. J. 12(1), 119–130 (2015). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v12i1.2262

    Google Scholar 

  31. Sandeen, C.: Assessment’s place in the new MOOC world. Res. Pract. Assess. 8(1), 5–12 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  32. Sitthiworachart, J., Joy, M.: Effective peer assessment for learning computer programming. In: ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 122–126. ACM (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Suen, H.K.: Peer assessment for massive open online courses (MOOCs). Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance Learn. 15(3) (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Topping, K.: Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Rev. Educ. Res. 68(3), 249–276 (1998)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  35. Van Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D., Van Merriënboer, J.: Effective peer assessment processes: research findings and future directions. Learn. Instr. 20(4), 270–279 (2010)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  36. Wolf, K., Stevens, E.: The role of rubrics in advancing and assessing student learning. J. Effective Teach. 7(1), 3–14 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Yin, S., Kawachi, P.: Improving open access through prior learning assessment. Open Praxis 5(1), 59–65 (2013)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  38. Yorke, M.: Assessment, especially in the first year of higher education: old principles in new wrapping. In: REAP International Online Conference on Assessment Design for Learner Responsibility (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Yousef, A.M.F., Chatti, M.A., Ahmad, I., Schroeder, U., Wosnitza, M.: An evaluation of learning analytics in a blended MOOC environment. In: The European MOOC Stakeholder Summit 2015 (2015a Submitted)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Yousef, A.M.F., Chatti, M.A., Danoyan, N., Thüs, H., Schroeder, U.: An evaluation of learning analytics in a blended MOOC environment. In: The European MOOC Stakeholder Summit 2015 (2015b Submitted)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Yousef, A.M.F., Chatti, M. A., Wosnitza, M., Schroeder, U.: A cluster analysis of MOOC stakeholder perspectives. RUSC Univ. Knowl. Soc. J. 12(1), 74–90 (2015c)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Yousef, A.M.F., Chatti, M.A., Schroeder, U., Wosnitza, M.: A usability evaluation of a blended MOOC environment: an experimental case study. In: The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, (2015d, Accepted)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Yousef, A.M.F., Chatti, M.A., Schroeder, U., Wosnitza, M., Jakobs, H.: MOOCs - a review of the state-of-the-art. In: Proceedings of CSEDU 2014 Conference, vol. 3, pp. 9–20. INSTICC, 2014 (2014a)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Yousef, A.M.F., Chatti, M.A., Schroeder, U., Wosnitza, M.: What drives a successful MOOC? an empirical examination of criteria to assure design quality of MOOCs. In: 14th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies Proceedings. ICALT 2014, pp. 44–48 (2014b)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Learning Technologies Group (Informatik 9), RWTH-Aachen University, Ahornstrasse 55, Aachen, Germany

    Ahmed Mohamed Fahmy Yousef, Mohamed Amine Chatti & Ulrik Schroeder

  2. Center for Innovative Learning Technologies (CIL), RWTH-Aachen University, Ahornstrasse 55, Aachen, Germany

    Ahmed Mohamed Fahmy Yousef, Usman Wahid, Mohamed Amine Chatti & Ulrik Schroeder

  3. School Pedagogy and Educational Research, RWTH-Aachen University, Eilfschornsteinstraße7, Aachen, Germany

    Marold Wosnitza

Authors
  1. Ahmed Mohamed Fahmy Yousef
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Usman Wahid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohamed Amine Chatti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ulrik Schroeder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marold Wosnitza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahmed Mohamed Fahmy Yousef .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Denver, Denver, Colorado, USA

    Susan Zvacek

  2. do Porto, Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade, Porto, Portugal

    Maria Teresa Restivo

  3. School of Engineering, University of Ulster, Newtownabbey, United Kingdom

    James Uhomoibhi

  4. Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Ireland

    Markus Helfert

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Yousef, A.M.F., Wahid, U., Chatti, M.A., Schroeder, U., Wosnitza, M. (2016). The Impact of Rubric-Based Peer Assessment on Feedback Quality in Blended MOOCs. In: Zvacek, S., Restivo, M., Uhomoibhi, J., Helfert, M. (eds) Computer Supported Education. CSEDU 2015. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 583. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29585-5_27

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29585-5_27

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-29584-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-29585-5

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

search

Navigation