Group peer assessment for summative evaluation in a graduate-level statistics course for ecologists

References

• Almond, R. J. 2009. “Group Assessment: Comparing Group and Individual Undergraduate Module Marks.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 34 (2): 141–148. doi:10.1080/02602930801956083.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bangert-Drowns, R. L., C.-L. C. Kulik, J. A. Kulik, and M. T. Morgan. 1991. “The Instructional Effect of Feedback in Test-Like Events.” Review of Educational Research 61 (2): 213–238. doi:10.3102/00346543061002213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van den Berg, I., W. Admiraal, and A. Pilot. 2006. “Design Principles and Outcomes of Peer Assessment in Higher Education.” Studies in Higher Education 31 (3): 341–356.10.1080/03075070600680836
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boud, D., ed. 1988. Developing Student Autonomy in Learning. 2nd ed. London: Kogan Page.
   Google Scholar
• Boud, D., R. Cohen, and J. Sampson. 1999. “Peer Learning and Assessment.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 24 (4): 413–426.10.1080/0260293990240405
   Google Scholar
• Brown, S. 1998. Peer Assessment in Practice. SEDA Paper 102, Birmingham.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, J. M., J. P. Posada, and R. Waldron. 2012. “Moodle Workshop Activities Support Peer Review in Year 1 Science: Present and Future.” Proceedings from ascilite 2012: Future Challenges/Sustainable Futures, Wellington, New Zealand.
   Google Scholar
• Cuseo, J. B. 2007. “The Empirical Case against Large Class Size: Adverse Effects on the Teaching, Learning, and Retention of First-Year Students.” Journal of Faculty Development 21 (1): 5–21.
   Google Scholar
• Dochy, F., M. Segers, and D. Sluijsmans. 1999. “The Use of Self-, Peer and Co-Assessment in Higher Education: A Review.” Studies in Higher Education 24 (3): 331–350.10.1080/03075079912331379935
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enders, F. B., S. Jenkins, and V. Hoverman. 2010. “Calibrated Peer Review for Interpreting Linear Regression Parameters: Results from a Graduate Course.” Journal of Statistical Education 18 (2): 1–27.
   Google Scholar
• Falchikov, N., and J. Goldfinch. 2000. “Student Peer Assessment in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Peer and Teacher Marks.” Review of Educational Research 70 (3): 287–322.10.3102/00346543070003287
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbs, G. 2009. “The Assessment of Group Work: Lessons from the Literature.” Assessment Standards Knowledge Exchange, Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. Accessed June 3, 2016. https://www.brookes.ac.uk/aske/documents/Brookes%20groupwork%20Gibbs%20Dec%2009.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Green, J. L., and E. E. Blankenship. 2015. “Fostering Conceptual Understanding in Mathematical Statistics.” The American Statistician 69 (4): 315–325. doi:10.1080/00031305.2015.1069759.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holroyd, C. 2000. “Are Assessors Professional? Student Assessment and the Professionalism of Academics.” Active Learning in Higher Education 1: 28–44.10.1177/1469787400001001003
   Google Scholar
• Kulik, J. A., and C.-L. C. Kulik. 1988. “Timing of Feedback and Verbal Learning.” Review of Educational Research 58: 79–97.10.3102/00346543058001079
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Llado, A. P., L. F. Soley, R. M. F. Sansbello, G. A. Pujolras, J. P. Planella, N. Roura-Pascual, J. J. S. Martinez, and L. M. Moreno. 2014. “Student Perceptions of Peer Assessment: An Interdisciplinary Study.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 39 (5): 592–610.10.1080/02602938.2013.860077
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundstrom, K., and W. Baker. 2009. “To Give is Better Than to Receive: The Benefits of Peer Review to the Reviewer’s Own Writing.” Journal of Second Language Writing 18 (1): 30–43.10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mostert, M., and J. D. Snowball. 2013. “Where Angels Fear to Tread: Online Peer-Assessment in a Large First-Year Class.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 38 (6): 674–686. doi:10.1080/02602938.2012.683770.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulder, R., C. Baik, R. Naylor, and J. Pearce. 2014. “How Does Student Peer Review Influence Perceptions, Engagement and Academic Outcomes? A Case Study.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 39 (6): 657–677.10.1080/02602938.2013.860421
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pascarella, E. T., and P. T. Terenzini. 2005. How College Affects Students: A Third Decade of Research. 2 vols. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Prichard, J. R. 2005. “Writing to Learn: An Evaluation of the Calibrated Peer Review Program in Two Neuroscience Courses.” The Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education 4 (1): A34–A39.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• R Core Team. 2014. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, R. 2001. “Calibrated Peer Review™.” The American Biology Teacher 63 (7): 474–480. doi:10.1662/0002-7685(2001)063[0474:CPR]2.2.CO;2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• RStudio Team. 2015. RStudio: Integrated Development for R. Boston, MA: RStudio. http://www.rstudio.com/.
   Google Scholar
• Sahin, S. 2008. “An Application of Peer Assessment in Higher Education.” The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 7 (2): 5–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schomberg, S. F. 1986. “Involving High Ability Students in Learning Groups.” Paper presented at AERA, San Francisco.
   Google Scholar
• Tomcho, T. J., and R. Foels. 2012. “Meta-Analysis of Group Learning Activities: Empirically Based Teaching Recommendations.” Teaching of Psychology 39 (3): 159–169.10.1177/0098628312450414
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Topping, K. 1998. “Peer Assessment between Students in Colleges and Universities.” Review of Educational Research 68 (3): 249–276.10.3102/00346543068003249
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Topping, K. 2009. “Peer Assessment.” Theory into Practice 48: 20–27.10.1080/00405840802577569
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Topping, K., and S. Ehly, eds. 1998. Peer-Assisted Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Vickerman, P. 2009. “Student Perspectives on Formative Peer-Assessment: An Attempt to Deepen Learning?” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 34 (2): 221–230.10.1080/02602930801955986
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walvoord, M. E., M. H. Hoefnagels, D. D. Gaffin, M. M. Chumchal, and D. A. Long. 2008. “An Analysis of Calibrated Peer Review (CPR) in a Science Lecture Classroom.” Journal of College Science Teaching 37 (4): 66–73.
   Google Scholar
• Xie, Y. 2014. “Knitr: A Comprehensive Tool for Reproducible Research in R.” In Implementing Reproducible Computational Research, edited by Victoria Stodden, Friedrich Leisch, and Roger D. Peng. Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Xie, Y. 2015. Dynamic Documents with R and Knitr. 2nd ed. Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Xie, Y. 2016. Knitr: A General-Purpose Package for Dynamic Report Generation in R. R Package Version 1.12.3. Retreived from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/knitr/knitr.pdf
   Google Scholar