Students' Perceptions of Peer Grading

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.16221v1
• Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2026 02:46:09 GMT
• Title: Students' Perceptions of Peer Grading
• Abstract summary: We conducted a mixed-source thematic analysis of literature and student discussions on Reddit.<n>The study synthesized evidence from 107 papers, 114 Reddit posts, and 300 comments.<n>Students view peer grading as both beneficial and problematic.
• Score: 0.8941624592392746
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Peer grading is widely used in education, yet it elicits mixed reactions from educators and students. Although many studies have examined students' views of peer grading, their findings are scattered, and no clear overall picture has emerged. To address this gap, we conducted a mixed-source thematic analysis of literature and student discussions on Reddit. To scale the Reddit data analysis, we fine-tuned a Gemini 2.5 text-classification model and used it as an initial relevance filter for our initially retrieved dataset of 659 posts and 6,607 comments, after which the items predicted as relevant were manually reviewed. The study synthesized evidence from 107 papers, 114 Reddit posts, and 300 comments. The findings show that students view peer grading as both beneficial and problematic. Positive perceptions included learning and understanding benefits, skill development, engagement, and collaboration, while negative perceptions centered on unreliable grading, unfairness, weak feedback quality, emotional stress, and workload. Reddit discussions also suggested an emerging concern that remains underexplored in the literature: AI use in peer grading may weaken students' trust in the accuracy and authenticity of the process. We further identified eight mitigation strategies and mapped them to the negative perceptions they help address. Among these, instructor oversight and training played the most central role.

Related papers

• Data Annotations as Pedagogical Hints: From Subjective Labels to Critical Thinking [15.463313028798767]
  Machine learning courses often use pre-labeled datasets, hiding the subjectivity of human annotation.<n>This creates students with an overly trusting view of AI data and models, undervaluing interpretive diversity.<n>We investigated whether manual data annotation tasks teach students about subjective labeling.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-22T13:51:56Z)
• ScholarPeer: A Context-Aware Multi-Agent Framework for Automated Peer Review [48.60540055009675]
  ScholarPeer is a search-enabled multi-agent framework designed to emulate the cognitive processes of a senior researcher.<n>We evaluate ScholarPeer on DeepReview-13K and the results demonstrate that ScholarPeer achieves significant win-rates against state-of-the-art approaches in side-by-side evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T06:54:55Z)
• Exposía: Academic Writing Assessment of Exposés and Peer Feedback [56.428320613219306]
  We present Exposa, the first public dataset that connects writing and feedback assessment in higher education.<n>We use Exposa to benchmark state-of-the-art open-source large language models (LLMs) for two tasks: automated scoring of (1) the proposals and (2) the student reviews.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-10T11:33:26Z)
• Disentangling Learning from Judgment: Representation Learning for Open Response Analytics [0.0]
  Open-ended responses are central to learning, yet automated scoring often conflates what students wrote with how teachers grade.<n>We present an analytics-first framework that separates content signals from rater tendencies, making judgments visible and auditable via analytics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-30T02:06:28Z)
• In-depth Research Impact Summarization through Fine-Grained Temporal Citation Analysis [52.42612945266194]
  We propose a new task: generating nuanced, expressive, and time-aware impact summaries.<n>We show that these summaries capture both praise (confirmation citations) and critique (correction citations) through the evolution of fine-grained citation intents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T19:11:06Z)
• A Literature Review of Literature Reviews in Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence [51.26815896167173]
  We present a comprehensive tertiary analysis of PAMI reviews along three complementary dimensions.<n>Our analyses reveal distinctive organizational patterns as well as persistent gaps in current review practices.<n>Finally, our evaluation of state-of-the-art AI-generated reviews indicates encouraging advances in coherence and organization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-20T11:28:50Z)
• Faithful Knowledge Distillation [75.59907631395849]
  We focus on two crucial questions with regard to a teacher-student pair: (i) do the teacher and student disagree at points close to correctly classified dataset examples, and (ii) is the distilled student as confident as the teacher around dataset examples? These are critical questions when considering the deployment of a smaller student network trained from a robust teacher within a safety-critical setting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-07T13:41:55Z)
• A literature survey on student feedback assessment tools and their usage in sentiment analysis [0.0]
  We evaluate the effectiveness of various in-class feedback assessment methods such as Kahoot!, Mentimeter, Padlet, and polling. We propose a sentiment analysis model for extracting the explicit suggestions from the students' qualitative feedback comments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-09T06:56:30Z)
• Students' Engagement in Anonymous Peer Review: Using the Open-Source Sakai Platform [0.0]
  The research used self-determination theory as a theoretical basis. The achievement of perceived autonomy is supported as an anonymous peer review helped students to empower themselves. Perceived competence was also achieved as the anonymous peer review improved the quality of work submitted and the development of workplace skills.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-23T05:56:26Z)
• Polarity in the Classroom: A Case Study Leveraging Peer Sentiment Toward Scalable Assessment [4.588028371034406]
  Accurately grading open-ended assignments in large or massive open online courses (MOOCs) is non-trivial. In this work, we detail the process by which we create our domain-dependent lexicon and aspect-informed review form. We end by analyzing validity and discussing conclusions from our corpus of over 6800 peer reviews from nine courses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-02T15:45:11Z)
• Are Top School Students More Critical of Their Professors? Mining Comments on RateMyProfessor.com [83.2634062100579]
  Student reviews and comments on RateMyProfessor.com reflect realistic learning experiences of students. Our study proves that student reviews and comments contain crucial information and can serve as essential references for enrollment in courses and universities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-23T20:01:36Z)
• Weakly-Supervised Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis via Joint Aspect-Sentiment Topic Embedding [71.2260967797055]
  We propose a weakly-supervised approach for aspect-based sentiment analysis. We learn sentiment, aspect> joint topic embeddings in the word embedding space. We then use neural models to generalize the word-level discriminative information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-10-13T21:33:24Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.