Publication Date
| In 2025 | 0 |
| Since 2024 | 0 |
| Since 2021 (last 5 years) | 0 |
| Since 2016 (last 10 years) | 2 |
| Since 2006 (last 20 years) | 2 |
Descriptor
| Accuracy | 2 |
| College Students | 2 |
| Feedback (Response) | 2 |
| Judges | 2 |
| Peer Evaluation | 2 |
| Pharmaceutical Education | 2 |
| Student Evaluation | 2 |
| Summative Evaluation | 2 |
| Alternative Assessment | 1 |
| Case Studies | 1 |
| Evaluation Criteria | 1 |
| More ▼ | |
Source
| Practitioner Research in… | 2 |
Author
| Barber, Jill | 2 |
| Demonacos, Constantinos | 1 |
| Ellis, Steven | 1 |
Publication Type
| Journal Articles | 2 |
| Reports - Research | 2 |
Education Level
| Higher Education | 2 |
| Postsecondary Education | 1 |
Audience
Location
| United Kingdom (Manchester) | 1 |
Laws, Policies, & Programs
Assessments and Surveys
What Works Clearinghouse Rating
Peer reviewed
Download full textDemonacos, Constantinos; Ellis, Steven; Barber, Jill – Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 2019
In this study we explored the potential of adaptive comparative judgement (ACJ) as a medium for peer assessment and for the giving and receiving of peer feedback. ACJ is a marking protocol in which the assessor (or judge) merely compares two answers and chooses a winner. Repeated judgements and a suitable sorting algorithm allow marks to be…
Descriptors: Student Evaluation, Peer Evaluation, Grading, Accuracy
Barber, Jill – Practitioner Research in Higher Education, 2018
Adaptive Comparative Judgement (ACJ) is an alternative to conventional marking in which the assessor (judge) merely compares two answers and chooses a winner. (Scripts are typically uploaded to the CompareAssess interface as pdf files and are presented side-by-side.) Repeated comparisons and application of the sorting algorithm leads to scripts…
Descriptors: Student Evaluation, Alternative Assessment, Scoring, Test Bias
