Using the method of normalisation for mapping group marks to individual marks
Some observations
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19378370 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Mehdi Chowdhury (0000-0002-2850-7765, Bournemouth University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2020 |
| Volume | 45 |
| Issue | 5 |
| Pages | 643-650 |
| Publication date | 2020-07-03 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0260-2938 • E-ISSN: 1469-297X |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/02602938.2019.1686606 |
| OpenAlex | W2983337415 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 9 |
The method of normalisation combined with peer ratings is utilised to provide the solution to the biased rating problem of mapping group work marks to individual marks. We critically evaluate the method of normalisation following the findings of an article which argued against the use of self and/or peer rating mechanism. We demonstrate that the findings of that article also hold for the method of normalisation as the influence of human behavioural factors are not accommodated in the designs. Additionally, we argue that the method (and its variants) is rather complicated, where all possible contingencies are not pre-specified. It makes the arrangement between tutors and students in conducting peer assessments incomplete and unverifiable by a third party
Higher education · Mathematics education · Peer Assessment · Peer evaluation · Political science · Computer Science · Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies · Law · Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems · Psychology · Social Psychology
Chapter 8 The Economics of Fairness, Reciprocity and Altruism – Experimental Evidence and New Theories
Incomplete Contracts
A robust approach for mapping group marks to individual marks using peer assessment
Moderation of peer assessment in group projects
Some Refinements on Peer Assessment of Group Projects
Reciprocity as a Source of Bias in Multiple Peer Assessment of Group Work
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1 |
| Citation span | 2025 - 2025 (1) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |