The different impact of a structured peer-assessment task in relation to university undergraduates’ initial writing skills

This article presents an empirical evaluation of the validity and reliability of a peer-assessment activity to improve academic writing competences. Specifically, we explored a large group of psychology undergraduate students with different initial writing skills. Participants (n?=?365) produced two different essays, which were evaluated by their course peers and professors using a specific grading instrument (rubric). The validity of the task was demonstrated by a high inter-grader agreement and a strong degree of consistency between the ratings of the peers and professors. Although all students did not improve their writing skills between their first and second essays, the peer-assessment activity enhanced the writing abilities of low but not high-achieving participants. The pedagogical implications of these results are discussed.     

Prediction-Based Student Evaluations of Teaching as an Alternative to Traditional Opinion-Based Evaluations

Abstract

The validity of traditional opinion-based student evaluations of teaching (SETs) may be compromised by inattentive responses and low response rates due to evaluation fatigue, and/or by personal response bias. To reduce the impact of evaluation fatigue and personal response bias on SETs, this study explores peer prediction-based SETs as an alternative to opinion-based SETs in a multicultural environment. The results suggest that statistically significant fewer respondents are needed to reach stable average outcomes when peer prediction-based SETs are used than when opinion-based SETs are used. This implies that peer prediction-based SETs could reduce evaluation fatigue, as not all students would need to do each evaluation. The results also report that the peer prediction-based method significantly reduces the bias evident in the opinion-based method, in respect of gender and prior academic performance. However, in respect of the cultural variables, race and home language, bias was identified in the peer prediction-based method, where none was evident in the opinion-based method. These observations, interpreted through the psychology literature on the formulation of perceptions of others, imply that although peer prediction-based SETs may in some instances reduce some personal response bias, it may introduce the perceived bias of others.     

Adolescent Perception of Potential High-Performing Classmates: A Cross-National Exploration

This study explores how secondary school students perceive high-performing potential classmates. A total of 1,794 seventh- and 10th-grade students from five countries completed a questionnaire measuring their expectations of hypothetical male and female high-performing classmates in three categories: intellectual ability, positive social qualities, and popularity. Across the five countries represented in this study, analyses of variance indicated that students did not report negative attitudes toward the three potential characteristics of a hypothetical gifted peer. Vietnamese students in particular reported more positive observations about the hypothetical classmate than their Australian, Peruvian, South Korean, and Spanish counterparts. Differing cross-national attitudes toward high-performing peers and the implications therein are discussed.     

科技期刊中学术不端行为的演变及应对措施

自学术不端行为被正式定义至今已有30年,30年来科技期刊中的学术不端行为虽然主要表现仍然是剽窃、抄袭与造假,但也有一些演变。例如:从机械抄袭演变为复杂“炮制”;从个人行为演变为中介机构运作;出现了伪造同行评议的新问题;从对“一稿多投”的关注转向“一稿多发”;作者出现有意识的发表后主动撤稿和录用后撤销基金项目标注行为。作为科研诚信的守门人,科技期刊也应予以精准应对。可采取的措施有:严格遵守“三审”制度,抓住细节辨别“中介稿”;严格甄选审稿专家,健全同行评议制度;加强编辑作者互动,及时签署发稿协议;建立不端稿件处理规范,提高违规成本;积极进行选题策划,加强期刊内部管理。     

开放科学环境中的科技期刊同行评议研究

本研究通过问卷调查、文献和个案研究等方法,调研了现行科技期刊同行评议的类型模式,期刊编辑和科研人员对不同评议模式的认可度,以及对新型平台和工具的接受和参与程度,分析了预印本和Publons对同行评议的影响。文章提出,在开放科学环境下,应将盲审模式与开放同行评议有机结合,探索最优评议模式,以提升同行评议质量、效率和透明度,同时要鼓励中国科学家深度融入国际科技期刊同行评议活动,以进一步为我国科技期刊学术质量和国际影响力的提升发挥作用,为建设世界一流科技期刊的国家战略需求服务。     

科技期刊应注重开展编委及审稿人的培训活动

科技期刊质量与编辑队伍、编委和审稿人队伍的学术水平、专业程度息息相关。既往研究更多地关注于编辑的培养与教育,本文探讨办好科技期刊的另一方面,即编委和审稿人队伍培训的问题。通过编委和审稿人培训可以发掘、储备优秀人才,提高编委和审稿人的学术水平,增强期刊凝聚力,从而使得编委和审稿人与期刊共同成长,打造高质量科技期刊。     

中华医学会杂志社同行评议专家披露经济利益冲突的调查分析

同行评议专家的审稿意见对医学学术期刊文章发表最终决策有重要参考作用,其存在的经济利益冲突很有可能会影响涉及产品论文的学术倾向性,进而影响学术内容的公正性。期刊有义务促进审稿专家在审稿过程中披露利益冲突,增强学术透明性。本文通过对中华医学会系列杂志的1万7 469位同行评议专家进行调查,了解同行评议专家人群中存在经济利益冲突及对其认知度和执行度的现状,并分析不同学科、性别及年龄区间的差异。为推动我国医学期刊适时而有针对性地制定同行评议专家公开利益冲突措施进行积极探索,并提供参考。     

国外TESOL写作同伴互评研究综述

回顾并评述了国外TESOL写作中同伴互评相关论文及其研究成果,重点关注了同伴互评的效果、教师反馈和自我评测的比较以及对同伴互评的培训和具体实施3个方面,指出了国内未来研究的方向。     

Enhanced student learning in accounting utilising web-based technology,peer-review feedback and reflective practices: a learning community approach to assessment

Higher education is becoming a major driver of economic competitiveness in an increasingly knowledge-driven global economy. Maintaining the competitive edge has seen an increase in public accountability of higher education institutions through the mechanism of ranking universities based on the quality of their teaching and learning outcomes. As a result, assessment processes are under scrutiny, creating tensions between standardisation and measurability and the development of creative and reflective learners. These tensions are further highlighted in the context of large undergraduate subjects, learner diversity and time-poor academics and students. Research suggests that high level and complex learning is best developed when assessment, combined with effective feedback practices, involves students as partners in these processes. This article reports on a four-phase, cross-institution and cross-discipline project designed to embed peer-review processes as part of the assessment in two large, under-graduate accounting classes. Using a social constructivist view of learning, which emphasises the role of both teacher and learner in the development of complex cognitive understandings, we undertook an iterative process of peer review. Successive phases built upon students’ feedback and achievements and input from language/learning and curriculum experts to improve the teaching and learning outcomes.     

Assessing the quality of feedback in the peer-review process

The feedback provided to authors by reviewers as part of a double-blind peer-review process was examined for two Australian conferences, one special international edition book and six international special edition journals (originating in the UK). The research sought to identify consistency of decision-making and the effectiveness of feedback for authors, in terms of the amount written and the tone of comments. The recommendation of acceptance or rejection of papers under the peer-review process is generally consistent, with reviewers agreeing with each other more often than they disagree. The feedback provided is mostly constructive and designed to help authors with rewrites and resubmissions. However, the amount of written commentary provided by reviewers is limited and in one-third of cases, the reviewers disagreed with each other, which generates additional work for the trackchairs and editors. The findings suggest that while imperfect, the process requires policy and managerial changes if good-quality reviews are to be encouraged.