Peer grading reduces instructor’s workload without jeopardizing student learning in an undergraduate programming class

Fedor Duzhin, Amrita Sridhar Narayanan


In an undergraduate programming class taught at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, students (N=243) were given an opportunity to grade reports submitted by their peers. 10% of all students participated in peer grading and were satisfied with the grade given to them by peers (i.e., this group did not use instructors’ resources). 13% participated in peer grading, updated their reports based on peer feedback, and submitted to a course tutor for final grading. We have shown that even though students who participated in peer grading and updated their reports achieved higher scores, but it happened because they were stronger students to begin with. At the same time, scores of students who participated in peer grading and did not re-submit their reports to an instructor were not lower than average scores. Thus peer grading can be recommended in teaching programming classes as a strategy that reduces instructors’ workload while not jeopardizing students’ learning.


peer grading; cooperative learning; STEM teaching; machine learning in education; quasi-experiment

Full Text:



Baker, K.M. (2016) Peer review as a strategy for improving students’ writing process. Active Learning in Higher Education 17: 179-192. DOI: 10.1177/1469787416654794

Burke Moneypenny, D., Evans, M. & Kraha, A. (2018) Student Perceptions of and Attitudes toward Peer Review. American Journal of Distance Education 32: 236-247. DOI:10.1080/08923647.2018.1509425

Crossman, J.M. & Kite, S.L. (2012) Facilitating improved writing among students through directed peer review. Active Learning in Higher Education 13: 219-229. DOI: 10.1177/1469787412452980

Dillenbourg, P. (1999) Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches. advances in learning and instruction series: ERIC.

Duzhin, F. & Gustafsson, A. (2018) Machine Learning-Based App for Self-Evaluation of Teacher-Specific Instructional Style and Tools. Education Sciences 8: 7. DOI: 10.3390/educsci8010007

Freeman, S., Eddy, S.L., McDonough, M., Smith, M.K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H. & Wenderoth, M.P. (2014) Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111: 8410-8415. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111

Ghahari, S. & Sedaghat, M. (2018) Optimal feedback structure and interactional pattern in formative peer practices: Students' beliefs. System 74: 9-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.system.2018.02.003

González-Betancor, S.M., Bolívar-Cruz, A. & Verano-Tacoronte, D. (2019) Self-assessment accuracy in higher education: The influence of gender and performance of university students. Active Learning in Higher Education 20: 101-114. DOI: 10.1177/1469787417735604

Gopinath, C. (1999) Alternatives to instructor assessment of class participation. Journal of Education for Business 75: 10-14. DOI: 10.1080/08832329909598983

Grov, G., Hamdan, M., Kumar, S., Maarek, M., McGregor, L., Shaikh, T., Wells, J.B. & Zantout, H. (2017) Transition from Passive Learner to Critical Evaluator through Peer-Testing of Programming Artefacts. New Directions in the Teaching of Physical Sciences. DOI: 10.29311/ndtps.v0i12.2398

Koh, E., Hong, H. and Tan, JP-L. (2018) Formatively assessing teamwork in technology-enabled twenty-first century classrooms: exploratory findings of a teamwork awareness programme in Singapore. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 38: 129-144. DOI: 10.1080/02188791.2018.1423952

Lee, CK-E,, Lim, T-K. & Ng, M. (1997) Affective outcomes of cooperative learning in social studies. DOI: 10.1080/02188799708547744

Lefkovitch, L. (1965) The study of population growth in organisms grouped by stages. Biometrics: 1-18. DOI: 10.2307/2528348

Luo, H., Robinson, A. & Park, J-Y. (2014) Peer grading in a MOOC: Reliability, validity, and perceived effects. Online Learning Journal 18.

McWhaw, K. & Schnackenberg, H. (2003) From co-operation to collaboration: Helping students become collaborative learners. Cooperative Learning. Routledge, 79-96.

Mulder, R.A., Pearce, J.M. & Baik, C. (2014) Peer review in higher education: Student perceptions before and after participation. Active Learning in Higher Education 15: 157-171. DOI: 10.1177/1469787414527391

Ryan, G.J., Marshall, L.L., Porter, K., et al. (2007) Peer, professor and self-evaluation of class participation. Active Learning in Higher Education 8: 49-61. DOI: 10.1177/1469787407074049

Sadler, P.M. & Good, E. (2006) The impact of self-and peer-grading on student learning. Educational assessment 11: 1-31. DOI: 10.1207/s15326977ea1101_1

Sharan, S. (2002) Differentiating methods of cooperative learning in research and practice. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 22: 106-116. DOI: 10.1080/0218879020220111

Vladislavleva, E.J., Smits, G.F. & Den Hertog, D. (2008) Order of nonlinearity as a complexity measure for models generated by symbolic regression via pareto genetic programming. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 13: 333-349. DOI: 10.1109/TEVC.2008.926486


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
We use both functional and performance cookies to improve visitor experience. Continue browsing if you are happy to accept cookies. Please see our Privacy Policy for more information.

New Directions in the Teaching of Physical Sciences

eISSN: 2051-3615