Can peers rate reliably as experts in small CSCL groups?

Ioannis Magnisalis*, Stavros Demetriadis, Pantelis M. Papadopoulos

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contributionAcademicpeer-review

4 Downloads (Pure)


Research on the impact of peer rating (PR) has provided encouraging results, as a method to foster collaborative learning and improve its outcomes. The scope of this paper is to discuss peer rating towards two specific directions that usually are neglected in the CSCL field, namely: (a) coaching of objective anonymous peer rating through a rubric, and (b) provision of peer rating summary information during collaboration. The case study utilized an asynchronous CSCL tool with the two aforementioned capabilities. Initial results showed that peer rating, when anonymous, and guided, can be as reliable as off-line expert/teacher rating, with indications that this process can foster collaboration.

Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationIntelligent Tutoring Systems - 13th International Conference, ITS 2016, Proceedings
EditorsJohn Stamper, Alessandro Micarelli, Kitty Panourgia
Number of pages6
ISBN (Print)9783319395821
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2016
Externally publishedYes
Event13th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, ITS 2016: Adaptive Learning in Real World Contexts - Zagreb, Croatia
Duration: 7 Jun 201610 Jun 2016
Conference number: 13

Publication series

NameLecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)
ISSN (Print)0302-9743
ISSN (Electronic)1611-3349


Conference13th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems, ITS 2016
Abbreviated titleITS 2016
Internet address


  • Asynchronous forum discussion
  • Computer-supported collaborative learning
  • Expert rating
  • Peer rating


Dive into the research topics of 'Can peers rate reliably as experts in small CSCL groups?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this