发表机构
Indian Institute of Technology Ropar（印度技术学院罗帕尔分校）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本研究通过大型工程实习中的同伴验证模型调查，发现其虽受认可且能提升问题解决能力，但存在诚信问题，并建议加强验证后讨论。
AI 中文摘要
在大规模课堂中评估学习对个别教师而言是一项重大挑战，他们可能没有足够的能力来评估每位学生的理解程度、参与度和评估行为。同伴评估一直是把这一责任分配给学习者的一种方式，让他们能够相互评估并提供反馈，同时减少对教师主导评估的依赖。基于这种方法，我们在一个大型、多机构的实习项目中实施了一种同伴验证模型，在该模型中，表现出足够理解能力的学生被授权通过简短的口头讨论来评估和验证他们的同伴。评估过程始于教师验证一小部分学生，这些学生随后被授权验证他们的同伴，从而使该过程逐渐扩展到整个群体并大规模运作。本研究通过一项对238名同意参与者的项目结束调查，考察了参与者如何体验该模型以及评估诚信在多大程度上得以维持。大多数参与者认为这项活动是有价值的，其中79.8%的人报告他们解决了以前无法解决的问题。然而，29.0%的人承认至少有一次努力减少、验证标准降低或相互验证的情况，而88.7%的人认为至少有一些验证是在没有适当审查的情况下进行的。当被问及如何加强这一过程时，参与者选择验证后讨论解决方案的频率大约是更严格的审计或导师主导验证的两倍。这些发现为在大型学习环境中使用同伴验证作为一种可扩展的评估方法的潜力和诚信挑战提供了描述性证据。
英文摘要
Assessing learning in large classrooms presents a significant challenge for individual instructors, who may have limited capacity to evaluate the understanding, participation, and assessment behaviour of every student. Peer assessments have been a way of distributing this responsibility among learners, allowing them to evaluate and provide feedback to one another while reducing dependence on instructor-led assessments. Building on this approach, we implemented a peer validation model within a large, multi-institutional internship programme in which students who demonstrated sufficient understanding were authorised to assess and validate their peers through short oral discussions. The assessment process began with the instructor validating a small group of students, who were then authorised to validate their peers, allowing the process to gradually expand across the cohort and operate at scale. This study examines how participants experienced the model and the extent to which assessment integrity was maintained, using an end-of-programme survey of 238 consenting respondents. Most participants regarded the activity as worthwhile, with 79.8% reporting that they solved problems they could not previously solve. However, 29.0% acknowledged at least one instance of reduced effort, a lowered validation standard, or reciprocal validation, while 88.7% believed that at least a little validation had occurred without proper examination. When asked how the process could be strengthened, participants selected post-validation discussion of solutions approximately twice as often as closer auditing or mentor-led validation. These findings provide descriptive evidence of both the potential and the integrity challenges of using peer validation as a scalable assessment approach in large learning environments.
Comments12 pages, 3 figures, 5 tables; submitted to ICTIEE and under review
