Abstract
Abstract One approach for grading papers in large business classes is to require students to evaluate each other's work. Both students and instructors can gain much in such peer review processes, but can students be trusted to grade each other's papers? This article describes an experiment in which term projects, a preprinted evaluation form, and generalizability theory were used to judge the reliability of student grading. The results suggest that students can be both consistent and fair in their assessments. These findings, along with mostly favorable student reactions and the fact that employee valuation is an important management skill, create a strong case for peer review when evaluating student papers.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
