Using cross-course peer grading with content expertise, anonymity, and perceived justice

Abstract

Online instruction has helped colleges and universities to adjust to budget constraints, limited resources, and student preferences. One way for instructors to adapt to these new expectations is to gain efficiency in larger classes by using team-based assignments and peer grading. Although online peer grading has been used for some time, concerns with this approach include interpersonal pressures, competency, and fairness. These challenges may be overcome with cross-course peer grading. The purpose of the study was to assess the perceived effectiveness and perceived justice of having senior student teams in a capstone course anonymously grade written assignments submitted by novice student teams in an introductory course in the same discipline. The study took place using two sections of an online introductory course ( n = 159) and two sections of an online capstone course ( n = 75) at the same university using a case analysis assignment. No significant differences were found in instructor and peer-assigned grades. The results of this study show that senior students benefited by increasing their assessment confidence. Students who had their submissions graded experienced distributive and procedural justice. Therefore, instructors can more confidently utilize cross-course peer grading knowing there are educational benefits for both those doing the grading and those whose work is graded.