Compair Pilot在2014/15学年期间在UBC进行。LT Hub收集了教师，教学助理（TAS）和学生的反馈，以评估该工具的感知优势和劣势，并制定实施建议。在2018/19学年，还收集了另一轮学生反馈。
CompAir是一个同行评估和反馈应用程序，其中学生首先回答分配，然后比较并响应对等答案的对。对于每对，学生选择答案他们认为更好地满足教练设定的标准（例如，“，这更好地阐明了？”，“，”，这更准确？“）并向每个对等体写反馈。
Because ComPAIR shows work in pairs, students can tap into their natural skill of comparative judgement (Thurstone, 1927) to identify strengths, weaknesses, and constructive criticism of other work as well as reflect back on their own work.
Compair是developed at UBC as a collaboration在教练，研究人员和技术专家之间，具有丰富的学生和TA的反馈。在2014/15年度代表第一年英语，第三年数学和第三年物理学的三个课程中推出了一款展示的Compair。其中两种课程被混合，并在线完全。所有三位教练参加了面试，六个TA和168名学生回应了单独的调查。学生评估进一步详细说明教学与学习查询article。
2018/199年，407名学生在八个课程中回复了一个代表应用科学，英语，综合科学，物理和在第一年或第三年级的视觉艺术的课程的修订调查。
教练额定易用性高，所有人都给了他们的经验“非常积极”。TAS额定易用性大多高，最多给了经验“有点积极”的评级。
Perceived strengths
接触对等工作:在康普艾,学生看到同伴在重新工作view process and after, when all answers are available for the class to review. Instructors felt students benefited from this exposure and the opportunity it afforded students to informally assess how they compared to peers. TAs also used the pool to select numerous anonymous examples to discuss further in tutorial groups.
评估培训: Instructors could productively reverse roles, asking students to assess work in ComPAIR using customizable criteria that also trained them how to evaluate. The paired context also better simulated how instructors/TAs themselves mark.
高度的灵活性：教师找到了Compair简单地促进了一个复杂的，通常是纸质的过程，以一种能够使跨学科与各种分配类型一起使用的方式。
平整播放领域: The online and anonymous nature of ComPAIR assignments meant instructors and TAs believed more students could contribute equally and comfortably, both in answering and exchanging feedback.
Preparing students for class：TAS指出的学生似乎为课堂准备了更好，因为Compair作业设置了讨论材料的阶段以及参与建设性批评。
Perceived weaknesses
不同的反馈质量: If not marking or monitoring the feedback in ComPAIR to create accountability, instructors and TAs noticed variable quality responses from students.
Questionable ranking accuracy：与传统分级相比，Compair产生的排名并不总是强烈关联，这对于那些希望包源部分或所有学生标记的教练不太可靠。
缺少特色：教师和TAS将喜欢当时缺少的功能，即学生查看（自添加），处理迟到的能力，以及所有学生提交的更容易的界面或可下载的报告概述（自更新以来）。
缺乏整合: During the pilot, ComPAIR worked as a standalone application, so classlists had to be maintained by the development team manually. (ComPAIR is now integrated with Canvas.)
在最初的飞行员的学生经验在课程中多样化，英语和物理学生报告比数学学生（41％）报告更积极的经验（分别为66％和88％）。在更广泛的2018/19调查中，跨课程的学生报告了更持续的积极经验（83％）。本调查的总体结果如下图所示。
Perceived strengths
Strong ease-of-use: In both the initial pilot and later survey, students reported high usability for ComPAIR. The latter data are displayed below.
最初，Compair是......
后来，Compair是......
Anonymity promotes honesty：两轮评估中的学生赞赏在线，匿名性质的应用，降低了与同行交换真正反馈的社会风险。
“You are able to anonymously compare the works of two anonymous people…it allows for a great amount of honesty.”
“我喜欢它如何让我有机会在课堂之外获得匿名反馈的机会，否则有人可能会留下不舒服的人。”
鼓励自我反思: Students also echoed in both sets of feedback the benefits of informally comparing their work with peers and identifying areas for self-improvement.
“很高兴看到别人的[作业]，同时也批评和批评他人的工作。它帮助我明白我能做得更好。“
“通过基于一系列标准进行比较，它允许您客观地思考自己的工作。”
“让你思考自己的工作以及如何改进。”
Increases understanding and skills：特别是在后来的调查中，学生强调了Compair作业如何帮助扩大他们对如何做和评估工作的理解。
“Gives you the ability to view examples of others students’ ideas…to better understand the topic of the assignment.”
“Helps you judge what a good answer is by comparing two so you can find what qualities makes one better.”
“I learned how to skim through people’s assignments quickly and…tell what was a ‘good’ assignment and what was a ‘bad’ one.”
Perceived weaknesses
比较可以造成混乱: Both rounds of feedback highlighted how choosing between answers in some pairs was more challenging than others, particularly when students had less criteria to consider. This made students unsure how to decide and increased the time commitment for completing the comparison phase.
“我们应该专注于什么？”
“[Need] more guidance on how to choose which one is better”
一些无益的同行反馈: As with any peer review process, sometimes peers did not put sufficient effort into writing thoughtful, detailed feedback. At other times, different peers wrote contradictory feedback statements for a single student answer, particularly in courses with more subjective assignments.
“The way some people gave feedback was not helpful at all or really difficult to understand.”
“People gave very opposing opinions; sometimes I didn’t know which direction I should move in.”
严格的截止日期引起压力：由于Compair不允许延迟提交的任何阶段，学生对获得答案，比较和按时完成的自我评估感到额外的压力。
“理想情况下，提交的时间将是时间戳的，并且标记只会扣除延迟提交，但仍然可以在原因上提交任务。”
比较界面繁琐威慑: Especially in the recent survey, students noted the inefficient nature of the comparison screen, particularly for reviewing file uploads.
“Made me scroll between the question box and the submission back and forth, making it very time consuming to write out a good comparison.”
以下是如何最佳地实施Compair的建议，以最大限度地发现感知益处，并最大限度地减少作为教学工具的感知缺点。
- 构建往返或来自Compair作业：当作为更大进程的一部分呈现时，作业对学生感到更有益。学生在更大的课程目标中使用术语可能更好（例如，准备撰写术语文件，评估项目草案），而不是独立的任务。
- 明确解释目标：更好地了解他们在申请中练习的基础技能的学生认为他们从作业中学到了更多。学生了解使用钳夹的最终目标的关键 - 如何比较将具体帮助他们的学习 - 不仅是如何运作的。
- Provide a low-stakes training round：在比较答案对时，学生们在比较答案对时更加自信，特别是在康复的标记任务之前发生了审查。
- 使用详细的多个标准/ rubrics：学生提供更多指导，表示他们从比较中学到了更多。精确解释在比较期间寻找什么 - 在应用程序和/或详细的外部rubrics中具有多种描述性标准 - 可能导致更强大的学习和可能更丰富的反馈。
- Require 2+ comparisons per assignment：尽管报告的信任低，给予同行反馈，但许多学生表示他们只是通过练习与答案对来学习。每个任务的至少两个比较都建议给学生重复做法，虽然大多数教师使用并找到成功，但默认为三个或更多。
- 使用Compair的排名仅在验证中进行标记：到目前为止，我们的内部研究表明，汇编可能无法可靠地映射到传统评级，因为它最终依赖于新手（学生）的技能和培训，为他们的同行答案提供准确，知情的排名。许多教师发现它有效地标记学生的参与的某些组合以及他们提交的工作质量。
- 标记对等反馈: Attaching weight to how earnestly students respond to one another’s work has helped instructors increase the quality of peer feedback given.
有关帮助在UBC的Compair设置，请联系LT HUB.或者你教学支持单位。
有关此飞行员及其结果的更多信息，请联系Tiffany Potter那James Charbonneau， 要么Letitia Englund。
To learn more about the pilot process at UBC, visit the page on飞行员如何工作。