Peer Assessment with Yorkshare Blackboard Learn VLE

E-Learning Development Teamelearningyork.wordpress.com

Matt Cornock

ELDT Lunchtime Webinar1 June 2016

Peer Assessment with Yorkshare Blackboard VLE


Three approaches +1

peer-assessment tool

peer feedback using blogs

adaptive release for model answers

alternative approach with Google docs


Student perceptions

It is hard to judge other people’s work. It is always the lecturers who judge whose work is better. It is a very good idea to get students to think about how hard it is to judge people’s work.

Sometimes we as students think we understand, but we have to make sure that if someone else reads who has no clue what the concept is, by looking at the question they should be convinced it answers the question. So it is important to write in a good way. It is an improvement for my future writing.

It is a good experience for me.

Jones and Alcock (2013)

“


Learning through peer-assessment

critically supportive dialogue… this approach places a greater onus on the student to take responsibility for their own learning and the learning of others.

“McGarr and Clifford (2013)


Learning through peer-assessment

Walker (2015) explored the lack of utilisation of peer-feedback by students.

problem with feedback / criteria?or down to the recipient?


Forms of learning

accuracy of marking

creating useful feedback

reflective learning process

familiarity with marking criteria for summative assessmentMcGarr and Clifford (2013)

developmental and educational experienceMcGarr and Clifford (2013)

justifying comments in feedback to peers; reflecting on positionGikandi and Morrow (2016)


Peer-assessment tool

Lecturer creates submission point with assessment task and marking criteria

Student submits work online

After deadline, returns to review other students’ work against criteria

After review window closes, student returns to collect peer feedback

This process engages students with the marking criteria. Through evaluating others’ work, they then have a better understanding of how the criteria may apply to their own work.

Whilst this workflow requires little ongoing lecturer intervention, to ensure students have learnt something from this process an additional reflective task could be included or discussion in-class.



- Allocation of work does not exclude students who did not submit.

- Work cannot be excluded by instructor once submitted.

- Deadlines cannot be changed once they have passed.

- Does not respect groups.

Considerations- Clear instructions are required.

- Only use with small module cohorts.

- Set number of submissions to review to be 999.

- Students will need to click through each student to see if they have submitted.

- Students who do not submit could be removed from a dedicated peer-assessment site.

Recommendations


Peer feedback using blogs

Lecturer creates blog (group) or journal (individual student) space and task

Students post regularly to the spaces

Students comment on each others posts, including suggestions

Subsequent posts respond to insights from other students

The spaces could be used for reflective logs, used to post videos, files, images, or work in progress. The requirements of the task, and the form and purpose of peer feedback, must be clearly defined.

To enhance learning, require reflection on the peer feedback. This may include criteria in the summative assessment to show how the student has changed their thinking as a result of peer feedback.


Blog tool


Blog tool

- Monitoring of blog posting is easy through the Grade Center, however this does not indicate commenting activity.

- Allocation of work is not possible, students will need to find posts to review.

Considerations- Group blog spaces for large cohorts

divided into groups of 10-15 students.

- Set clear expectations of engagement and peer-feedback requirements.

- Posting to the blog could release a model answer or other self-checking resource.

Recommendations


Adaptive release

Lecturer posts a model answer and applies adaptive release rules

Students submit work to standard submission point or blog space

Adaptive release triggered and student access model answer

In-class or online activity to support student reflection

Adaptive release can apply to any content in Yorkshare. This is a powerful way to release content and quizzes depending on a student’s participation with other learning activities.

To enhance learning, require an activity to compare the model answer to their own. This may examples from the model answer map to specific criteria. It is worth explaining the model answer may not be the one right answer.


Adaptive release settings


Adaptive release

- Time taken to create released resource, e.g. model answer.

- How is the feedback loop closed and students encouraged to feedforward into subsequent assessments.

Considerations- Provide an activity framework that

guides students through using a model answer.

- A subsequent reflective activity to indicate what student has learnt as a result of the self-assessment.

Recommendations


Google docs

Lecturer creates a Google Doc where students will link to their work

Students create work in a Google Doc and provide a link in the main Doc

Student sets sharing on their Google Doc to all UoY users with Commenting

Student accesses and comments on peer’s work, indicating on main Doc

Google docs, sheets and slides can be used for creative submissions and in-line commenting. The use of Google docs may be more authentic skills development, but not as structured for reflective learning.

There is more manual work by the students, requiring them to copy links and indicate when they have assessed another submission. There is also no structure for marking criteria. Monitoring comments could be challenging.


Google docs

Monitoring SpaceGoogle Doc / Sheet


Google docs


Google docs

- No marking criteria embedded within workflow.

- Manual allocation of work, link sharing and indicating when work is assessed.

- Manual process of sharing document for access.

- May be difficult to manage large cohorts.

Considerations- Step-by-step technical guidance

required.

- Clear marking criteria and expectations of how comments should be added.

Recommendations


Recommendations for peer assessment

1. Avoid using very large numbers of peers per assessment group.

2. Conduct peer assessment studies in traditional academic settings and involve students in peer assessment of academic products and processes.

3. Do not expect student assessors to rate many individual dimensions. It is better to use an overall global mark with well understood criteria.

4. Involve your students in discussions about criteria.

5. Peer assessment can be successful in any discipline area and at any level.

Falchikov and Goldfinch (2000)

“


Recommendations for peer assessment

Three further considerations arise from Jones and Alcock (2013)

• Technical training is required.

• Students need to be motivated and reassured.

• Conceptual understanding may need checking.


Summary

TOOLSPeer Assessment tool – Small groups, automatedBlog-based task – Large cohorts, in groups, reflective, tutor-inputAdaptive release – Automated, requires scaffolded activityGoogle docs – In-line feedback, manual, non-anonymous

LEARNINGUnderstanding criteria – Preparation for summativeAssessed feedback – Feedback as a skill; show understandingReflection – Learning from others; applying to practice


Other forms of peer learning

Peer explanation and justification

Peer-assisted learning models (PAAS/PALS) with facilitators

from other cohorts

In-class discussion prompted by use of polling tools

Asynchronous online discussion board activities with clear link to assessment

Creation of learning resources for use in subsequent years

Student-led seminars facilitated by students in higher year group

Student-led seminars facilitated by students in higher year group

Huang et al. (2013)

Mazur (1997); Crouch and Mazur (2001) Raes et al. (2015)


References

Crouch, C. and Mazur, E. (2001). Peer Instruction: Ten Years of Experience and Results, American Journal of Physics, 69, 970-977.

Gikandi, J.W. and Morrow, D. (2016). Designing and implementing peer formative feedback within online learning environments, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(2), 153-170.

Huang, T.K., Pepper, M.P.J., Cortese, C.L., and Rogan, S. (2013). Faculty and academic staff perceptions, experiences and expectations of the PASS Program: A case study, Journal of Peer Learning, 6(1). http://ro.uow.edu.au/ajpl/vol6/iss1/10

Jones, I. and Alcock, L. (2014). Peer assessment without assessment criteria, Studies in Higher Education, 39(10), 1774-1787.

Mazur, E. (1997). Peer Instruction: A User's Manual, Series in Educational Innovation. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

McGarr, O. and Clifford, A.M. (2013). ‘Just enough to make you take it seriously’: exploring student attitudes towards peer assessment, Higher Education, 65, 677-693.

Raes, A., Vanderhoven, E. and Schellens, T. (2015). Increasing anonymity in peer assessment by using classroom response technology within face-to-face higher education, Studies in Higher Education, 40(1), 178-193.

University of Reading (ND). An A-Z of Assessment Methods. Centre for the Development of Teaching and Learning, University of Reading. https://www.reading.ac.uk/web/FILES/eia/A-Z_of_Assessment_Methods_FINAL_table.pdf

Walker, M. (2015). The quality of written peer feedback on undergraduates’ draft answers to an assignment, and the use made of the feedback, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(2), 232-247.

http://ro.uow.edu.au/ajpl/vol6/iss1/10

http://ro.uow.edu.au/ajpl/vol6/iss1/10

https://www.reading.ac.uk/web/FILES/eia/A-Z_of_Assessment_Methods_FINAL_table.pdf

https://www.reading.ac.uk/web/FILES/eia/A-Z_of_Assessment_Methods_FINAL_table.pdf

Peer Assessment with Yorkshare Blackboard Learn VLE

Education

Transcript of Peer Assessment with Yorkshare Blackboard Learn VLE