Versions Compared

Old Version 43

changes.mady.by.user domi.sinclair

Saved on

compared with

New Version 44

changes.mady.by.user domi.sinclair

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Guidance for staff

Note
titleWarning

17th Sep 2015 - at the current time we do not recommend using PeerMark due to an unresolved bug where the PeerMark reviews summary page and the downloadable excel spreadsheet don't reflect actual numbers of reviews received/submitted. ELE are investigating a resolution. Meanwhile, apologies for this.

 

Contents

Table of Contents
minLevel2

What is PeerMark?

PeerMark is one of a number of ways Moodle editors can set up student peer review (and optionally self review) in Turnitin assignments. PeerMark can accommodate a range of different media beyond the essay, and can happen before or alongside the standard tutor assessment . PeerMark entails feedback only from the student reviewers i.e. no grade or numeric mark. However, reviewers can be assigned numeric marks for their review.

The basic stages of a PeerMark activity are:

  1. Staff set up a Turnitin assignment to which students submit their work.
  2. Staff set up an associated PeerMark, including review questions, setting how many pieces of work each students review, by when, how allocated, whether anonymous &c.
  3. Students submit their work to the Turnitin assignment.
  4. Students review others' work - formative feedback only, without a numeric mark.
  5. Students receive the feedback given by their peers, along with a mark for their own review(s).
  6. Depending on the timing, students can then incorporate this as formative feedback into a final, perhaps credit-bearing, submission.
  7. Students can receive a mark from a staff assessor for their review.
Info
Edinburgh University has a number of PeerMark case studies, including the concerns and experiences of staff setting up peer assessment for the first time (nb you may need to allow the media in your web browser security settings). For general peer assessment design principles and case studies, see the University of Strathclyde's PEER Toolkit and contributions from Eva Sorensen (Chemical Engineering) and Richard Milne (Virology) on UCL's Teaching & Learning Portal. For troubleshooting see this guidance from the University of Reading.

What are the benefits of student peer assessment and peer feedback?

A well-conceived peer assessment activity can advance:

...

27 Oct 2016 - There is an issue with PeerMark that if a student starts a review but does not submit it before the due date they will appear as 'submitted' after due date, but this is not reflected in the downloadable spreadsheet of scaled responses, as attempt was never officially submitted.Therefore the number of submission in the spreadsheet will not reflect the number displayed in PeerMark. This can be identified by seeing if the students review submission date was the same as due date. We are following this up with Turnitin, however PeerMark is still usable in the meantime, just be aware of this possible discrepancy if you use the downloadable spreadsheet.

 

Contents

Table of Contents
minLevel2

What is PeerMark?

PeerMark is one of a number of ways Moodle editors can set up student peer review (and optionally self review) in Turnitin assignments. PeerMark can accommodate a range of different media beyond the essay, and can happen before or alongside the standard tutor assessment . PeerMark entails feedback only from the student reviewers i.e. no grade or numeric mark. However, reviewers can be assigned numeric marks for their review.

The basic stages of a PeerMark activity are:

  1. Staff set up a Turnitin assignment to which students submit their work.
  2. Staff set up an associated PeerMark, including review questions, setting how many pieces of work each students review, by when, how allocated, whether anonymous &c.
  3. Students submit their work to the Turnitin assignment.
  4. Students review others' work - formative feedback only, without a numeric mark.
  5. Students receive the feedback given by their peers, along with a mark for their own review(s).
  6. Depending on the timing, students can then incorporate this as formative feedback into a final, perhaps credit-bearing, submission.
  7. Students can receive a mark from a staff assessor for their review.
Info
Edinburgh University has a number of PeerMark case studies, including the concerns and experiences of staff setting up peer assessment for the first time (nb you may need to allow the media in your web browser security settings). For general peer assessment design principles and case studies, see the University of Strathclyde's PEER Toolkit and contributions from Eva Sorensen (Chemical Engineering) and Richard Milne (Virology) on UCL's Teaching & Learning Portal. For troubleshooting see this guidance from the University of Reading.

What are the benefits of student peer assessment and peer feedback?

A well-conceived peer assessment activity can advance:

  • Students' ability to understand and work with assessment criteria.
  • Students' ability in the authentic academic practice of peer review.
  • Insights, through articulating judgements and producing constructive feedback, about how students can go about critiquing and improving their own work.
  • The possibility of feedback that is quicker, more individualised, and more plentiful than tutors are able to provide. 
  • The possibility of feedback on students' draft work, with sufficient time for amendments before its deadline.
  • Avoiding 'learned dependence' (Yorke, 2003) - students' over-reliance on tutor opinions and over-humility about the importance of their own understandings.
  • Triangulation - the original submission, peer reviews and tutor assessment (not to mention self assessment where used) can be compared, giving students new perspectives on their submission, the criteria, and the reviews they have written.
  • Relatedly, insights into subjectivity and governance in the assessment process.
  • Also relatedly, a departure from monologic, transmissive feedback as students weigh up the differences in the reviews. This in turn promises a desirable change in the way feedback is received from simple certainties to more sophisticated, evaluative thinking (Schommer, 1990).
  • An occasion for dialogue with tutors and peers about assessment.

...

On the 'Peermark Assignment' tab there is a link for additional settings. Here's some explanation for the less obvious ones.

'Award full points if review is written' 

If ticked this means tutors will not be able to mark the reviews and a student will need to meet set requirements for every part of the review in order to get the available marks, on an all-or-nothing basis. If unticked, tutors can assign and differentiate marks for each student's review.  

'Allow students to view author and reviewer names'

If left unticked, you probably need to remind students not to put any identifying information in the title, filename, or body of their work.

'Paper(s) automatically distributed by Peermark'

This sets the number of randomly allocated papers each student has to review.

'Papers(s) selected by the student'

This sets the number of papers a student can choose to review. Students can review a combination of allocated and selected papers.

'Require self-review'

If checked, a student has to review their own paper. It isn't currently possible to select self review only - the number allocated by PeerMark has to be at least one.

...

References

  • Bloxham, S., & West, A. (2007). Learning to write in higher education: students’ perceptions of an intervention in developing understanding of assessment criteria. Teaching in Higher Education, 12(1), 77–89.
  • Cartney, P. (2010). Exploring the use of peer assessment as a vehicle for closing the gap between feedback given and feedback used. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 551–564. 
  • Covill, A. (2010). Comparing Peer Review and Self-Review as Ways to Improve College Students’ Writing. Journal of Literacy Research, 42(2), 199–226.
  • Falchikov, N., & Goldfinch, J. (2000). Student Peer Assessment in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Peer and Teacher Marks. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 287–322.
  • McConlogue, T. (2012). But is it fair? Developing students’ understanding of grading complex written work through peer assessment. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(1), 113–123.
  • M.cConlogue, T. (2014). Making judgements: investigating the process of composing and receiving peer feedback. Studies in Higher Education, 1–12. 
  • Milne, R., (2013). Peer review of virology essays. Available from: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/case-studies-news/assessment-feedback/peer-review-of-virology-essays
  • Nicol, D., (2007). Peer Evaluation in Assessment Review project. Available from http://www.reap.ac.uk/PEER.aspx
  • Nicol, D., (2010). From monologue to dialogue: improving written feedback processes in mass higher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 501–517.
  • Orsmond, P. (2004). Self- and peer-assessment: guidance on practice in the biosciences. Leeds: Centre for Bioscience, Higher Education Academy.

  • Sadler, D. (2010) Beyond feedback: developing student capability in complex appraisal. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(5), 535-550.

  • Saito, H., & Fujita, T. (2004). Characteristics and user acceptance of peer rating in EFL writing classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 8(1), 31–54..
  • Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(3), 498–504.
  • Sorensen, E. (2013). Experiences of using peer assessment in a 4th year design module. Available from:  http://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/case-studies-news/assessment-feedback/peer-assessment-chemical-engineering
  • Topping, K. J. (2009). Peer Assessment. Theory Into Practice, 48(1), 20–27.
  • Yorke, M. (2003). Formative assessment in higher education: moves towards theory and the enhancement of pedagogic practice. Higher Education, 45, 477–501.
 
 

 

Sorry, the site has started working again after about 10 mins. Thankyou for posting plans to schedule downtime, it is good to be informed :)

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a copy of a message sent to you at "UCLMoodle". Go to

https://moodle.ucl.ac.uk/message/index.php?user=208863&id=516523 to reply.