Using PeerMark - guidance for staff
Contents
| Table of Contents | ||
|---|---|---|
|
What is PeerMark?
PeerMark is a way for one of a number of ways Moodle editors to can set up a student peer review for student submissions to Turnitin assignments which can exist in Turnitin assignments. PeerMark can accommodate a range of different media beyond the essay, and can happen before or alongside the standard tutor assessment [N.b. PeerMark is check how they interact]. PeerMark entails feedback only from the student reviewers i.e. no grade or numeric mark but reviewers receive a mark . However, reviewers can be assigned numeric marks for their review.
The basic stages of a PeerMark activity are:
...
| Info |
|---|
| Edinburgh University has made a number of PeerMark case studies available, including the experiences and thinking 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 the contributions Eva Sorensen (Chemical Engineering) and Richard Milne (Virology) on UCL's Teaching & Learning Portal. |
What
...
are the benefits of student peer assessment?
Peer assessment is well suited to topics with
A well-conceived peer assessment activity can advance:
- Students' ability to understand and work with assessment criteria.
- Students' participation in the authentic academic practice of peer review.
- The possibility of feedback that is quicker, more individualised, and more plentiful than tutors are able to provide.
- Triangulation - peer review and tutor assessment (not to mention self assessment) triangulate each other, giving students perspective on their work and (if they are permitted to see how other students reviewed the same work they reviewed) on the criteria.
- 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)
- Provision of feedback on students' draft work - given sufficient time for amendments before the deadline. (Worried students might take each others' ideas? See below.)
...
On the 'Peermark Assignment' tab there is a link for additional settings. Here's some explanation of 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. |
|
|
|
...
Sometimes, when switching between tabs, you will see an 'Error, you are not authorised to access this resource' message. Click away from the window and reopen it vis the Peermark manage icon. |
|
|
|
References
- 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. doi:10.3102/00346543070003287
- 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. doi:10.1080/02602938.2010.515010
- Nicol, D., (2007). Peer Evaluation in Assessment Review project. Available from http://www.reap.ac.uk/PEER.aspx
- 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. doi:10.1080/00405840802577569