Although ther is no linking between the Peermark dates and the 'parent' Turnitin assignment dates, ELE recommend that you set the start date of the Peermark Assignment AFTER the due date of the Turnitin assignment. This avoids the situation where a student can re-submit a paper that has alreadt received a peer review.

Considerations

Instructions. Students tend to prefer tutor marking, and may assume that there is a correct mark for their work which is not open to interpretation (McConlogue, 2012). Most researchers into peer assessment (including Bloxham and West, 2007; McConologue, 2014; Nicol, 2010; Orsmond, 2004; Topping, 2009) stress the need to involve students in discussing - and ideally negotiating - the yardstick against which they will measure themselves and others, rather than relying on textual instructions alone. They recommend discussing the rationale, criteria and expectations for peer and/or self review before, during and after the activity. Discussing or negotiating expectations could clarify how much time students were expected to spend on each review and indicate how much feedback should be given, which will help even out the quality and quantity of peer feedback and avoid perceptions of unfairness (Cartney, 2010).

Dates.The fact that PeerMark is for formative feedback only raises possibilities for students reviewing draft work at an early relatively unpolished stage which remains open to rewriting on the basis of feedback (Colvill, 2010). In which case, set the Feedback Release Date to allow time for students to make changes in advance of their final credit-bearing submission. The time allowance for the PeerMark activity (i.e. between Start Date and Due Date) should reflect the time students are expected to spend, and allow for their other commitments.

Considerations

Award full points if the review is written. Where this all-or-nothing setting is deployed as an incentive to participate, keep in mind the importance of dialogue at all stages.

Allow students to view author and reviewer names. Setting the peer review to be anonymous will prevent friendship, enmity or power processes determining the review and forestall collusion. Clear criteria and an ethos which encourages mutual constructive criticism while discouraging platitudes are other measures to allay the social comfort students may feel about commenting on others' work. It may be necessary work out with students a convention for referencing each others' work in the absence of names, should they want to do so.

Allow submitters to read all papers after the Start Date. As well as allowing students to compare different work, this allows students to select work to review, if this has been enabled in the settings.

Allow students to read ALL papers and ALL reviews after the Feedback Release Date. Again, this communicates to students that they are welcome and encouraged to benchmark both their submissions and their reviews, and opens up the possibility of conversations which outlast the PeerMark activity.

Distribution of papers. Keep in mind boredom, tiredness and time pressures when deciding how many submissions each student should review. Falchikov and Goldfinch (2009) found that larger numbers of reviewers did not bring any validity gains and may reduce reliability due to the 'diffusion of responsibility effect' whereby students are less likely to perceive their own review as mattering. (Falchikov and Goldfinch were comparing peer and tutor marks rather than feedback, though).

Require self-review. Since one of the aims of peer-assessment is to help students use the criteria in their own work, self-review is likely to be a helpful exercise. However, it may pose a distinct idiosyncratic or cultural set of complications related to self-esteem, self-confidence, modesty, and how students habitually estimate their own ability (Saito and Fujita, 2004). For this reason PeerMark requires at least one peer review, whether or not there is a self review.

Considerations.

Does it matter which students review which other students' work? Tutors may want to connect students on the basis of interest. As well as matching students through PeerMark, another way to achieve this is to set up groups in your Moodle area and apply these to the Turnitin assignment. Alternatively, PeerMark has the option of letting students choose the work they review (though this introduces the possibility that some students will receive more feedback than others - usually contentious).