Using PeerMark - guidance for staff
Contents
| Table of Contents | ||
|---|---|---|
|
...
In the 'Peermark Assignment' tab of the PeerMark Manager you enter basic information about the activity. Title This will appear for students and should be distinctive and descriptive. Point value (required) This refers to the marks available for the peer review itself - i.e. not for the reviewed work. This reflects research findings that asking students to assign numeric marks to their peers exacerbates a sense of risk, causes anxiety and sometimes resentment, and brings undue complications and pressure to peer review without bringing any particular learning benefits. Instructions to students Brief guidance about what students should do and why. Start date, Due date, Post date
Make sure you click the 'Save & Continue' button to proceed to the next tab. |
| ||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
| Info |
|---|
Considerations corresponding to the settings above Instructions. At first students do tend to prefer tutor marking. They may assume that there is a correct mark for their work which is not open to interpretation (McConlogue, 2012). For this reason, avoid relying on textual instructions alone. Most researchers (including Bloxham and West, 2007; McConologue, 2014; Nicol, 2010; Orsmond, 2004; Topping, 2009) agree about the need to involve students in discussing and ideally negotiating the yardstick against which they will measure others and themselves. It is important to discuss the rationale, criteria and expectations for peer and/or self review before, during and after the activity. Discussing or negotiating expectations clarifies how much time students are expected to spend on each review and how much feedback should be given. This helps to even out the quality and quantity of peer feedback, which in turn helps to avoid perceptions of unfairness (Cartney, 2010) and increase acceptance of peer-assessment. Less time is needed for preparation once students are familiar with the process and ethos. Dates.That PeerMark asks students to give feedback only (i.e. not a numeric mark) raises possibilities for students reviewing draft work. This can happen at an early, relatively unpolished stage which remains open to rewriting on the basis of feedback (Colvill, 2010). In this 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. |
...
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. |
|
...