Using PeerMark - guidance for staff
Contents
| Table of Contents | ||
|---|---|---|
|
...
| Info |
|---|
| Edinburgh University has made a number of PeerMark case studies available, including the concerns and experiences and thinking of staff setting up peer assessment for the first time . Nb (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. |
...
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. |
| |||||
| ||||||
...
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. |
|
...
| Info |
|---|
Considerations. Does it matter which students review which other students' work? By default Turnitin makes random allocations, but if tutors want students to connect e.g. on the basis of interest, there are alternative ways to do this. Tutors can manually pair individual students through PeerMark. Alternatively they can set up groups in the Moodle area and apply these to the Turnitin assignment (works best with larger cohorts). Or thirdly, PeerMark has the option of letting students choose the work they review (note though that this introduces the possibility that some students will receive feedback from more sources than other students - which may be contentious). |
...