Using PeerMark - guidance for staff
Contents
| Table of Contents | ||
|---|---|---|
|
...
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 Award full points if the review is written. This means that students get full marks if they fill in all parts of the peer review form, and no marks if they don't. As an all-or-nothing setting it might be an incentive to participate, but do keep in mind the importance of dialogue at all stages. Allow students to view author and reviewer names. Students are likely to experience some social discomfort about commenting on each others' work. Enabling anonymity helps to avoid the peer review being determined by friendship, enmity or power processes, and disrupts any collusion among students. Clear criteria and an ethos which encourages mutual constructive criticism while discouraging platitudes are other measures to allay the . 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. This allows students to view all the pieces of work as they are submitted. Allow students to read ALL papers and ALL reviews after the Feedback Release Date. This allows students to view all submissions and reviews after the peer review process has ended. Enabling this could encourage allows students to benchmark both their submissions and their reviews, and would could open 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) didn't find that larger numbers of reviewers brought any validity gains. In fact they reported that large numbers might 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 would be helpful. However, because 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), it is a good idea to ask students to carry it out after they have completed their peer review(s). For this reason PeerMark requires at least one peer review, even if there's a self review. |
...