Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Peer Assessment with Yorkshare Blackboard Learn VLE


Published on

This webinar will look at the ways peer-assessment is facilitated using supported learning technologies, with a focus on the toolset of Blackboard Learn 9.1. The basic workflow for peer-assessment is where students submit a piece of work, then that work is assessed by another student, then the feedback is shared back. Peer-assessment can also operate for group-work and presentations.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Peer Assessment with Yorkshare Blackboard Learn VLE

  1. 1. E-Learning Development Team Matt Cornock ELDT Lunchtime Webinar 1 June 2016 Peer Assessment with Yorkshare Blackboard VLE
  2. 2. E-Learning Development Team Three approaches +1 peer-assessment tool peer feedback using blogs adaptive release for model answers alternative approach with Google docs
  3. 3. E-Learning Development Team Student perceptions It is hard to judge other people’s work. It is always the lecturers who judge whose work is better. It is a very good idea to get students to think about how hard it is to judge people’s work. Sometimes we as students think we understand, but we have to make sure that if someone else reads who has no clue what the concept is, by looking at the question they should be convinced it answers the question. So it is important to write in a good way. It is an improvement for my future writing. It is a good experience for me. Jones and Alcock (2013) “
  4. 4. E-Learning Development Team Learning through peer-assessment critically supportive dialogue… this approach places a greater onus on the student to take responsibility for their own learning and the learning of others. “ McGarr and Clifford (2013)
  5. 5. E-Learning Development Team Learning through peer-assessment Walker (2015) explored the lack of utilisation of peer-feedback by students. problem with feedback / criteria? or down to the recipient?
  6. 6. E-Learning Development Team Forms of learning accuracy of marking creating useful feedback reflective learning process familiarity with marking criteria for summative assessment McGarr and Clifford (2013) developmental and educational experience McGarr and Clifford (2013) justifying comments in feedback to peers; reflecting on position Gikandi and Morrow (2016)
  7. 7. E-Learning Development Team Peer-assessment tool Lecturer creates submission point with assessment task and marking criteria Student submits work online After deadline, returns to review other students’ work against criteria After review window closes, student returns to collect peer feedback This process engages students with the marking criteria. Through evaluating others’ work, they then have a better understanding of how the criteria may apply to their own work. Whilst this workflow requires little ongoing lecturer intervention, to ensure students have learnt something from this process an additional reflective task could be included or discussion in-class.
  8. 8. E-Learning Development Team Peer-assessment tool
  9. 9. E-Learning Development Team Peer-assessment tool
  10. 10. E-Learning Development Team Peer-assessment tool
  11. 11. E-Learning Development Team Peer-assessment tool - Allocation of work does not exclude students who did not submit. - Work cannot be excluded by instructor once submitted. - Deadlines cannot be changed once they have passed. - Does not respect groups. Considerations - Clear instructions are required. - Only use with small module cohorts. - Set number of submissions to review to be 999. - Students will need to click through each student to see if they have submitted. - Students who do not submit could be removed from a dedicated peer- assessment site. Recommendations
  12. 12. E-Learning Development Team Peer feedback using blogs Lecturer creates blog (group) or journal (individual student) space and task Students post regularly to the spaces Students comment on each others posts, including suggestions Subsequent posts respond to insights from other students The spaces could be used for reflective logs, used to post videos, files, images, or work in progress. The requirements of the task, and the form and purpose of peer feedback, must be clearly defined. To enhance learning, require reflection on the peer feedback. This may include criteria in the summative assessment to show how the student has changed their thinking as a result of peer feedback.
  13. 13. E-Learning Development Team Blog tool
  14. 14. E-Learning Development Team Blog tool
  15. 15. E-Learning Development Team Blog tool
  16. 16. E-Learning Development Team Blog tool
  17. 17. E-Learning Development Team Blog tool - Monitoring of blog posting is easy through the Grade Center, however this does not indicate commenting activity. - Allocation of work is not possible, students will need to find posts to review. Considerations - Group blog spaces for large cohorts divided into groups of 10-15 students. - Set clear expectations of engagement and peer-feedback requirements. - Posting to the blog could release a model answer or other self-checking resource. Recommendations
  18. 18. E-Learning Development Team Adaptive release Lecturer posts a model answer and applies adaptive release rules Students submit work to standard submission point or blog space Adaptive release triggered and student access model answer In-class or online activity to support student reflection Adaptive release can apply to any content in Yorkshare. This is a powerful way to release content and quizzes depending on a student’s participation with other learning activities. To enhance learning, require an activity to compare the model answer to their own. This may examples from the model answer map to specific criteria. It is worth explaining the model answer may not be the one right answer.
  19. 19. E-Learning Development Team Adaptive release settings
  20. 20. E-Learning Development Team Adaptive release settings
  21. 21. E-Learning Development Team Adaptive release - Time taken to create released resource, e.g. model answer. - How is the feedback loop closed and students encouraged to feedforward into subsequent assessments. Considerations - Provide an activity framework that guides students through using a model answer. - A subsequent reflective activity to indicate what student has learnt as a result of the self-assessment. Recommendations
  22. 22. E-Learning Development Team Google docs Lecturer creates a Google Doc where students will link to their work Students create work in a Google Doc and provide a link in the main Doc Student sets sharing on their Google Doc to all UoY users with Commenting Student accesses and comments on peer’s work, indicating on main Doc Google docs, sheets and slides can be used for creative submissions and in-line commenting. The use of Google docs may be more authentic skills development, but not as structured for reflective learning. There is more manual work by the students, requiring them to copy links and indicate when they have assessed another submission. There is also no structure for marking criteria. Monitoring comments could be challenging.
  23. 23. E-Learning Development Team Google docs Monitoring Space Google Doc / Sheet
  24. 24. E-Learning Development Team Google docs
  25. 25. E-Learning Development Team Google docs
  26. 26. E-Learning Development Team Google docs
  27. 27. E-Learning Development Team Google docs
  28. 28. E-Learning Development Team Google docs
  29. 29. E-Learning Development Team Google docs - No marking criteria embedded within workflow. - Manual allocation of work, link sharing and indicating when work is assessed. - Manual process of sharing document for access. - May be difficult to manage large cohorts. Considerations - Step-by-step technical guidance required. - Clear marking criteria and expectations of how comments should be added. Recommendations
  30. 30. E-Learning Development Team Recommendations for peer assessment 1. Avoid using very large numbers of peers per assessment group. 2. Conduct peer assessment studies in traditional academic settings and involve students in peer assessment of academic products and processes. 3. Do not expect student assessors to rate many individual dimensions. It is better to use an overall global mark with well understood criteria. 4. Involve your students in discussions about criteria. 5. Peer assessment can be successful in any discipline area and at any level. Falchikov and Goldfinch (2000) “
  31. 31. E-Learning Development Team Recommendations for peer assessment Three further considerations arise from Jones and Alcock (2013) • Technical training is required. • Students need to be motivated and reassured. • Conceptual understanding may need checking.
  32. 32. E-Learning Development Team Summary TOOLS Peer Assessment tool – Small groups, automated Blog-based task – Large cohorts, in groups, reflective, tutor-input Adaptive release – Automated, requires scaffolded activity Google docs – In-line feedback, manual, non-anonymous LEARNING Understanding criteria – Preparation for summative Assessed feedback – Feedback as a skill; show understanding Reflection – Learning from others; applying to practice
  33. 33. E-Learning Development Team Other forms of peer learning Peer explanation and justification Peer-assisted learning models (PAAS/PALS) with facilitators from other cohorts In-class discussion prompted by use of polling tools Asynchronous online discussion board activities with clear link to assessment Creation of learning resources for use in subsequent years Student-led seminars facilitated by students in higher year group Student-led seminars facilitated by students in higher year group Huang et al. (2013) Mazur (1997); Crouch and Mazur (2001) Raes et al. (2015)
  34. 34. E-Learning Development Team References Crouch, C. and Mazur, E. (2001). Peer Instruction: Ten Years of Experience and Results, American Journal of Physics, 69, 970-977. Gikandi, J.W. and Morrow, D. (2016). Designing and implementing peer formative feedback within online learning environments, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 25(2), 153-170. Huang, T.K., Pepper, M.P.J., Cortese, C.L., and Rogan, S. (2013). Faculty and academic staff perceptions, experiences and expectations of the PASS Program: A case study, Journal of Peer Learning, 6(1). Jones, I. and Alcock, L. (2014). Peer assessment without assessment criteria, Studies in Higher Education, 39(10), 1774-1787. Mazur, E. (1997). Peer Instruction: A User's Manual, Series in Educational Innovation. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. McGarr, O. and Clifford, A.M. (2013). ‘Just enough to make you take it seriously’: exploring student attitudes towards peer assessment, Higher Education, 65, 677-693. Raes, A., Vanderhoven, E. and Schellens, T. (2015). Increasing anonymity in peer assessment by using classroom response technology within face-to-face higher education, Studies in Higher Education, 40(1), 178-193. University of Reading (ND). An A-Z of Assessment Methods. Centre for the Development of Teaching and Learning, University of Reading. Walker, M. (2015). The quality of written peer feedback on undergraduates’ draft answers to an assignment, and the use made of the feedback, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 40(2), 232-247.