The document discusses a project at Newcastle University to improve feedback and engage students in the marking process using GradeMark. The project aimed to 1) involve students in writing marking criteria, 2) engage students with criteria before submitting assignments, and 3) provide feedback linked directly to criteria using GradeMark. Feedback from students found the electronic feedback easier to understand and more specific. The approach was then expanded across the university and disseminated more widely. Benefits included more detailed feedback for students and markers. Questions remain around further engaging students and managing challenges of staff and student adoption.

1. +
Using GradeMark to
improve feedback and
engage students in the
marking process
Dr Sara Marsham
School of Marine Science & Technology
sara.marsham@ncl.ac.uk
Dr Alison Graham
School of Biology
alison.graham@ncl.ac.uk
School of Marine
Science and
Technology
Staff Meeting
19th December
2016
@sara_marine
@alisonigraham

2. +
The beginning…
 Originated from SAgE Faculty-level and School-level discussions about
2012 NSS quantitative and free-text results in assessment and feedback
 Objectives based directly on student focus group responses held in the
Schools of Biology, Electrical and Electronic Engineering, and Marine
Science and Technology in December 2012
 Staff workshops in each School in early 2013
 Successful ULTSEC Innovation Fund project in
2013 collaborating across three Schools and
QuILT

3. + Aims of Project Initial aims: To engage students in the
entire marking process from the
setting of marking criteria through the
receipt and feed-forward application of
feedback
 To write/design effective marking criteria
that are specific to pieces of work
 To engage students in the process of
using marking criteria in preparation for
an assignment
 To provide feedback on coursework that
links directly to marking criteria
 Use GradeMark to develop libraries of
feedback comments that can function
much like dialogue with students
Implicit questions in our
original proposal:
1. Can we involve students in
writing marking criteria?
2. What do students already
know about marking
criteria?
3. Can typed (even repeated!)
comments work like a
dialogue? Will students
recognise this?

4. +
MST2017 Reflective log (Marine
Science Stage 2)
Aim 1: Write new marking criteria
Understand
students’ prior
knowledge/create
new assignment
Write new
marking criteria
(based on student
knowledge)
Engage
students
with criteria

5. +
MST2017 Feedback Survey
What does good feedback look like? How do you use it? What is or isn’t
useful about feedback you’ve received?
Student comments:
- like to have marking criteria there/would like information on the weighting of criteria (gives them faith in fairness of marking)
- most would appreciate colour coding
- like to have grammar pointed out, but only as an example (not every time the same grammar mistake is made)
- want to have overall comments at the top or bottom/would be useful to have suggestions for improvement in the overall
comments/overall comments can refer back to specific comments from earlier
- specific comments shouldn’t just say “good” or “poor” but should pose questions or explain why it’s good/poor

6. + Aim Two: Engaging students with
marking criteria

7. +
Reflective log - Marking criteria session
1 2 3 4 5 6
34%
59%
7%
0%0%0%
1. 1, 2, 3
2. 1, 3, 2
3. 2, 1, 3
4. 2, 3, 1
5. 3, 1, 2
6. 3, 2, 1
1 2 3 4 5 6
0%
36%
0%
12%
52%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6
17%
25%
8%
4%
8%
38%
1, 3, 2

3, 1, 2

1, 2, 3

Situation/Task Action Result

8. + Aims Three and Four: Use GradeMark to provide
feedback linked to marking criteria
GradeMark is:
• Part of Turnitin software, accessed at Newcastle University through VLE
(Blackboard)
• A platform through which students submit coursework online as Word document
or PDF (or in other file formats)
• A platform through which markers can provide three types of feedback:
o In-text comments: Bubble comments, Text comments, QuickMark
comments
o Rubric
o General comments: Voice comments and Text comments

9. +
GradeMark
 Go to Assessment inbox
 See submissions, similarity score and
marks (once graded) for the whole
class
 Check if student has viewed their
feedback

10. +
Library comment
Text comment
Bubble comment
Final
comment
Using GradeMark: Types of Comments

11. +
Highlighting/colour-coding

12. + Mark against a rubric
Add
assignment-
specific,
module-
specific,
School or
Faculty-
wide
marking
criteria
Mark each
piece of work
according to the
rubric; use
qualitatively or
quantitatively

13. +
Turning criteria into comments
S/T
A
R
1 2 3 4 5 6

14. +
Creating own library
 Each comment linked to one of the criterion with letter
and number
For each component, comment on:
 How student meets criterion
 What student could have done to achieve next grade
boundary
R 4
R 5

15. +
Mark work using criteria and general
comments
 Voice (up to three
minutes)
 Text (up to 5,000
characters)

16. +
Final mark

17. +
Student feedback - marking criteria
session

18. +
Student feedback - marking criteria
session

19. +
What did the students think?
75% found it useful to have the marking criteria in advance
100% thought it was useful to see how they performed against the
marking criteria
53% preferred electronic feedback to feedback on a pro-forma or mark
sheet
69% thought electronic feedback makes it easier to understand comments
about grammar
80% thought electronic marking encourages more positive feedback
50% found the comments to be specific to the piece of work

20. +
What happened next?
 Rolled out in Schools in 2013-2014 and now used extensively in
Marine Science (MST1101, MST1102, MST1103, MST1104, MST2101, MST2102,
MST2103, MST2104) and Biology
 Awarded funding from HEA to host workshop in Newcastle in
2013
 Careers Service adopted for Career Development Module in
2013-2014
 Over 400 students across the University
 Reduction in student complaints as students recognise why they are
getting the mark awarded
 University-wide pilot in 2014-2015
 Sixteen iPads with Turnitin app available to markers interested in
trialling electronic marking
 Twenty-two participants signed up to pilot (12 attended training).
Seven additional participants joined over course of academic year
I
M
P
A
C
T

21. +
What happened next?
 Faculty Innovator of the Year Award in 2014
 Scheme extended across University in 2015-2016 - shifted
focus towards its use on PCs
 Introduced in a number of programmes, and support for
academic units to use this approach is now mainstreamed
 An example of a Faculty Enhancement Project for the
QAA Review
 Recognised by PVC L&T and awarded further funding in
2016 for dissemination
 Manuscript in prep for submission to Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education
I
M
P
A
C
T

22. +
Dissemination
University L&T
Conference,
Newcastle 2013
HEA Workshop,
Newcastle 2013
Blackboard User’s
Conference,
Durham 2015
Enhancing Student Learning
Through Innovative
Scholarship Conference,
Durham 2015
Promoting and Sharing
Excellence in Higher
Education Teaching
Meeting, London 2016
Symposium on
Scholarship of
Teaching and
Learning, Banff 2016
HEA STEM
Conference,
Manchester 2017
Blackboard User’s
Conference,
Durham 2017
HEA STEM
Conference,
Nottingham 2016
Horizons in STEM
Higher Education
Conference,
Leicester 2016
Turnitin UK User
Summit, Newcastle
2016
Society for Experimental
Biology, Teaching &
Communicating Science in
the Digital Age Meeting,
London 2014
Innovation Fund
Dissemination Event,
Newcastle 2013

23. +
Final reflections
Benefits - students’ perspective
• Feedback is easier to read and is automatically saved online
• Students can access feedback in private and on their own time
• More positive feedback
• Increased perceptions of fairness and transparency with rubric
• More detailed
Benefits - markers’ perspective
• No printing/scanning for retention
• Linked to originality check
• More detailed comments with less work
• Library bank of comments helps to avoid repetition
• Easy record of submission and return of feedback

24. +
Final reflections & questions for you
Continued development of marking criteria and integration of criteria into
additional modules
Further thought on what information/activities help students engage with the
assessment process
Managing the challenges of staff and student engagement
Are there ‘good practice’ guidelines for writing marking criteria?
Can students be engaged to write the marking criteria themselves? If so,
what strategies can be used to engage students with criteria?
What is the balance between in-class time and independent engagement?

25. +
Thank you for listening
Any questions?
Our thanks to all
of our students
who took part and
shared their
opinions
Thanks to
Newcastle
University
Innovation Fund
for funding the
original work &
ongoing support
Dr Sara Marsham
School of Marine Science & Technology
sara.marsham@ncl.ac.uk
Dr Alison Graham
School of Biology
alison.graham@ncl.ac.uk
@sara_marine
@alisonigraham
http://www.slideshare.net/SaraMarsham/presentations
School of Marine
Science and
Technology
Staff Meeting
19th December
2016