1 / 14

Enhancing Student Learning through Peer Assessment in Pharmacological Experiments

This document explores the integration of peer marking in simulated pharmacological experiments, highlighting the importance of assessment in the learning process. It discusses the key features of effective assessments, the benefits of peer assessment, and the methodology for conducting peer evaluations of dry-lab write-ups, practical write-ups, and long essays. The advantages include improved student understanding, greater feedback quality, and enhanced self-assessment skills. Challenges and considerations in implementing peer assessment are also addressed, aiming to foster deeper learning and engagement among students.

nirav
Télécharger la présentation

Enhancing Student Learning through Peer Assessment in Pharmacological Experiments

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Peer marking of simulated pharmacological experiments Ian Hughes Professor of Pharmacology Education Co-director LTSN Centre for Bioscience University of Leeds i.e.hughes@leeds.ac.uk http://bio.ltsn.leeds.ac.uk

  2. Assessment Why is assessment important? • Takes a large amount of staff time • Should be integral to the learning process • Is a spur to student work • Helps to indicate progress to students • Provides contact between staff/students • Monitors student progress, identifies problems • Satisfies current grading requirements

  3. Assessment Features of good assessment • Appropriate to the learning objectives and teaching methods (knowledge, skills, attitudes) • Appropriate to the individual student • ALWAYS has a formative element • Open and transparent criteria • Appeals process for those dissatisfied • Efficient and economic • Accurate, timely and reproducible • Develop self-assessment skills

  4. Assessment Peer assessment • accurate • reproducible • efficient and timely • related to learning objectives • monitor student progress • provide staff-student contact • provide high quality feedback • stimulate learning • develop self-assessment abilities ?

  5. Assessment Why peer assess dry-lab write-ups? • provides full explanation • requires better understanding • all get the information • develops critical evaluation • see other’s mistakes and standards • saves staff time and effort • improves learning

  6. Assessment Peer assessment of dry-lab write-ups - How’s it done? • explain purpose • instructions on format; additional questions • hand-in deadline (penalty) • all in LT (350) (penalty) - distribute at random • explicit marking schedule distributed • prepared explanations + OHP; takes 50 minutes • total marks and sign (10% checked) • appeals procedure

  7. Assessment Prac write-ups Peer marked 8 Mark (out of 10) 7 Acad. staff marked 6 5 Practical number 1 2 3 4

  8. Assessment What are the problems? • is it reproducible and accurate? • introduction and initiation • keep silence during marking! • students don’t like it (hard work, its your job, some are unfair) • marking schedules get passed on • cheating? • scheduling; all same prac; time between prac and marking session; standard answer /data

  9. Assessment What else can be peer assessed? • ‘wet’ practicals • oral communication skills • poster presentations • data interpretation exercises • information retrieval and formating • practical skills • long essays ??????

  10. Assessment . Communication skills 80 . . . . Academic staff mark % . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 . . . . . . . . y=-0.1 +1.05x r=0.88 . . . . . 40 40 60 80 Peer mark %

  11. Assessment Communication skills MARKING n=44 ACADEMIC PEER Global mean 63.2+7.8 60.2+6.1 Commonality: Top quartile 11 10 mean+s.e. 77.2+4.8 74.1+5.6 Bottom quartile 11 9 mean+s.e. 48.2+3.5 44.1+3.9

  12. Assessment Peer poster assessment Group A Group B Group C n=4 n=4 n=4 staff peer first poster 56+4 55+4 59+3 staff staff staff second poster 67+4 83+4 78+5 NOTE: peer process took significantly longer; small numbers; groups not isolated; 6 weeks between posters; rest of course ongoing; self selection of groups; new method effect

  13. Assessment Peer assessment of long essays • Medical students • 3000-4000 words • proforma for staff and students (properly referenced, critical approach, evidence based; good presentation) • Staff mark 70.2+2.1% • Student mark 72.6+2.2% • NSD; P>0.7

  14. Peer (self) mark % Academic staff mark %

More Related