PeerMark – Surprisingly Straightforward

1. PeerMark – Surprisingly Straightforward Fiona Russell SASS

2. Learning context Diploma in Housing Studies • Blended learning • Full-time and Part-time students • Postgraduate but includes non-graduates • Assignment submission online • Variety of assignment types linked to development of professional skills

3. Peer feedback – the rationale Being a student Observation Research literature • Students struggle to understand assessment criteria and tutor feedback(Bloxham & West, 2004) • Peer feedback can enable student to better self-assess (Liu & Carless 2006) • “We learn faster, and much more effectively, when we have a clear sense of how well we are doing and what we might need to do in order to improve” (Carless 2006) • Making judgements and giving feedback is cognitively more productive for learning than receiving feedback (REAP 2007)

4. Trigger Presentation by Dr Neil McPherson, University of West of Scotland Identified: • Benefits of seeing alternative ways of doing things • Not just one “right “ answer • Helps understanding of academic expectations and process Peermark: • Unobtrusive, active engagement from students, improved on final assignments.

5. PeerMark – what is it? “Students don't just learn from instructors they also learn from one another. PeerMark facilitates peer review so that students can evaluate each other's work and learn from their classmates.” turnitinuk • Distributes assignments • Anonymises reviews • Provides standard questions • Easy to view reports • Online • Improves critical thinking skills

6. Pilot Management and Change module 25 students Proforma exercise – simple to review. 21 students completed Some provided quite lengthy comments. Even the brief ones demonstrated insight and understanding. Gradings applied by students were close to the marks given.

7. Feedback from students Feedback from10 students (group + calls) All: • Reluctant about assessing others’ work • Not interested in having marks awarded for doing the exercise • Didn’t want to return and review their own submission. Some: • Initially apprehensive – but not a problem • Didn’t want to be over critical of others

8. Feedback.. Comments: “Good exercise ...good to see other people’s work.” “Makes you look critically and understand gaps in your own work.” “Good to see how other people think and write.” “Enjoyed it.” “Would be good to do this with other assignments.”

9. Reflection Using Peermark is very straightforward. Students : • don’t need to be incentivised and are not keen to award marks. • don’t want to adjust own assignments –take longer term view. • See the benefits of reviewing others’ work and reflect issues in literature.

10. References Carless D Differing Perceptions in the Feedback Process in Studies in Higher Education. 2006, 31 p 219-233. Lui N & Carless D Peer feedback: the learning element of peer assessment in Teaching in Higher Education, 2006 11(3) 279-290. NicolD.J. & MacFarlane-Dick D Formative Assessment and Self-Regulated Learning: A Model and Seven Principles of Good Feedback Practice in Studies in Higher Education, 2006: 31 P 199-218. O’Brien R & Sparshatt L Mind the Gap! Staff Perceptions of Student Perceptions of Assessment Feedback in Higher Education Academy Annual Conference 2007. Available at: http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=Mind+the+gap!+Staff+perceptions+of+student+perceptions+of&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=ulehT92zM8SM4gTkuey2CQ&ved=0CCwQgQMwAA PEER Peer Evaluation in Education Website; University of Strathclyde Available at: http://www.reap.ac.uk/PEER.aspx