3 - University of Hertfordshire

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Peer Assessment: Educationally Effective...28Figure 7: Mean student performance on the laboratory reports submitted by level 4 studentswithin the IBMAP module (before and after completion of peer assessment of alaboratory report within the Human Physiology module).As can be seen in figure 7 above, student performance on the second laboratory report(Semester B) was significantly improved (p
Peer Assessment: Educationally Effective...29study student understanding would have improved as could their ability to analyse andreport scientific data. This argument isn‟t supported by early data however (figure 1), butunfortunately a direct comparison between „pre peer assessment performance‟ and„post peer assessment performance‟ within the IBMAP module cannot be made as thismodule did not exist prior to the periodic review.Other confounding factors must also be considered; the two assignments, althoughwithin the same module and assessing at the same level, were reports on different experimentsand may have had slightly different demands in terms of data analysis andsubject understanding. The pre submission support for both submissions may have differed(e.g. data analysis workshops, scientific writing guidance) and there were differentstaff members running the experiments and marking the reports which may have influencedstudent understanding. It would therefore be premature to conclude that peer assessmentalone resulted in the improved performance on the subsequent laboratoryreport.Enhancement of peer assessment processAlthough it was felt by tutors that the peer assessment activity was beneficial, and thedata suggested benefits, there was little evaluation of the student perception of theprocess. There were also concerns over the administrative burden for staff, caused byhigh numbers of student requesting moderation. During the first two years of peer assessmenta number of students (approximately 20%) complained to the tutor, immediatelyafter the marking session, that their mark was too low and that they wanted thestaff member to remark their work. The higher moderation requirements increased thestaff burden and nullified some of the time gains which the peer assessment activity hadbought (figure 8).Challenges associated with the peer assessment process:High moderation requirement for the teaching teamEven after the moderation, a number of students still questioned their marksfurther increase in workload of the module teamEvident lack of self reflection (developing self reflection was one of the intendedbenefits of the peer assessment)Figure 8: Challenges within the peer assessment processDuring the 2009-2010 academic year, the peer assessment activity was enhancedwithin the HP module and a web-based data gatherer was introduced to make the peerassessment process more effective and efficient. Through the data gatherer, studentsBlended Learning In Practice May 2011
Page 3 and 4: Editorial3A warm welcome to the May
Page 5 and 6: Contributor Profiles5Phil Porterp.r
Page 7 and 8: 7Supporting good practice in underg
Page 9 and 10: Supporting good practice in undergr
Page 13: Supporting good practice in undergr
Page 19 and 20: Assessment for learning in practice
Page 21 and 22: 21Peer Assessment: Educationally Ef
Page 23 and 24: Peer Assessment: Educationally Effe
Page 27: Peer Assessment: Educationally Effe
Page 37 and 38: Applications of EVS37Did you experi
Page 39 and 40: Applications of EVS39Jackie Willis,
Page 41 and 42: Applications of EVS41 Students who
Page 43 and 44: What is Teaching?43ties of the conc
Page 45 and 46: The creation of group wikis ...45Th
Page 47 and 48: The creation of group wikis ...47Us
Page 49 and 50: The creation of group wikis ...49Pl
Page 51 and 52: The creation of group wikis ...51Fi
Page 53 and 54: The creation of group wikis ...53As
Page 55 and 56: The creation of group wikis ...55si
Page 57: Student Voice57 Student VoiceAssess

3 - University of Hertfordshire

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?