Using GradeMark to improve feedback and engage students in the marking process
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like209 views
This document discusses a project aimed at engaging students in the marking process, from developing marking criteria to using feedback effectively. It highlights the use of Grademark software for providing structured feedback and the benefits perceived by both students and markers. Additionally, it raises questions about student involvement in writing criteria and explores strategies for enhancing student engagement with assessment processes.
Using GradeMark to improve feedback and engage students in the marking process
- 1. + Using GradeMark to improve feedback and engage students in the marking process Dr Sara Marsham School of Marine Science & Technology [email protected] Dr Alison Graham School of Biology [email protected] Symposium on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 10th - 12th November 2016 @sara_marine @alisonigraham
- 2. +
- 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. + Bioremediation (Biology Level 6)/Reflective log (Marine Science Level 5)/Microbiology (Biology Level 4) 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. + Microbiology - Lab report focus group If students do not know what a ‘scientific paper’ is, and have never read a peer- reviewed article, then how can the marking criteria be used to make expectations clear?
- 6. + Aim Two: Engaging students with marking criteria
- 7. + Aim Two: Engaging students with marking criteria Objective #1 - to help students understand the wording in the marking criteria Objective #2 - to encourage students to start differentiating between the descriptions of different grade boundaries and spotting what will help them to achieve high marks Objective #3 - to engage students in the practice of peer marking (marking existing student work against the set of criteria)
- 8. + Microbiology - Lab report tutorial session If students do not know what a ‘scientific paper’ is, and have never read a peer-reviewed article, then how can the marking criteria be used to make expectations clear? I have read a research paper published in a peer-reviewed journal. 1. Yes 2. I’ve read some but found them difficult to understand 3. No 4. I’m not sure what you mean by a peer- reviewed journal Write your report “in the format of a scientific paper” – do you know what this means? 1. Yes 2. No 3. To some extent
- 9. + Microbiology - Marking criteria session 1. 0-39% 2. 40-49% 3. 50-59% 4. 60-69% 5. 70-100% Into what grade boundary would results example 1 fall? Which title scored the highest? 1. Example 1 2. Example 2 3. Example 3
- 10. + Bioremediation - Marking criteria session
- 11. + 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
- 12. + Reflective log - Marking criteria session
- 13. + 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
- 14. + GradeMark Go to Assessment inbox See submissions, similarity score and marks (once graded) for the whole class Check if student has viewed their feedback
- 15. + Library comment Text comment Bubble comment Final comment Using GradeMark: Types of Comments
- 16. + QuickMarks
- 17. + QuickMarks
- 19. + 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
- 20. + Turning criteria into comments S/T A R 1 2 3 4 5 6
- 21. + 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
- 22. + Mark work using criteria
- 23. + Final general comments Voice (up to three minutes) Text (up to 5,000 characters)
- 24. + Final mark
- 25. + Student feedback - Reflective log
- 26. + 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 53-100% preferred electronic feedback to feedback on a pro-forma or mark sheet 80-100% thought electronic marking encourages more positive feedback 50-100% found the comments to be specific to the piece of work 79-100% would like to have received more electronic feedback in other modules
- 27. + Student questionnaire - Bioremediation
- 28. + GradeMark analysis Number of students that receive different types of grammatical comments - identify common errors e.g. punctuation Number of students that fall into each mark range for each criterion
- 29. + GradeMark analysis Grade range % viewed feedback 3.5 weeks later 6.5 months later 70-100% 84 84 60-69% 46 64 50-59% 49 51 40-49% 48 52 0-39% 14 14 • Percentage of students that viewed feedback from microbiology report (2013-14 academic year; n = 184): • After 3.5 weeks • After 6.5 months
- 30. + 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
- 31. + 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?
- 32. + 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 [email protected] Dr Alison Graham School of Biology [email protected] Symposium on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 10th - 12th November 2016 @sara_marine @alisonigraham http://www.slideshare.net/SaraMarsham/presentations
Editor's Notes
- #4: Intro to Innovation fund, etc.
- #5: Introductory slide – talking about the process of writing the criteria and what went into that. Maybe worth mentioning why we didn’t involve students in the writing process (because they just weren’t familiar enough?)
- #6: Talk about focus group
- #8: Engagement with students in sessions
- #9: The info here is from the Type 2 (134 students) session.
- #10: 50-59 and example 1.
- #11: Engagement sessions with students Rationale example #1 = 72 (so the students were much harsher critics initially) Rationale example #2 = 52 (students started to get adjusted) Similar pattern in the same module the following year. Also find methodology easier to mark accurately compared to rationale.
- #12: Engagement sessions with students - Structured differently – had three examples of reflective essays (a 1st, a 2:1 and a 2:2). We first discussed the criteria. Students then worked in groups, using the criteria, to rank each of the examples. We then discussed the three exemplars, against the criteria, as a group. Were not very good at ranking, but when we gave them specific examples of S/T, A and R, they could correctly assign them to the grade boundary.
- #13: This slide is from the follow-up session that we did with the students. My comments on it at the time: This one surprised me, actually, since I thought that the students would have gotten something out the of the exercise of marking (maybe it’s a lesson to me on how to structure that part of the session better…). They did mention, unsurprisingly, that it would have been more useful to see reflective essays that were actually about scientific placements, but they understand why that didn’t work this year. I’m glad that they appreciated actually talking through the criteria, although I think that’s the most challenging part: it’s difficult to parse exactly what some of the differences are between the grade boundaries.
- #14: Overview of GradeMark
- #15: Overview of GradeMark
- #26: Numbers were at least as high as this in Biology.
- #29: Can see how they do in each component and analyse these data for next year’s class.
- #31: Moderation more obvious Data on feedback viewed Also increases consistency across markers