Presentation on theme: "Dr Jon Goss, Dr Alison Graham, Dr Christie Harner & Dr Sara Marsham USING GRADEMARK TO IMPROVE FEEDBACK AND INVOLVE STUDENTS IN THE MARKING PROCESS."— Presentation transcript:
Dr Jon Goss, Dr Alison Graham, Dr Christie Harner & Dr Sara Marsham USING GRADEMARK TO IMPROVE FEEDBACK AND INVOLVE STUDENTS IN THE MARKING PROCESS
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 Trialled on three types of coursework: BIO3020 (Bioremediation) – grant application MST2017 (Graduate Employability Skills for Marine Scientists – reflective log Electrical and Electronic Engineering – Stage 1 and 2 lab reports Subsequent Projects: Marine Science Essays, Biology Stage 1 lab reports
AIM ONE: TO DEVELOP CONSTRUCTIVE MARKING CRITERIA Liaising with Careers Service on placement reflective log criteria Developing specific criteria for Stage 1 and Stage 2 essays (in which Stage 2 skills build on Stage 1) Development of marking criteria for grant application Focus group to figure out what students know about lab reports New set of lab report criteria for Stage One
BIO1004 – 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?
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)
STAGE 1 ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING Results Feedback Example #1: Results were aptly obtained in most of the section of the experiment. However, with filters there weren’t enough readings/observations to plot the frequency response completely. The cut off frequency deducted from the oscilloscope has to be compared with the -3db cut off frequency obtained from the frequency response. Results Feedback Example #2: Not all of the results were presented in the report, and some were poorly presented. You should only use the appendix to present secondary results.
MST2017 – MARKING CRITERIA SESSION Structured differently – had three examples of reflective essays (a 1 st, 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.
AIMS THREE AND FOUR: USE GRADEMARK TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK LINKED TO MARKING CRITERIA GradeMark is: Part of Turnitin software, accessed at Newcastle University through Blackboard A platform through which students submit coursework online as Word document or PDF 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
OUR REFLECTIONS ON THE PROJECT Benefits for students: 1) feedback is easier to read and is automatically saved online; 2) students can access feedback in private and on their own time; 3) more positive feedback; 4) increased perceptions of fairness with rubric; 5) more detailed Benefits for staff: 1) No printing/scanning for retention; 2) Linked to originality check; 3) More detailed comments with less work; 4) Library bank of comments helps to avoid repetition; 5) Easy record of submission and return of feedback
HEA STEM-Funded Workshop, 30 November 2013 ‘Assessment and student dialogue: can online platforms use marking criteria and other tools to improve feedback and engage students in the marking process?’