1. Is PeerMark a useful tool for formative assessment of literature review? A trial in the School of Veterinary Science Duret, D (dduret@liv.ac.uk) & Durrani, Z (z.durrani@liv.ac.uk) School of Veterinary Science, University of Liverpool INTRODUCTION RESULTS The peer review task was accepted by the students with some reservations. Our experience shows that this process can successfully be implemented in large classes for formative assessments and it has been demonstrated in another study (Ballantyne et al., 2002). The feedback received from the students’ initial experience has been most useful as it will enable us to improve the peer review task for the next academic year. CONCLUSION REFERENCES NICOL, D., THOMSON, A. & BRESLIN, C. 2014. Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39, 102- 122. BALLANTYNE, R., HUGHES, K. & MYLONAS, A. 2002. Developing Procedures for Implementing Peer Assessment in Large Classes Using an Action Research Process. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 427-441. The key steps of the PeerMark ©, peer review process Students submitted their literature review via Turnitin GradeMark © The instructor creates a PeerMark © assignment and sets two reviews for each student to be reviewed. The student writes a review anonymously for each assigned paper by responding to the open ended (written) and/or scale (ranked) questions selected by the instructor Once the PeerMark © assignment due date passes, the instructor reviews all the comments and adds few comments On the PeerMark © assignment post date, reviews of the students’ papers become available for the papers’ authors to view Comments included that:  “It helped show which specific areas needed improvement ”  “I think it was good exercise. I didn’t know how to reference properly. I was glad to be told how to reference properly”.  “I actually thought it was good. My style of writing and ability to reference has changed significantly”  “Instructor feedback was good to highlight the areas that need improvement and has definitely made a massive difference” And also:  “I was given conflicting feedback by the peers, one person said my referencing was good whilst another said it was wrong”. The instructor’s feedback helped me in identifying the correct feedback”. In general, the undergraduate students have very little experience of scientific writing and providing constructive feedback to their peers. In the PeerMark © system, we asked the students to provide constructive feedback by responding to both open ended and scaled questions, and also encouraged them to make specific comments where necessary. The entire process was set to be anonymous for students and the feedback and grades were provided following completion of the process. “Feedback is a troublesome issue in higher education” (Nicol et al., 2014). In the last National Student Survey (NSS), the BVSc programme (School of Veterinary Science, University of Liverpool) scores much lower than expected for feedback, with some students having noted they do not get feedback! This issue is being addressed considerably by the School with various exercises and activities. In addition to the primary feedback received from the course tutor, other options have been considered to involve students in the assessment process by setting up a peer review task for them. Essentially, this task allows students to evaluate the quality of work produced by their peers. Furthermore, its is believed that such tasks promote lifelong learning skills as students are actively involved in the assessment process. In the current curriculum, as part of a research skills exercise, second year veterinary undergraduate students have to submit a short literature review (2500 words) with appropriate reference style. In semester 1, as a part of formative assessment all students (n=156) were asked to submit their Literature Review via Turnitin. Each student had to review and critique two submissions of their peers. In addition to the above feedback received from the peers, all students also received feedback and final grades were awarded by the instructor. Turnitin ©, GradeMark ©, & PeerMark © are a suite of tools that enable online assignment submissions, and generates an originality reports for the submitted assignments. It also enables online instant grading & feedback, and have peer marking capabilities In order to evaluate the peer review activity, students were asked to complete an online, anonymous survey, focusing on the feedback they have received. Comments included that:  “Hard to tell as its usefulness is based on the knowledge of the person giving you a review. ”  “I would recommend the use of PeerMark on occasion, but certainly not for every piece of coursework”  “If it’s intended to involve students and engage them in a productive way, then it’s a good system. Quite simple to use”  “It did help to know how to mark others work. It wasn’t completely a dark; It was easy to mark and is obviously a strong point. METHODOLOGY The results show that the feedback received from the peers was “useful” and the feedback received from the instructor has greatly “helped” them in writing a better report. Furthermore, the students prefer to receive feedback from the instructor (red) compared to the feedback received from their peers (blue). The feedback that they gave help them to produce a better report (green). The PeerMark © process was easy but students are equally divided on the usefulness of the exercise and made some recommendations for the future.