Using GradeMark to engage students in the feedback process

  • Published on

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)


<p>Using GradeMark to Improve Feedback and Involve Students in the Marking Process</p> <p>Using GradeMark to improve feedback and engage students in the marking process</p> <p>Dr Sara MarshamSchool of Marine Science &amp; </p> <p>Dr Alison GrahamSchool of</p> <p>School of Marine Science and TechnologyStaff Meeting</p> <p>19th December 2016</p> <p>@sara_marine@alisonigraham</p> <p>+</p> <p>1</p> <p>The beginningOriginated from SAgE Faculty-level and School-level discussions about 2012 NSS quantitative and free-text results in assessment and feedback</p> <p>Objectives based directly on student focus group responses held in the Schools of Biology, Electrical and Electronic Engineering, and Marine Science and Technology in December 2012</p> <p>Staff workshops in each School in early 2013</p> <p>Successful ULTSEC Innovation Fund project in 2013 collaborating across three Schools and QuILT</p> <p>+</p> <p>Intro to Innovation fund, etc. </p> <p>2</p> <p>Aims of ProjectInitial aims: To engage students in the entire marking process from the setting of marking criteria through the receipt and feed-forward application of feedback</p> <p>To write/design effective marking criteria that are specific to pieces of work </p> <p>To engage students in the process of using marking criteria in preparation for an assignment</p> <p>To provide feedback on coursework that links directly to marking criteria</p> <p>Use GradeMark to develop libraries of feedback comments that can function much like dialogue with students</p> <p>Implicit questions in our original proposal:</p> <p>Can we involve students in writing marking criteria? </p> <p>What do students already know about marking criteria? </p> <p>Can typed (even repeated!) comments work like a dialogue? Will students recognise this? </p> <p>+</p> <p>3</p> <p>MST2017 Reflective log (Marine Science Stage 2)</p> <p>Aim 1: Write new marking criteriaUnderstand students prior knowledge/create new assignment Write new marking criteria (based on student knowledge)Engage students with criteria </p> <p>+</p> <p>Introductory slide talking about the process of writing the criteria and what went into that. </p> <p>Maybe worth mentioning why we didnt involve students in the writing process (because they just werent familiar enough?)</p> <p>4</p> <p>MST2017 Feedback SurveyWhat does good feedback look like? How do you use it? What is or isnt useful about feedback youve received?</p> <p>Student comments:- like to have marking criteria there/would like information on the weighting of criteria (gives them faith in fairness of marking)- most would appreciate colour coding- like to have grammar pointed out, but only as an example (not every time the same grammar mistake is made)- want to have overall comments at the top or bottom/would be useful to have suggestions for improvement in the overall comments/overall comments can refer back to specific comments from earlier- specific comments shouldnt just say good or poor but should pose questions or explain why its good/poor</p> <p>+</p> <p>5</p> <p>Aim Two: Engaging students with marking criteria</p> <p>+</p> <p>6</p> <p>Reflective log - Marking criteria session</p> <p>1, 2, 31, 3, 22, 1, 32, 3, 13, 1, 23, 2, 1</p> <p>1, 3, 23, 1, 2 1, 2, 3 Situation/TaskActionResult</p> <p>+</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>7</p> <p>Aims Three and Four: Use GradeMark to provide feedback linked to marking criteriaGradeMark 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:In-text comments: Bubble comments, Text comments, QuickMark commentsRubricGeneral comments: Voice comments and Text comments</p> <p>+</p> <p>Overview of GradeMark8</p> <p>GradeMarkGo to Assessment inbox See submissions, similarity score and marks (once graded) for the whole classCheck if student has viewed their feedback</p> <p>+</p> <p>Overview of GradeMark9</p> <p>Library commentText commentBubble comment</p> <p>Final commentUsing GradeMark: Types of Comments</p> <p>+</p> <p>10</p> <p>Highlighting/colour-coding</p> <p>+</p> <p>Mark against a rubric</p> <p>Add assignment-specific, module-specific, School or Faculty-wide marking criteriaMark each piece of work according to the rubric; use qualitatively or quantitatively</p> <p>+</p> <p>Turning criteria into comments</p> <p>S/TAR123456</p> <p>+</p> <p>Creating own libraryEach comment linked to one of the criterion with letter and numberFor each component, comment on:How student meets criterion</p> <p>What student could have done to achieve next grade boundary</p> <p>R4R5</p> <p>+</p> <p>Mark work using criteria and general comments</p> <p>Voice (up to three minutes)Text (up to 5,000 characters)</p> <p>+</p> <p>Final mark</p> <p>+</p> <p>Student feedback - marking criteria session</p> <p>+</p> <p>Student feedback - marking criteria session</p> <p>+</p> <p>18</p> <p>What did the students think?75% found it useful to have the marking criteria in advance</p> <p>100% thought it was useful to see how they performed against the marking criteria</p> <p>53% preferred electronic feedback to feedback on a pro-forma or mark sheet</p> <p>69% thought electronic feedback makes it easier to understand comments about grammar</p> <p>80% thought electronic marking encourages more positive feedback</p> <p>50% found the comments to be specific to the piece of work </p> <p>+</p> <p>19</p> <p>What happened next?Rolled out in Schools in 2013-2014 and now used extensively in Marine Science (MST1101, MST1102, MST1103, MST1104, MST2101, MST2102, MST2103, MST2104) and BiologyAwarded funding from HEA to host workshop in Newcastle in 2013Careers Service adopted for Career Development Module in 2013-2014Over 400 students across the University Reduction in student complaints as students recognise why they are getting the mark awardedUniversity-wide pilot in 2014-2015Sixteen iPads with Turnitin app available to markers interested in trialling electronic markingTwenty-two participants signed up to pilot (12 attended training). Seven additional participants joined over course of academic yearIMPACT</p> <p>+</p> <p>20</p> <p>What happened next?Faculty Innovator of the Year Award in 2014Scheme extended across University in 2015-2016 - shifted focus towards its use on PCsIntroduced in a number of programmes, and support for academic units to use this approach is now mainstreamedAn example of a Faculty Enhancement Project for the QAA ReviewRecognised by PVC L&amp;T and awarded further funding in 2016 for disseminationManuscript in prep for submission to Assessment &amp; Evaluation in Higher EducationIMPACT</p> <p>+</p> <p>21</p> <p>DisseminationUniversity L&amp;T Conference, Newcastle 2013HEA Workshop, Newcastle 2013Blackboard Users Conference, Durham 2015Enhancing Student Learning Through Innovative Scholarship Conference, Durham 2015Promoting and Sharing Excellence in Higher Education Teaching Meeting, London 2016Symposium on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, Banff 2016HEA STEM Conference, Manchester 2017Blackboard Users Conference, Durham 2017</p> <p>HEA STEM Conference, Nottingham 2016Horizons in STEM Higher Education Conference, Leicester 2016Turnitin UK User Summit, Newcastle 2016Society for Experimental Biology, Teaching &amp; Communicating Science in the Digital Age Meeting, London 2014Innovation Fund Dissemination Event, Newcastle 2013</p> <p>+</p> <p>22</p> <p>Final reflectionsBenefits - students perspectiveFeedback is easier to read and is automatically saved onlineStudents can access feedback in private and on their own timeMore positive feedbackIncreased perceptions of fairness and transparency with rubricMore detailedBenefits - markers perspectiveNo printing/scanning for retentionLinked to originality checkMore detailed comments with less workLibrary bank of comments helps to avoid repetitionEasy record of submission and return of feedback</p> <p>+</p> <p>Moderation more obviousData on feedback viewedAlso increases consistency across markers23</p> <p>Final reflections &amp; questions for youContinued development of marking criteria and integration of criteria into additional modules</p> <p>Further thought on what information/activities help students engage with the assessment process</p> <p>Managing the challenges of staff and student engagementAre there good practice guidelines for writing marking criteria?</p> <p>Can students be engaged to write the marking criteria themselves? If so, what strategies can be used to engage students with criteria?</p> <p>What is the balance between in-class time and independent engagement?</p> <p>+</p> <p>24</p> <p>Thank you for listening</p> <p>Any questions?</p> <p>Our thanks to all of our students who took part and shared their opinionsThanks to Newcastle University Innovation Fund for funding the original work &amp; ongoing supportDr Sara MarshamSchool of Marine Science &amp; </p> <p>Dr Alison GrahamSchool of </p> <p>School of Marine Science and TechnologyStaff Meeting</p> <p>19th December 2016</p> <p>+</p> <p>25</p>


View more >