Dr Alison Graham, Dr Christie Harner & Dr Sara Marsham

USING GRADEMARK TO

IMPROVE FEEDBACK AND

INVOLVE STUDENTS IN THE

MARKING PROCESS

HEA STEM:

Assessment

and student

dialogue: can

online

platforms use

marking

criteria and

other tools to

improve

feedback and

engage

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 1

MARINE SCIENCE ESSAY CRITERIA

Same five criteria:

• Depth of Analysis/Evaluation of Material Critical Analysis

• Understanding and Synthesis of Content from Sources Synthesis

• Structure and Organisation

• English Language and Writing Style

• References/Recognising the Relevance of Different Publication Formats

Stage 1 (Understanding and Synthesis / 2:1) -- You clearly explain the material used and

begin to draw comparisons/contrasts between sources. You may not fully capture either

the variety of material or the amount of detail in the literature. At times, you do not give

enough detail to demonstrate your wider knowledge of the material.

Stage 2 (Synthesis / 2:1) -- You recognise key themes as well as similarities and

differences between the sources. You also identify key details that support the main

themes and details that may be used to make a counter-argument. You engage with a

wide range of literature and with detail, but you struggle to balance between key themes

and specific support for them.

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 1

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)

BIO1004: Microbiology

MST2011: Marine Practical Skills

BIO3020 – MARKING CRITERIA SESSION

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 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.

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

Library comment

Text comment

Bubble comment

Final comment

USING GRADEMARK: TYPES OF COMMENTS

Create library either in advance

or as you go

Drag from library

into body

GRADEMARK: USING THE LIBRARY

Add

assignment-

specific,

module-

specific,

School or

Faculty-wide

marking

criteria

Mark each piece of

work according to

the rubric; use

qualitatively or

quantitatively

GRADEMARK: USING THE RUBRIC

1 2 3 4 5 6

S/

T

A

R

TURNING CRITERIA INTO COMMENTS

Each comment is linked to one of the marking criteria

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

CREATING LIBRARY USING MARKING

CRITERIA

WHAT DID THE STUDENTS THINK?

STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE – BIO3020

STUDENT FEEDBACK – MST2017

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

Further reflection:

• Continued development of marking criteria and integration of criteria into

additional modules

• Further thought on what information/activities help students to engage with the

assessment process

• Managing the challenges of staff and student engagement