Using GradeMark to Improve Feedback

and Involve Students in the Marking Process

Alison Graham, Sara Marsham, Jon Goss and Christie Harner

Biology, Marine Science &Technology,

Electrical & Electronic Engineering and

QuILT

• 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.

Aims of project

Engage students in the entire marking process from the setting of

marking criteria through the receipt and feed-forward application

of feedback.

Trialled on two pieces of coursework:

• BIO3020 (Bioremediation) – grant application

• MST2017 (Graduate Employability Skills for Marine Scientists)

– reflective log.

GradeMark

• Part of the Turnitin software.

• Allows you to provide feedback

and a mark on-line.

• Types of feedback:

o In-text comments

Bubble comments

Text comments

QuickMark comments (drag and drop from pre-made set)

o Rubric

o General comments

• Student uploads their work through Blackboard.

What is GradeMark?

• Access through Blackboard.

• Get to Assignment Inbox.

• See submissions, similarity score and marks (once graded) for the

whole class.

• Have the students viewed their feedback?

GradeMark

Bubble comments

Bubble comments

Text comments

QuickMarks

QuickMarks

QuickMarks

Highlighting/colour-coding

Mark against rubric

Turning criteria into comments

S/T

A

R

1 2 3 4 5 6

Creating own library

• Each comment 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

Mark work using criteria

General comments

• Voice (up to 3 minutes)

• Text (up to 5000 characters)

Final mark

• 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.

GradeMark analysis

What did the students think?

BIO3020 post-feedback session

• 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.

• 100% preferred electronic feedback to feedback on a pro forma

or mark sheet.

• 100% thought electronic feedback makes it easier to understand

comments about grammar.

• 100% thought electronic marking encourages more positive

feedback.

• 100% found the comments to be specific to the piece of work.

• 100% would like to have received more electronic feedback in

other modules.

BIO3020 v MST2017

• 75% found it useful to have the marking criteria in advance (75%).

• 100% thought it was useful to see how they performed against the

marking criteria.

• 100% preferred electronic feedback to feedback on a pro forma

or mark sheet (53%).

• 100% thought electronic feedback makes it easier to understand

comments about grammar (69%).

• 100% thought electronic marking encourages more positive

feedback (80%).

• 100% found the comments to be specific to the piece of work

(50%).

• 100% would like to have received more electronic feedback in

other modules (79%).

“This [the rubric] was the most useful aspect of

the electronic feedback as this helped me to

gauge which areas of the assignment I was

lacking and therefore where I would need to

focus my improvement for future work.

It also helped me to understand why I had

received the mark I had in relation to the

marking criteria for each section and thus why

my overall grade was within a certain grade

boundary.”

BIO3020 questionnaire

“I felt like it was easier for the marker to provide positive

comments and this is also important feedback - it is good

to know when a specific section is very good in order to

use this style/technique in another piece of work.

I think the automated comments and marking rubric

make the marker more fair as it ensures they connect

each section of work to the relevant criteria section.”

Overall, the

students voted that

the electronic

comments were

more positive, more

fair, more thorough,

more helpful, easier

to understand and

specific (compared

to other feedback).

Student’s perspective

Benefits

• Can read the writing!

• Private – no need to go to the School Office to pick it up.

• Feedback is more detailed.

• Can access from any computer - won’t lose it/always to

hand.

• Work with comments can be printed.

Marker’s perspective

Benefits

• Can give more detailed feedback (e.g. rubric, not limited by space).

• Can edit comments.

• Can skip between QuickMarks and rubric and general comments.

• Can easily switch between submissions.

• Can carry out analyses of marks/comments.

• Can check originality as you go.

• Libraries of comments can be shared (uniformity across multiple

markers).

• Could colour code comments according to type.

• Can be used for any type of work that can be made electronic.

• Don’t need to carry piles of work around.

Marker’s perspective

Challenges (or things to think about)

• Initial time input (but this can be reclaimed with time savings later

and is only required of one person).

• Need an internet connection.

• No spell-checker in some browsers.

• Highlighting can be tricky. Difficult to highlight one or two letters.

• Can’t include italics in comments.

• Can’t search for previous comments that are not QuickMarks.

• Can’t have two submissions open at once.

• Can’t change the rubric after you start marking.

• Need to read on screen.

Acknowledgements

• Thank you to all of the students who took part

and shared their opinions.

• Thank you to the Newcastle University

Innovation Fund.

• Please get in touch if you would like to find out

more or would like a demo in your School

(alison.graham@ncl.ac.uk).