+Using GradeMark to improve feedback and engage students in the marking process

Dr Sara MarshamSchool of Marine Science & Technologysara.marsham@ncl.ac.uk

Dr Alison GrahamSchool of Biologyalison.graham@ncl.ac.uk

Symposium on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

10th - 12th November 2016

@sara_marine@alisonigraham

+

+ 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

Implicit questions in our original proposal:

1. Can we involve students in writing marking criteria?

2. What do students already know about marking criteria?

3. Can typed (even repeated!) comments work like a dialogue? Will students recognise this?

+Bioremediation (Biology Level 6)/Reflective log (Marine Science Level 5)/Microbiology (Biology Level 4)

Aim 1: Write new marking criteria

Understand students’ prior

knowledge/create new assignment

Write new marking criteria

(based on student

knowledge)

Engage students

with criteria

+Microbiology - 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

+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)

+Microbiology - Lab report tutorial sessionIf 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?

I have read a research paper published in a peer-reviewed journal.

1. Yes2. I’ve read some but

found them difficult to understand

3. No4. I’m not sure what

you mean by a peer-reviewed journal

Write your report “in the format of a scientific paper” – do you know what this means?

1. Yes2. No3. To some

extent

+Microbiology - Marking criteria session

1. 0-39%2. 40-49%3. 50-59%4. 60-69%5. 70-100%

Into what grade boundary would results example 1 fall?

Which title scored the highest?

1. Example 12. Example 23. Example 3

+Bioremediation - Marking criteria session

+Reflective log - Marking criteria session

1 2 3 4 5 6

34%

59%

7%

0%0%0%

1. 1, 2, 32. 1, 3, 23. 2, 1, 34. 2, 3, 15. 3, 1, 26. 3, 2, 1

1 2 3 4 5 6

0%

36%

0%

12%

52%

0%

1 2 3 4 5 6

17%

25%

8%

4%

8%

38%

1, 3, 2

3, 1, 2

1, 2, 3

Situation/Task Action Result

+Reflective log - Marking criteria session

+Aims Three and Four: Use GradeMark to provide feedback linked to marking criteria

GradeMark 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:o In-text comments: Bubble comments, Text comments, QuickMark

commentso Rubrico General comments: Voice comments and Text comments

+GradeMark Go to Assessment inbox See submissions, similarity score

and marks (once graded) for the whole class

Check if student has viewed their feedback

+Library comment

Text comment

Bubble comment

Final comment

Using GradeMark: Types of Comments

+QuickMarks

+QuickMarks

+Highlighting/colour-coding

+Mark against a rubricAdd assignment-specific, module-specific, School or Faculty-wide marking criteria

Mark each piece of work according to the rubric; use qualitatively or quantitatively

+Turning criteria into comments

S/T

A

R

1 2 3 4 5 6

+Creating own library Each comment linked to one of the criterion 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

+Final general comments

Voice (up to three minutes) Text (up to 5,000 characters)

+Final mark

+Student feedback - Reflective log

+What did the students think?

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

53-100% preferred electronic feedback to feedback on a pro-forma or mark sheet

80-100% thought electronic marking encourages more positive feedback

50-100% found the comments to be specific to the piece of work

79-100% would like to have received more electronic feedback in other modules

+Student questionnaire - Bioremediation

+GradeMark analysis 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

Grade range 

% viewed feedback3.5 weeks

later6.5 months

later70-100% 84 8460-69% 46 6450-59% 49 5140-49% 48 520-39% 14 14

• Percentage of students that viewed feedback from microbiology report (2013-14 academic year; n = 184):• After 3.5 weeks• After 6.5 months

+Final reflections

Benefits - students’ perspective• Feedback is easier to read and is automatically saved online• Students can access feedback in private and on their own time• More positive feedback• Increased perceptions of fairness and transparency with rubric• More detailed

Benefits - markers’ perspective• No printing/scanning for retention• Linked to originality check• More detailed comments with less work• Library bank of comments helps to avoid repetition• Easy record of submission and return of feedback

+Final reflections & questions for you

Continued development of marking criteria and integration of criteria into additional modules

Further thought on what information/activities help students engage with the assessment process

Managing the challenges of staff and student engagement

Are there ‘good practice’ guidelines for writing marking criteria?

Can students be engaged to write the marking criteria themselves? If so, what strategies can be used to engage

students with criteria?

What is the balance between in-class time and independent engagement?

+Thank you for listening

Any questions?

Our thanks to all of our students who took part and shared their opinions

Thanks to Newcastle University Innovation Fund for funding the original work & ongoing supportDr Sara Marsham

School of Marine Science & Technologysara.marsham@ncl.ac.uk

Dr Alison GrahamSchool of Biologyalison.graham@ncl.ac.uk

Symposium on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning

10th - 12th November 2016

@sara_marine@alisonigraham

http://www.slideshare.net/SaraMarsham/presentations