Physics Education ResearchThe University of Edinburgh

1

PeerWise in Physics 1A Semester 1 2010

Simon Bates s.p.bates@ed.ac.uk

Physics Education ResearchThe University of Edinburgh

Motivation – why

bother?

Implementation – what

was done and how?

Suggestions for local

implementation

2

Physics Education ResearchThe University of Edinburgh

Motivation – why bother?

Richer student-generated feedback on presentations

Student engagement with presentations other than their own

Need to be time efficient

Little previous use of this application of EVS

3

Physics Education ResearchThe University of Edinburgh

Implementation – class details

Hons (year 3) Media and Eng Lit class

No previous use of EVS handsets

3 sessions with seminar groups of 15-20 students

Student assessment of their peers was not summative

4

Physics Education ResearchThe University of Edinburgh

Implementation – assessment details

Instructor assessed summatively – content, delivery, timing visuals

Student assessment questions criteria determined

through discussion with previous year’s class

Based on tutor Qs but adapted for student perspective

Most Qs scored on numerical scale of 1-10

5

Physics Education ResearchThe University of Edinburgh

Implementation – marks

6

Physics Education ResearchThe University of Edinburgh

Implementation – marks

Student marks comparable But all very high with not much

differentiation

Ranges : 71-90 (students) 72-89 (tutor)

Means identical to nearest %

Interesting case is student 6 – misinterpreted question but lively presentation (low tutor score, high peer score)

7

Physics Education ResearchThe University of Edinburgh

Implementation – student feedback

Anonymity of handsets appreciated

Engagement - more attentive to session

Assessment over several sessions – ‘fixing’

Serial Q responses – slow

10Qs per student – ‘button fatigue’

Unanimous that it should not be summative

8

Physics Education ResearchThe University of Edinburgh

Evaluation – my thoughts

An interesting study in an appropriate area

Achieved some of its aims

Were I to do it, I would do things slightly differently

9

Physics Education ResearchThe University of Edinburgh

1. Can’t assume students are confident

assessors, partly because they rarely assess

Need to run a dummy exercise as a training

session

Illustrate with short examples of ‘staged’ good,

average and poor presentations

10

Physics Education ResearchThe University of Edinburgh

2. Students should feel some ownership of

the peer assessment component

Develop assessment criteria and questions with

whole class discussion input (this year’s class!)

Trial with training exercise presentations

Discuss and if necessary refine

11

Physics Education ResearchThe University of Edinburgh

3. Simplify the questions / choices

10 point scale is far too fine

Suggest replacing it with statements rated on a

5 point Likert scale (or 6 point Osgood)

Reduce the number of questions to the

minimum needed to cover all the assessment

issues

12

Physics Education ResearchThe University of Edinburgh

4. Consider letting students assess different

things to tutor

If similar criteria assessing same components of

presentation, won’t you always expect similar

scores?

Why not let students assess suitability of e.g.

content, subject to development of criteria

through training?

13

Physics Education ResearchThe University of Edinburgh

Consequences

+ Students as partners in the development of

PA criteria

+ Normalisation of expectations ahead of real

session: ‘on the same page’

+ Encourages reflection before students create

and deliver their own presentations

- Takes 1-2 hrs additional class time

(but probably time well spent)

14

Physics Education ResearchThe University of Edinburgh

Finally…..

I think you could allocate a proportion of the

summative assessment to this process, if

criteria transparent and students trained as

suggested.

15

Physics Education ResearchThe University of Edinburgh

16