Www.bournemouth.ac.uk Peer and Self – Assessment using Computer Assisted Self & Peer Assessment Ratings (CASPAR) Dr Holly Henderson.

  • Published on
    19-Dec-2015

  • View
    212

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript

<ul><li> Slide 1 </li> <li> www.bournemouth.ac.uk Peer and Self Assessment using Computer Assisted Self &amp; Peer Assessment Ratings (CASPAR) Dr Holly Henderson </li> <li> Slide 2 </li> <li> www.bournemouth.ac.uk 2 Positives (1) Development of self-assessment and reflective learning (Somervell, 1993; Topping, 1998) Deepening of students understanding of the assessment process (Brown &amp; Bull, 1997) Students have opportunities to compare and discuss about what constituted a good or bad piece of work, which help them to improve their programming style and think more deeply about the quality of work (Brindley, 1998) When marking, students realize mistakes that they had made in their own answers - the more marking students did, the better their own results became (Bhalearo &amp; Ward, 2001) </li> <li> Slide 3 </li> <li> www.bournemouth.ac.uk 3 Positives (2) Enhances the metacognition of learners and improved understanding of subject matter (Ballantyne et al, 2002) Encourages formative assessment learning through feedback; has validity as it measures what it is supposed to measure; emphasis on the process not just the product; is expected in work situations; encourages intrinsic motivation; changes the role of the tutor as sole arbiter of assessment (Wilson, 2003) Increased sense of responsibility and autonomy towards their peers learning (Papinczak et al, 2007) </li> <li> Slide 4 </li> <li> www.bournemouth.ac.uk 4 Negatives Auon (2007) highlights that the most significant disadvantage emphasised in the literature is potential bias Flachikov and Magin, (1997) found that this bias is often gender specific Suffers from a perceived lack of objectivity (Brindley &amp; Scoffield, 1998) Swanson et al (1991), who listed issues surrounding the reliability, credibility and validity, including inaccuracy and low precision by nave markers, and variability between groups of peer-assessors. </li> <li> Slide 5 </li> <li> www.bournemouth.ac.uk 5 CASPAR Computer Assisted Self and Peer Assessment Ratings </li> <li> Slide 6 </li> <li> www.bournemouth.ac.uk 6 </li> <li> Slide 7 </li> <li> Case Study - BAEM &amp; BALM Managing People &amp; PPD Events Management 4 Assessment Points - post task </li> <li> Slide 8 </li> <li> www.bournemouth.ac.uk 8 </li> <li> Slide 9 </li> <li> 9 </li> <li> Slide 10 </li> <li> 10 </li> <li> Slide 11 </li> <li> www.bournemouth.ac.uk 11 </li> <li> Slide 12 </li> <li> www.bournemouth.ac.uk 12 Example - Assessment 1 Mean assessment mark was 72.4% Range from 39% to 93% Mode of 77 Marking criteria issues Software issues </li> <li> Slide 13 </li> <li> www.bournemouth.ac.uk 13 Student to Student Comments "XXX has the potential to be an excellent member of the group. Unfortunately XXX conflict with other group members and drops in attendance has let them down. Thankfully, XXX has still made useful contributions to the group and Im sure this will improve over time. "XXX is quite punctual but could turn up a little bit earlier than maybe usual. And I feel XXX could have a little more enthusiasm towards the work." </li> <li> Slide 14 </li> <li> www.bournemouth.ac.uk 14 Student Feedback I was really worried, I entered the wrong information to the wrong student and when I realised and tried to go back and alter it the system would not allow me I wrote a comment about one of my peers in the heat of the moment, and then it was really obvious it was my comments though they were anonymous everyone knew it was me We really enjoyed using CASPAR, it is a really easy way of getting 10% of the unit mark It is really useful to know what my group thinks of me and what I need to improve on </li> <li> Slide 15 </li> <li> www.bournemouth.ac.uk 15 Realities Potential Means of motivation Recognition of actions Aspects to build on Awareness of peers A team tool Flexibility Reporting function </li> <li> Slide 16 </li> <li> www.bournemouth.ac.uk CASPAR http://www.cemp.ac.uk/caspar/ </li> <li> Slide 17 </li> <li> www.bournemouth.ac.uk 17 References: Aoun, C., 2007 Peer Assessment and Learning Outcomes: Product Deficiency or Process Defectiveness? Sydney: Macquarie University Ballantyne, R., Hughes, K. &amp; Mylonas, A. 2002, Developing Procedures for Implementing Peer Assessment in Large Classes Using an Action Research Process, Assessment &amp; Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 5, 427-441 Brown, G., Bull, J., and Pendlebury, M., 1997 Assessing Student Learning in Higher Education. London: Routledge. Bhalerao, A. and Ward, A., 2001 Towards electronically assisted peer assessment: a case study, Association for Learning Technology journal (ALT-J), 9(1), 26-37 Falchikov, N. 2005 Improving Assessment Through Student Involvement: Practical Solutions For Aiding Learning in Higher and Further Education: Routledge: London Papinczak, T., Young, L., &amp; Groves, M. 2007 Peer assessment in problem-based learning: A qualitative study. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 12(2), 169-186. Somervell, H., 1993 Issues in assessment, enterprise and higher education: the case for self-, peer and collaborative assessment, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 18, 221- 233, 1993 Swanson,D.,Case,S.&amp; van der Vlueten,C.(1991) Strategies for student assessment. In: The Challenge of Problem Based Learning.Eds. D.Boud &amp; G.Feletti. Pp 260-273. London: Kogan Page Topping, K. 1998, Peer Assessment Between Students in Colleges and Universities, Review of Educational Research, 68, 3, 249-276 Wilson, S., 2003 Using peer and self-assessment to engage with assessment criteria and learning: a case study from a course for lecturers in Investigations in University teaching and learning vol. 1 (2) winter 2003 </li> </ul>

Recommended

View more >