Analysing and Improving Mathematical Formulation of Webavalia: A Self and Peer Assessment Tool

Abstract

Recently, Problem-based learning has been increasingly used, and with those practices, self and peer evaluation tasks have gained more importance. This method of learning assists learners in the acquisition of skills and competencies. In order to support self and peer evaluation tasks, there are some different software offers in the market. The ease use of them is demanded since these tasks are an important part of evaluation. With the literature emphasis on the importance of assessment and critical spirit, it arises the possibility to implement formulas to increase the efficiency on the methodology applied and satisfaction of students and teachers. This paper introduces formulation problems about marks weighting in self and peer evaluation. It presents the advantages and disadvantages of different solutions for the formulation and suggestions of adapting them among tools, feedback surveys, and teacher's methods of evaluation. It is also expected that the formulation, which was implemented in the software tool WEBAVALIA, has a great impact on feedback, improving user experience, and both efficiency and flexibility.

Improving Workgroup Assessment with WebAVALIA: The Concept, Framework and First Results

“…When analysing these tools, it is possible to ascertain that most of them perform peer assessment only. Nonetheless, WebPA, Peergrade, and Workshop Module can perform both peer and self-assessment (Abelló Gamazo et al, 1992;Babo et al, 2020;Hettiarachchi et al, 2014 According to Babo et al (2020), there are some key characteristics that have to be taken into account when analyzing assessment tools. One of these characteristics is the quickness to perform the needed steps in the tool by all the stakeholders (students, teachers, …), which may include quick and short questions on the different factors such as performance, anxiety, absence, motivation, knowledge, and so on.…”

“…This method can be an added value to the assessment, since the individual's perceptions and viewpoints allow them to identify differences in the group members' performance. From these differences, it is possible to understand patterns and obtain a consensus on the performance of each member and distinguish them (Babo et al, 2020;Block, 1978;Sorensen & Jorgensen, 2019).…”

“…Besides these characteristics, a functionality to allow the creation of workgroups or the assignment of members to workgroups is an advantage, as well as being a freeware software tool, available to "all the academic community". Luxton-Reilly ( 2009) also elicited the need for the development of peer assessment tools available to be used by several institutions (Babo et al, 2020;Block, 1978;Luxton-Reilly, 2009;Sorensen & Jorgensen, 2019). Babo et al (2020Babo et al ( , p. 1326) made a brief analysis of the tools previously enumerated.…”

“…Luxton-Reilly ( 2009) also elicited the need for the development of peer assessment tools available to be used by several institutions (Babo et al, 2020;Block, 1978;Luxton-Reilly, 2009;Sorensen & Jorgensen, 2019). Babo et al (2020Babo et al ( , p. 1326) made a brief analysis of the tools previously enumerated. This analysis was performed considering characteristics that the authors regarded as the key characteristics.…”

“…All these tools allow an easy way to generate workgroups or assign members to groups, except Peermark. Regarding the availability of the tools, none of these tools is freeware (Babo et al, 2020(Babo et al, , p. 1326.…”