Peer review of team marks using a web-based tool: an evaluation

Willmot, Peter; Crawford, Adam

doi:10.11120/ened.2007.02010059

Cited by 13 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Examples of qualitative and quantitative research can be found in previously published papers reported elsewhere such as Pond et al (2007), Robinson (2006) and Willmot and Crawford (2004, 2005, 2007). Such research was extremely important in creating an initial level of confidence in the method and building the foundations for the pedagogic and technical development being carried out by the current WebPA project team.…”

Section: Pedagogic Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some say that in true teamwork, individuals should stand or fall by judgement of the team output but realists quickly recognise that, however sound the arguments may be for this, many students express strong opposition or disquiet and insist on individually assigned marks that can be demonstrably associated with the efforts and abilities of each student. The fairness of allocating equal marks was questioned by Willmot and Crawford (2007, p. 59), who cited the common fear that ‘a lazy student might benefit from the efforts of teammates or particularly diligent students may have their efforts diluted by weaker team members’. Pond, Coates and Palermo (2007, p. 12) found that ‘bunched group marks often show a low standard deviation and the use of peer review [peer‐moderated marking] can help to spread this when marks are reviewed at an individual level’.…”

Section: Introduction To Peer‐moderated Markingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A case study of the development of WebPA: An online peer‐moderated marking tool

Loddington

Pond

Wilkinson

et al. 2009

Brit J Educational Tech

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peer moderation of group work in higher education is rapidly advancing through the use of technological developments and is increasingly being informed by pedagogical research. The highly successful WebPA online assessment system has gone through a number of development phases over its 15-year history and has now evolved into a relatively mature and flexible tool for facilitating group work. This paper presents a case study of the approaches that have been used in the system's development from the technical perspective, and describes how the scope of the project has massively expanded and that the development has been continually backed by a sound and wideranging pedagogy. The benefits of using the online system are shown to be underpinned throughout by examples of good practice in the supervision of academic group work. A critical evaluation of the tool and surrounding pedagogical practices highlight future areas for technical expansion. Introduction to peer-moderated markingThe term peer-moderated marking is used, in this instance, to describe the process undertaken by students to assess the performance of themselves and their peer group in relation to a group task or a series of tasks. The process generates individual team member 'weighting factors' from the students' input data that are used to vary (moderate) group marks, which are assessed and allocated by academic supervisors in the usual way. The claimed result is individually weighted marks that are fairer and more apposite for each individual student. WebPA is a computer-based tool, developed at Loughborough University over a period of nearly 15 years, to automate and promote the process.

show abstract

Section: Pedagogic Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introduction To Peer‐moderated Markingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A case study of the development of WebPA: An online peer‐moderated marking tool

Loddington

Pond

Wilkinson

et al. 2009

Brit J Educational Tech

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, the assessment often being considered as subjective because of a set of factors like the human nature of the assessor and the assessed; many efforts try to make it the most objective possible. Thus, to reduce subjectivity and make an equitable assessment of a group members working or learning collaboratively, several works were realized [2], [3] using peer assessment, to try to reduce the subjectivity and fairly assess learners. However, in reality and in the assessment of a working group, the attribution of a mark for all members of the group is examined, but the authors conclude that it is not the right approach to make a fair and more objective assessment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Proposal of an extension of the IMS-LD meta-model to support assessment of collaborative learning activities

Aouine

Mahdaoui

2013

2013 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we focus on the problem of assessing individuals in the group or team of learning and therefore this should lead to the evaluation of the group or the team itself as a learning entity. We distinguish between the concepts of group and team in function of parameters such as membership (sense of belonging that is strong in teams) and cohesion (harmony sought to carry out work). Lots of problems at the level the device of distant learning is the absence of possibilities for structuring and planning of the evaluation activity. Hence the lack of consideration of susceptible scenarios to be exploited in testing situations to reap the maximum of indicators that will help a more objective assessment knowing that any evaluation system is afraid of being subjecttive. To do so, we propose an extension of the IMS-LD meta-model to better support assessment activities thanks to workflow management systems considering four aspects: organizational, functional, behavioral and informational.

show abstract

“…In a later paper, , point out the importance of using the same peer assessment system each year, so that "by year three, students know that freeloaders fail modules" (p8). Willmot and Crawford (2007) discuss a web-based self/peer assessment tool. They show that results correlate reasonably well with 'fly-on-the-wall' mentor observations as to whether students are under-or over-performing, but not so well as to the level of under/ over-performance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A ‘Fresh Eyes’ Look at Improving the Effectiveness of Engineering Group Design Projects

Kyte

2013

Engineering Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whilst there are many benefits of the use of Engineering Group Design Projects (EGDPs) in undergraduate engineering programmes, there are a number of common issues that can compromise their effectiveness as a learning medium. A study was carried out to identify such issues, which used creative thinking methods to identify ways in which they might be addressed. Focus was upon aligning project structure with that typical of industrial practicea goal enhanced by the fact that the author was from an industrial rather than an academic background. As a result, a proposed EGDP structure was developed and trialled at Plymouth University. A key feature of this structure was that the minutes of students' weekly project management meetings were recorded in a spreadsheet-based template which doubled as the project mark sheet. Each individual task recorded in the minutes was peer assessed on completion to adjust the group mark awarded by the lecturer, thus reflecting individual contributions. The trial was a resounding success with excellent student feedback. Resulting design work was of exceptional quality, and the age-old issue of non-contributing group members was effectively eliminated.

show abstract

Peer review of team marks using a web-based tool: an evaluation

Cited by 13 publications

References 4 publications

A case study of the development of WebPA: An online peer‐moderated marking tool

A case study of the development of WebPA: An online peer‐moderated marking tool

Proposal of an extension of the IMS-LD meta-model to support assessment of collaborative learning activities

A ‘Fresh Eyes’ Look at Improving the Effectiveness of Engineering Group Design Projects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About