Dr Jon Goss, Dr Alison Graham, Dr Christie Harner & Dr Sara Marsham

USING GRADEMARK TO IMPROVE FEEDBACK AND

INVOLVE STUDENTS IN THE MARKING PROCESS

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

Trialled on three types of coursework:

• BIO3020 (Bioremediation) – grant application

• MST2017 (Graduate Employability Skills for Marine Scientists – reflective log

• Electrical and Electronic Engineering – Stage 1 and 2 lab reports

• Subsequent Projects: Marine Science Essays, Biology Stage 1 lab reports

AIM ONE: TO DEVELOP CONSTRUCTIVE MARKING CRITERIA

Liaising with Careers Service on placement reflective log

criteria

Developing specific criteria for Stage 1 and Stage 2 essays

(in which Stage 2 skills build on

Stage 1)

Development of marking criteria

for grant application

Focus group to figure out what students know

about lab reports

New set of lab report criteria

for Stage One

BIO1004 – 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

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)

BIO3020 – MARKING CRITERIA SESSION

STAGE 1 ELECTRICAL ENGINEERINGResults Feedback Example #1:Results were aptly obtained in most of the section of the experiment. However, with filters there weren’t enough readings/observations to plot the frequency response completely. The cut off frequency deducted from the oscilloscope has to be compared with the -3db cut off frequency obtained from the frequency response.

Results Feedback Example #2:Not all of the results were presented in the report, and some were poorly presented. You should only use the appendix to present secondary results.

MST2017 – MARKING CRITERIA SESSION

Structured differently – had three examples of reflective essays (a 1st, a 2:1 and a 2:2). We first discussed the criteria. Students then worked in groups, using the criteria, to rank each of the examples. We then discussed the three exemplars, against the criteria, as a group.

AIMS THREE AND FOUR: USE GRADEMARK TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK LINKED TO MARKING

CRITERIA

GradeMark is:• Part of Turnitin software, accessed at Newcastle University through

Blackboard

• A platform through which students submit coursework online as Word document or PDF

• 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

STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE – BIO3020

STUDENT FEEDBACK – MST2017

OUR REFLECTIONS ON THE PROJECT

Benefits for students: 1) feedback is easier to read and is automatically saved online; 2) students can access feedback in private and on their own time; 3) more positive feedback; 4) increased perceptions of fairness with

rubric; 5) more detailed

Benefits for staff: 1) No printing/scanning for retention; 2) Linked to originality check; 3) More detailed comments with less work; 4) Library bank of comments helps to avoid repetition; 5) Easy record of submission and return of

feedback

HEA STEM-Funded Workshop, 30 November 2013‘Assessment and student dialogue: can online platforms use marking

criteria and other tools to improve feedback and engage students in the marking process?’