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.
IntroductionThis paper focuses on the student experience of peer review of team projects in a first year undergraduate module at Loughborough University Business School. A peer review mechanism has been used for a number of years (Pond et al., 1995) to help discriminate between team members' performance. It evolved from a paper-based system, following the design suggested AbstractPeer review of students is a partial response to critics of group work who cite drawbacks of "free riders" and de-motivation. It is often used to motivate and focus students on their own development within a group work setting. Pressures of time, budget and student numbers often obviate deeper study of alternative assessment techniques. The study reported in this paper, made possible by an HEA grant, allowed for analysis of a peer review mechanism that had been operating for a number of years alongside a new web-based system.The paper reviews criticisms of peer review techniques in existing literature and outlines how student experiences of peer review were researched. Qualitative outcomes are discussed alongside an analysis of quantitative data from the systems used.Key conclusions from this research are that the data collection method made no significant difference to the reported student experiences of peer review or to the peer review marks. The findings update and strengthen previous literature and provide important new insights into the emotional perspective of students. The findings from this research are being used to aid development of the webbased system and to establish 'good practice' guidance on the deployment of this valuable and innovative technique. by Goldfinch and Raeside (1990) and used annually since 1998, to a web-based mechanism (Willmot and Crawford, 2004), used for the first time in 2004/05. The paper describes a specific module where peer review has been deployed and reviews the extant literature on peer review systems, paying particular attention to criticisms of such assessment techniques. The paper goes on to outline a research methodology whereby student perspectives and experiences of peer review were collected. The outcomes of the focus group methodology are then discussed alongside a brief analysis of quantitative data from the peer review systems used. Keywords
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.