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.
The aim of the research was to determine the relationship between knowledge sharing and knowledge loss through creation of a conceptual model of factors affecting knowledge sharing and a conceptual toolkit, able to be used by managers as an analysis tool. A theoretical, constructive approach was taken to the research through the use of a theory-building methodology to create the conceptual model of factors affecting knowledge sharing in organisations. Empirical research was carried out using a case study at an energy infrastructure organisation in the UK through questionnaires and formal interviews to validate the model. A new conceptual model of factors affecting knowledge sharing was developed and evaluated, further improving the model. The empirical research showed validation of past literature and created additional elements to the model. The main limitation is that only one industry case study was used for empirical validation. This was due to the limited timeframe of the research, which suggests that further research should involve multiple case studies, covering a wide variety of industries. The model of factors affecting knowledge sharing allows managers to analyse their knowledge management strategies and offers suggestions of ways to reduce any risk of knowledge loss. There is a lack of conceptual models based on knowledge loss, and this paper aims to solve this issue. This will be useful to businesses, helping them to improve their knowledge management initiatives, retain knowledge and gain competitive advantage over competitors.
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.