marija cubric
Posts: 25
 |
| 29/05/2007 09:47 |
|
In response to Peter Kandlbinder's comment:
"Cubric prescribes a minimum contribution of 2100 words over 10 weeks. How can the quality of this contribution be determined? Should a student achieve the same grade if they consistently contribute mediocre comments compared to another student who mainly provides poor quality comments but makes one or two highly insightful comments that have
a major impact on the final work? "
The "quantity" requirement has been used more as a pre-requisite rather than assessment component i.e. a minimum 7 out of 10 weeks contributions is required.
Quality was assessed using the generic postgraduate grading criteria (clarity, criticality, use of theories, referencing etc)
In addition to that, wiki-specific criteria were used for the presentation e.g. use of internal and external links, use of images and/or media files etc.
The metaphore here is the standard exam: student A answers all 10 exam questions with mediocre quality, gets C- for each answer and passes overall with C while student B answers one question, gets A* for it but fails overall. Is it fair?
|
|
|
|
|
Lee Asher-Simpson
Posts: 9
|
| 29/05/2007 22:09 |
|
Hi again,
To develop my thesis a bit more and try to answer your question.
I suggest that a Wiki should have two components to be marked. The first part being a group mark which the teacher decides and which describes the overall quality of the result, this should be 50% of the individuals final grade. The other 50% comes from peer marking of the individuals qualitative and quantitative contribution to the final result. The peer marking should be based on a rigorous rubric that does not allow for too much speculation guesswork or goodwill on the part of the peer marker.
Students should be allowed to know the teacher evaluation of their Wiki before they perform their Peer marking in order to know how well and in what ways their work actually meet the criteria of the task, they could then use this information as a basis to inform their judgments on the merits of the contributions of their team members.
With this scenario it is possible for a student who did not contribute in a high performing group, to fail, and another student who really worked well in the same group to obtain an A+ grade. I think the Teacher should however be allowed the power to Veto peer marking over which there is dispute or which after examination of the work cannot be justified.
|
|
|
|
|
marija cubric
Posts: 25
|
| 30/05/2007 00:21 |
|
Lee, I like your idea about splitting the mark into a group mark (to encourage collaboration) and individual part. However, as you mentioned yourself, the rubric for individual (peer) marking need to be based on a "rigorous" rubric. So the question of designing that rubric remains still open.
Another point is that in my case, there was not "student's wiki". There were two components in the assessment of student's wiki work:
- weekly wiki contributions (students asked to develop answers collaboratively, but assessed individually)
- individual essays (or design documents) developed on the wiki, and commented by other students
While I have no problem in marking the second one - it is the same as for any other non-wiki piece of work I found the first one difficult (but not impossible) to mark
Hope this clarifies the original posting |
|
|
|
|
Lee Asher-Simpson
Posts: 9
|
| 30/05/2007 01:45 |
|
mcubric on 30/05/2007 00:21:09
- weekly wiki contributions (students asked to develop answers collaboratively, but assessed individually)
While I have no problem in marking the second one - it is the same as for any other non-wiki piece of work I found the first one difficult (but not impossible) to mark.
Hi Marja,
this is exactly the situation where a 50/50 weighting of contribution assessed by students, and answer assessed by teacher are most valid. Weekly occurrences give lots of practice to students in peer marking and minimize the damage that a fail contribution grade will impact on a students final grade, while still giving the failing student a chance to improve their contribution on the next weeks work.
A non contributing student should fail but it may be hard to justify that 'student marking' is the reason that an individual has failed this unit of work, to the University Proctor if there is an appeal, but thats another argument for another day.
Lee |
|
|
|
|
Lana Hibbard
Posts: 1
|
| 31/05/2007 00:28 |
|
I am planning to use a wiki assessment task for the first time in one of my subjects next semester. I can see the value of including a peer determined mark as part of the overall grade, however, I am also keen to ensure that my grading criteria is transparent and beneficial to student learning and students need to know the marking criteria at the outset of the task. I have not yet been able to develop a rubric or clear set of criteria that students can use to grade each other's work. Since I have not yet had any experience with wikis it is difficult to determine what the important aspect of collaboration may be. Can someone help with a rubric they have used?
Elsewhere in this conference topic it was suggested that teacher feedback should be given before asking students to complete the peer evaluations. Has anyone had experience to confirm that this is best practice? |
|
|
|
|
Lee Asher-Simpson
Posts: 9
|
| 31/05/2007 02:32 |
|
Hi Lana,
I haven't developed a rubric for this precise situation but I would love to work with you collaboratively in developing one as I am starting Student Wikis in about 6 weeks :-(
Here is where I'm planning to start;
1. Steps in developing a scoring rubric
http://intranet.cps.k12.il.us/Assessments/Ideas_and_Rubrics/Create_Rubric/create_rubric.html
2. Notes on Rubric Development
http://pblmm.k12.ca.us/PBLGuide/PlanAssess/RubricNotes2-97.html
3. Rubistar Choose a customisable rubric
http://rubistar.4teachers.org/index.php?screen=NewRubric&module=Rubistar&PHPSESSID=40681019f2fb770054b51356e4f516d5
Get back to me either on is forum or get my email from the delegates directory if you would like me to share with you what I am doing?
Lee |
|
|
|
|
Lee Asher-Simpson
Posts: 9
|
| 31/05/2007 05:22 |
|
>Elsewhere in this conference topic it was suggested that teacher >feedback should be given before asking students to complete the >peer evaluations
Hi Lana :-)
You raise a good point here, and I am going to quote Steven Draper in his paper "A Momentary Review of Assessment Principles" to support my position (and I was delighted to read it as well) on this point.
“It also relates to the literature showing that many students ignore expensive written formative feedback and pay attention only to their marks: formative feedback only helps students adjust content, but they need marks (or in general, measures of success) to allow them to regulate their effort.”
From this it is possible to assume that the marks received will allow the students to evaluate the "quality" of individual group members contributions, i.e high marks usually indicates high quality and vice versa.
ALSO
“They need feedback on how good their decisions on this are, and assessment should be designed to give them this information.”
My assessment is always designed to provide this type of information to students.
Hope this explains my statements, but I'm more than happy to learn if someone can refocus my thoughts or challenge my ideas.
Lee
|
|
|
|
|
kumar chandrasekar
Posts: 2
|
| 31/05/2007 06:14 |
|
| There needs a coexistence between teacher and the pupil. If the sysetm does not support the contributions of the teacher, the students will start realising the importance of the teacher and hence the quality will not be a problem. One should be considering them lucky if the quality gets noticed by the system. The national accreditation committee in India is considering such possiblities and are rewarding the quality through assessment grades to the institutions. Hence many private players are into providing incentives to teachers based on quality through peer reviewed publications and working notes. |
|
|
|
|
marija cubric
Posts: 25
|
| 31/05/2007 16:06 |
|
Hi Lana
re: rubric, I can e-mail you that one I have used, but this is not for peer assessment
Re: other question, my practise was to give group feedback every week (in class), short individual feedback in Wk3 and Wk6 and final feedback (with accompanying grade) after the module is finished |
|
|
|
|
marija cubric
Posts: 25
|
| 31/05/2007 16:11 |
|
Hi Lee
thanks for the links! Very useful.
As mentioned on the other thread - I would be interested in working together in developing a rubric for peer assessment as it seems thta there are no standard ones
Keep in touch,
Marija
|
|
|
|
|
