Title: How EdTech can help in peer review for transversal skills
Author: Monica Ward, School of Computing, Dublin City University
Track: Research
Topic: Assessment and Feedback in the Digital Age
Keywords: Peer review, educational technologies, rubrics, exemplars, text analysis
Introduction
Transversal skills are key 21st century skills, but they can be difficult to teach to reluctant students. Formative or low-stakes assessment is an important tool in the teaching and learning of writing. Peer feedback on strengths, weaknesses and tips on improvement can support the learning process Falchikov (1996) and Dochy et al. (1999) include it in their assessment guidelines.
Methodology
This paper reports on a writing component of an intensive transversal skills module at undergraduate level for STEM students (n=70). Students are expected to write a draft report (500 words, 2 days) which they analyse using online text analysis tools. They revise their draft and it is reviewed by a peer and the feedback received is used to improve the final version of the paper (1000 words). Several educational technologies were used to make the process of peer review more efficient, effective and feasible for both lecturers and students. These included a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), an online rubric for the assignment and an online bulletin board (Padlet). The students uploaded their draft reports to the VLE and also brought a hard copy into class. Online exemplars are provided and students are asked to critique and assess these exemplars so that they get a good sense of what is expected of them and to prime them for the peer review process. Students are also shown how to provide constructive feedback to their peers. Students manually provided feedback to their peers. They also posted their comments on the online bulletin board for communal review and lecturer oversight. Students can see commonalities and learn from others’ comments also.
Findings and Discussion
Students were asked to reflect on the peer review process as part of their submission and the feedback was overwhelming positive (“I found the peer review very helpful in guiding me”, “It’s good to see the correction process from a lecturer’s perspective”, “Having others read it helps pointing out your shortcomings”). Many commented that the process of reviewing another person’s work helped them to review their own work as well (“In the act of reviewing, the peer-review reader further develops his/her own revision skills”) and this echoes with the literature in this area (Lundstrom and Baker, 2009). This peer review process engaged the students in multiple acts of evaluative judgement and enhanced their capacity to produce feedback an important yet under-fostered graduate skill and aligns with findings from Nicol et al., (2014).
Reference
Dochy, F.J.R.C., Segers, M. and Sluijsmans, D., 1999. The use of self-, peer and co-assessment in higher education: A review. Studies in Higher education, 24(3), pp.331-350.
Falchikov, N., 1996. Improving learning through critical peer feedback and reflection. In Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in Higher Education. Proceedings of HERDSA Conference.
Lundstrom, K. and Baker, W., 2009. To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer's own writing. Journal of second language writing, 18(1), pp.30-43.
Nicol, D., Thomson, A. and Breslin, C., 2014. Rethinking feedback practices in higher education: a peer review perspective. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(1), pp.102-122.
Topics: Assessment and Feedback in a Digital Age , Topics: Digital Technologies in Disciplinary Contexts
