Tackling 'Creeping Passivity' through Collaborative Peer Assessment: Classroom Learning Re-imagined

Importance & Key Contribution This paper describes an attempt to tackle the ‘creeping passivity’ (Cutler, 2007) of higher education students through the utilization of a novel form of student engagement and collaborative... [ view full abstract ]

Importance & Key Contribution
This paper describes an attempt to tackle the ‘creeping passivity’ (Cutler, 2007) of higher education students through the utilization of a novel form of student engagement and collaborative peer assessment in an Irish University. This form of engagement and peer assessment employs ubiquitous and inexpensive technologies to enable this collaboration and enhance student engagement and motivation. These technologies serve to illustrate the advancements that can be made within the classroom when students control their own learning and have a significant role in the assessment of their peers. A further innovation in this approach is a break with convention in the introduction of the PowerPoint-free classroom.

The approach has an incentive value for students in that engagement and peer evaluation allows increased control for learners. The attraction of the new technologies and their ease of use may have a significant appeal to students with the added benefit of this modern and ‘leading edge’ approach preparing students for the business world.

Theoretical Base
This initiative places significant emphasis on the issues of student engagement and learning. In 2001 a National student survey study by Kuh assessed what really matters to student learning and in which, not surprisingly students mentioned ‘assessments’ as core focus of their learning. The issue of assessment has always managed to resonate with students particularly at Third Level. In acknowledgement of the central importance students place on assessments, studies have been carried out to enhance student engagement through the students’ own involvement in assessments (Dancer & Kamvounias, 2005). The aim of Dancer and Kamvounias (2005) study was to fairly and reliably assess class participation. Based on this and similar studies, our research paper has advanced this understanding combining technology, student assessments and collaboration as a means to eradicate ‘creeping passivity’ at third level today.

RQ 1: Does peer and collaborative assessment boost students’ engagement with the module?

RQ2: Does peer and collaborative assessment enhance students’ motivation to learn?

In addition, this research seeks to eschew conventional technologies, namely MS PowerPoint, in an attempt to combat passivity. Despite the widespread use of PowerPoint, the ‘power’ and value of PowerPoint has been called into question by educators and practitioners alike (Tufte, 2003; Frey & Birnbaum, 2002; Savoy, Proctor & Salvendy, 2008). Acknowledging the waning power of the predictable PowerPoint at third level, over the years educators have attempted to ‘make a change’ such as to redesign the style that the PowerPoint slides take (Alley & Neeley, 2005). However, some extreme views have emerged viewing PowerPoint as ‘corrupt’ (Tufte, 2003) and as a result some educators and practitioners alike have chosen to defy the norm of the PowerPoint and to go ‘PowerPoint free’ (Adams, 2006).

RQ3. Does presenting without PowerPoint positively reduce student passivity in the classroom?

Regardless of whether an educator utilizes PowerPoint or chooses to go PowerPoint free, the ultimate goal regardless of this preference is to engage student thinking. Technology (of all forms) has emerged as one way to engage students in learning and to enhance their skillset. Technology tools such as student response systems or electronic voting systems have been used to engage students particularly in larger class size settings but ultimately to augment or enhance student learning (Draper & Brown, 2004; Latessa & Mouw, 2005). This initiative advances this notion, and utilizes a technology tool in the form of a Padlet to engage students and to test students’ ability to respond to information from other teams as part of the collaborative peer assessment.

RQ4. Does peer and collaborative assessment enhance student information handling skillsets?

The literature guides this research study and based on the above key areas of interest and the study will probe each area through a unique methodology.

Method
The sample population is final year undergraduate learners in two modules, MN321, Change Management and OD and MN317, Negotiation Skills, conducted at a third level Irish Institution. There are approximately 200 registered students between the two modules. Both modules are 5 credit events running for 12 weeks in Semester Two 2015/2016. Each class is 2 hours’ duration. The consistency of delivery is ensured as both courses are being run by the same Educator (one of the co-authors). In both modules, students are using a proprietary file sharing system, Padlet, to upload work and Survey Monkey to peer-evaluate the submissions. This process of using the Padlet has been divided into two distinct stages:

Stage 1: Introduction- Open Discussion
In week 1 the students in both classes were invited to express desires and requirements for an excellent learning module. In MN321 the students participated in an in-class exercise entitled ‘What do you think makes for a great learning module? In module MN317 (Negotiation Skills) they were invited to take part in a negotiation exercise where they negotiate an improvement to the module that would benefit their learning and which was within the ‘gift’ of the lecturer. Following consideration of the outputs of these exercises it was decided to re-imagine the classroom from the perspective of organisation, learning, attendance, engagement, participation, and assessment. It was decided not to seek full student agreement on all issues as this would have opened a Pandora’s Box.
The principles of this reorganisation included:
a. A focus on drawing the element of ‘continuous’ assessment into the classroom;
b. An emphasis on the performative aspect of demonstrating knowledge weekly;
c. An expectation of attendance, participation, and engagement through weekly
involvement in the classes;
d. A requirement to collaboratively evaluate the work of their peers;
e. An incentive system that clearly rewarded the adoption of new behaviours;
f. An eschewal of MS PowerPoint.
Stage 2: Implementation of Principles
The principles of reorganisation were then placed in writing and posted to the student forum for communication to all students in both modules from week 2 onwards (please see Appendix 1 for a copy of the Continuous Assessment process document).

The modules (which are currently being delivered) are running as follows from week 4 to week 12 – all CA activities each week attract marks:
1. A presentation by selected groups to deliver a ‘one-off’ CA ‘presentation’ (anything but PowerPoint).
2. Weekly CA poster exercises using Padlet technology.

Both of these ‘presentations’ types will be reviewed by peer groups in class with participation marks awarded to groups for engagement. The peer evaluation of ‘other group’ student’s work and performance will be carried out using Survey Monkey in class. Finally at end of term students also have the opportunity to use Sparkplus as a tool for ‘own group’ evaluation. At all stages of research, attendance in class is verified using and attendance tool, Attendance2 app.

The impact of the new approach on students based on the four research questions will be captured in three stages. The first stage will be data collated from the in-class engagement using the padlet technology in the Introduction - Open Discussion stage of the process. This will be followed up with an traditional paper based in-class survey towards the end of the implementation stage (week 10) with the option of at least two focus groups to elicit richer insight into the approach and the ‘perception’ of engagement, motivation, confidence and skill sets.

Results / Findings
As this research is currently underway at this stage we are not privy to the results or findings as yet deriving from the research questions. However, to date our analysis of learner responses have shown participants to report favorably on both the peer evaluation approach and the technology as a learning delivery mechanism. Learners have also communicated with the Educator a deeper understanding of material and a positive engagement with their classroom experience.

It is envisaged that after the 12 weeks of both modules that students will develop a critical facility from having a guided approach to the appraisal of others’ work in a safe and collaborative environment. The use of the technology tool will allow participants to build skills in creating digital portfolios of value in preparation for the world of work.

Implications/Conclusion
The sample is a convenience sample and not fully representative of all undergraduate business students or the student population in general. There is also the limitation of being located in Ireland. Future studies should extend the research to other settings. Comparisons of examination results with non-participating classes may also yield interesting results. The research showed the use of collaborative peer evaluation can be enhanced with attractive technologies. This approach is also facilitated with the availability of Wi-Fi in classrooms, Survey Monkey availability at the university, and students’ access to smartphones and similar devices. Increases in mobile technology and internet connectivity speeds are key enablers for the technology to succeed. The research suggests that in order for the technology to succeed, students must feel a part of the decision-making process.

Peer Assessment, Collaborative Assessment, Technology, Padlet, PowerPoint, Passivity, Engagement, Motivation, and Learning. TRACK: TEACHING, LEARNING & EDUCATION [ view full abstract ]

Peer Assessment, Collaborative Assessment, Technology, Padlet, PowerPoint, Passivity, Engagement, Motivation, and Learning.

TRACK:
TEACHING, LEARNING & EDUCATION