For this featured use-case, we will elaborate on how a professor at Oslo Metropolitan University has set up a combination of self-assessment and peer-review. Pedagogical elaboration of why this combination is valuable is explained in the next blog post ‘The Impact of Self- and Peer-Grading on Student Learning’.
The actual OsloMet set up:
After listening to a podcast (ironically enough about learning technology) students subsequently, are asked to hand in their written understanding of how technology can enhance learning and a learning environment. With regard to the Bloom taxonomy, student learning activities in this phase are mainly about understanding and analysing.
After submission, each individual must give feedback to at least two fellow students within predefined groups (FeedbackFruits setting: review individually within groups). Peer feedback is then provided on the written understanding of other students. In order to assure constructive feedback, the teacher shares three unambiguous criteria (with a 7pt Likert scale). Ambiguity is avoided by a small detailed description for each criterion. Students use these criteria to assess others and provide at least two qualitative (inline) comments for each criteria. After students reviewed the work of their peers, they also had to write a self-assessment/reflection on their own work.
Finally, when all feedback is given and received, each student should enter a brief reflection (max 200-300 words) based on what they have learned from the feedback.
A survey still needs to be conducted about how much has been learned by students while engaging in the activity.
- 70% of the students (n=32) took part in this formative activity
- In the reflection step (step 4), the ratio of ‘comments reflected on’ / ‘feedback comments received’ was 88%. This indicates that students actively reflected on the feedback they received
- Time spent has a wide range between 20 – 120 mins