Peer feedback wordt binnen het hoger onderwijs steeds vaker ingezet. Helaas ontbreekt soms de gewenste diepgang. Het doel van dit project is om peer feedback op innovatieve wijze in te richten en te beoordelen.
FeedbackFruits en Wageningen University hebben daartoe een tool ontwikkeld voor fair participation grading: een eerlijke beoordeling van peer feedback. Hiermee kunnen studenten zelf hun beste bijdrages verzamelen, die vervolgens worden beoordeeld door de docent. Fair participation grading is via experimenteel onderzoek geëvalueerd. Het didactisch concept en de eerste resultaten presenteren we tijdens de SURF Onderwijsdagen.
Salient Features of India constitution especially power and functions
Betere peer feedback door het beoordelen van beste bijdrages- Cora Busstra - OWD19
1. Best Contribution Grading (BCG)
M.C. (Cora) Busstra, PhD – Wageningen University
SURF OWD2019, 5-6 nov 2019
2. Introduction
Peer review by students: in theory
Stimulates problem solving skills
Better understanding by reflecting on others & self
Practice
− Lack of critical depth
− If not graded: Participation is low
Solution
Best contribution grading (BCG)
2
This presentation
The idea of BCG
How it works in
practice
Preliminary evaluation
results
12. Review characteristics
12
Sentiment analyses: no difference
Depth/correctness of review Not yet analysed
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Exp 1 Exp 2 Exp 3
Time on Review (min)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Exp 1 Exp 2 Exp 3
Words in Review
BCG
No BCG
13. Results: students perception of BCG
13
5-point scale (disagree-agree)
Exp 1
(n=70)
Exp 2
(n=98)
Exp 3
(n=57)
BCG motivated to participate 3.5 4.0 3.4
BCG motivated to provide high quality feedback 3.8 4.1 3.6
Rubric was useful 3.9 3.5 3.6
Able to select best contributions 3.8 4.2 3.8
Fair that only best comments were graded 3.5 3.7 2.9
Recommend BCG in other courses 3.5 3.8 2.9
14. Results: effect of BCG on perception of peer review
14
Exp 1 Exp 2 Exp 3
Yes
(n=45)
No
(n=25)
Yes
(n=65)
No
(n=33)
Yes
(n=34)
No
(n=23)
Insightful to see work of others
4.1 4.2 4.2 4.3 3.9 3.6
Giving feedback improved own
understanding 4.1* 3.6 * 3.9 4.1 3.6 3.4
Quality of feedback I provided was
satisfactory 4.1 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.7 3.3
Enjoyed giving feedback
3.5 3.4 3.8 3.7 2.7 2.5
Quality of received feedback was
satisfactory
3.7 3.8 4.0 3.9 3.3 3.0
15. Teachers perception
15
“Students do not
complain about
the peer feedback
anymore”
“I have the feeling
the quality of the
peer feedback is
much higher this
year”
16. Evaluation: Lack of statistical power
● Upscaling to more students and institutions
● Low response on evaluation questionnaire
Promising results
Does it improve quality according to judgement teacher
(rubric)?
Does it work for online discussions?
For which target groups/content domain?
Conclusion
16
Increase quality of peer review or online discussion
Increase participation to peer review or online discussion
Offer a safe environment
Deliver a salable teaching method