Enhancing Student Learning Through Innovative Scholarship Conference 2015

1. +
Using GradeMark to
improve feedback
and engage students
in the marking
process
Dr Alison Graham, Dr Sara
Marsham and Dr Christie Harner
Enhancing
Student Learning
Through
Innovative
Scholarship
Conference
16th - 17th July
2015

2. + Aims of ProjectInitial aims: To engage students in the
entire marking process from the setting
of marking criteria through the receipt
and feed-forward application of
feedback
• To write/design effective marking
criteria that are specific to pieces of
work.
• To engage students in the process of
using marking criteria in preparation
for an assignment
• To provide feedback on coursework
that links directly to marking criteria
• Use GradeMark to develop libraries of
feedback comments that can function
much like dialogue with students
Implicit questions in our
original proposal:
1. Can we involve students
in writing marking
criteria?
2. What do students already
know about marking
criteria?
3. Can typed (even
repeated!) comments
work like a dialogue? Will
students recognise this?

3. +Bioremediation (Biology Level
6)/Reflective log (Marine Science
Level 5)/Microbiology (Biology
Level 4)
Aim 1:Write new marking criteria
Understand
students’ prior
knowledge/create
new assignment.
Write new
marking criteria.
(based on
student
knowledge).
Engage
students
with
criteria.

4. +Aim Two: Engaging students with
marking criteria
Objective #1 – to help students
understand the wording in the
marking criteria
Objective #2 – to encourage
students to start differentiating
between the descriptions of
different grade boundaries and
spotting what will help them to
achieve high marks
Objective #3 – to engage
students in the practice of peer
marking (marking existing
student work against the set of
criteria)

5. +
BIO3020 – Marking criteria session

6. +
MST2017 – Marking criteria session
1 2 3 4 5 6
34%
59%
7%
0%0%0%
1. 1, 2, 3
2. 1, 3, 2
3. 2, 1, 3
4. 2, 3, 1
5. 3, 1, 2
6. 3, 2, 1
1 2 3 4 5 6
0%
36%
0%
12%
52%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6
17%
25%
8%
4%
8%
38%
1, 3, 2

3, 1, 2

1, 2, 3

Situation/Task Action Result

7. +
MST2017 – Marking criteria session

8. +
BIO1004 – Lab report focus group
If students do not know what a ‘scientific paper’ is, and have never read a
peer-reviewed article, then how can the marking criteria be used to
make expectations clear?
I have read a research paper
published in a peer-reviewed
journal.
1. Yes
2. I’ve read some but
found them difficult
to understand
3. No
4. I’m not sure what
you mean by a
peer-reviewed
journal
Write your report “in the format of
a scientific paper” – do you know
what this means?
1. Yes
2. No
3. To some
extent

9. +
BIO1004 – Marking criteria session
1. 0-39%
2. 40-49%
3. 50-59%
4. 60-69%
5. 70-100%
Into what grade boundary would
results example 1 fall?
Which title scored the
highest?
1. Example 1
2. Example 2
3. Example 3

10. +Aims Three and Four: Use Grademark to provide
feedback linked to marking criteria
GradeMark is:
• Part of Turnitin software, accessed at Newcastle University through
Blackboard
• A platform through which students submit coursework online as Word
document or PDF (or in other file formats)
• A platform through which markers can provide three types of feedback:
o In-text comments: Bubble comments,Text comments, QuickMark
comments
o Rubric
o General comments:Voice comments and Text comments

11. +
Library comment
Text comment
Bubble comment
Final comment
Using GradeMark:Types of Comments

12. +
Add
assignment-
specific,
module-
specific,
School or
Faculty-wide
marking
criteria
Mark each piece
of work according
to the rubric; use
qualitatively or
quantitatively
GradeMark: Using the rubric

13. +
Student feedback – MST2017

14. +
Student questionnaire – BIO3020

15. +
Our final reflections
Continued development of marking criteria and integration of criteria into
additional modules.
Further thought on what information/activities help students engage with the
assessment process.
Managing the challenges of staff and student engagement.
Can students be engaged to write the marking criteria themselves?
What is the balance between in-class time and independent engagement?