Institute for Scholarship of Teaching and Learning at Mount Royal University, Symposium on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, November 2016

1. +
Using GradeMark to
improve feedback and
engage students in the
marking process
Dr Sara Marsham
School of Marine Science & Technology
sara.marsham@ncl.ac.uk
Dr Alison Graham
School of Biology
alison.graham@ncl.ac.uk
Symposium on
Scholarship of
Teaching and
Learning
10th - 12th
November
2016
@sara_marine
@alisonigraham

2. +

3. + Aims of Project Initial 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?

4. + 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

5. +
Microbiology - 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?

6. + Aim Two: Engaging students with
marking criteria

7. + 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)

8. +
Microbiology - Lab report tutorial session
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. + Microbiology - 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. + Bioremediation - Marking criteria session

11. +
Reflective log - 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

12. +
Reflective log - Marking criteria session

13. + Aims Three and Four: Use GradeMark to provide
feedback linked to marking criteria
GradeMark is:
• Part of Turnitin software, accessed at Newcastle University through VLE
(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

14. +
GradeMark
 Go to Assessment inbox
 See submissions, similarity score and
marks (once graded) for the whole
class
 Check if student has viewed their
feedback

15. +
Library comment
Text comment
Bubble comment
Final
comment
Using GradeMark: Types of Comments

16. +
QuickMarks

17. +
QuickMarks

18. +
Highlighting/colour-coding

19. + Mark against a rubric
Add
assignment-
specific,
module-
specific,
School or
Faculty-wide
marking
criteria
Mark each piece
of work according
to the rubric; use
qualitatively or
quantitatively

20. +
Turning criteria into comments
S/T
A
R
1 2 3 4 5 6

21. +
Creating own library
 Each comment linked to one of the criterion with letter
and number
For each component, comment on:
 How student meets criterion
 What student could have done to achieve next grade
boundary
R 4
R 5

22. +
Mark work using criteria

23. +
Final general comments
 Voice (up to three minutes)
 Text (up to 5,000 characters)

24. +
Final mark

25. +
Student feedback - Reflective log

26. +
What did the students think?
75% found it useful to have the marking criteria in advance
100% thought it was useful to see how they performed against the
marking criteria
53-100% preferred electronic feedback to feedback on a pro-forma or
mark sheet
80-100% thought electronic marking encourages more positive feedback
50-100% found the comments to be specific to the piece of work
79-100% would like to have received more electronic feedback in other
modules

27. +
Student questionnaire - Bioremediation

28. +
GradeMark analysis
 Number of students that receive different types of grammatical comments
- identify common errors e.g. punctuation
 Number of students that fall into each mark range for each criterion

29. +
GradeMark analysis
Grade range
% viewed feedback
3.5 weeks later 6.5 months
later
70-100% 84 84
60-69% 46 64
50-59% 49 51
40-49% 48 52
0-39% 14 14
• Percentage of students that viewed feedback from microbiology
report (2013-14 academic year; n = 184):
• After 3.5 weeks
• After 6.5 months

30. +
Final reflections
Benefits - students’ perspective
• Feedback is easier to read and is automatically saved online
• Students can access feedback in private and on their own time
• More positive feedback
• Increased perceptions of fairness and transparency with rubric
• More detailed
Benefits - markers’ perspective
• No printing/scanning for retention
• Linked to originality check
• More detailed comments with less work
• Library bank of comments helps to avoid repetition
• Easy record of submission and return of feedback

31. +
Final reflections & questions for you
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
Are there ‘good practice’ guidelines for writing marking criteria?
Can students be engaged to write the marking criteria themselves? If so,
what strategies can be used to engage students with criteria?
What is the balance between in-class time and independent engagement?

32. +
Thank you for listening
Any questions?
Our thanks to all
of our students
who took part and
shared their
opinions
Thanks to
Newcastle
University
Innovation Fund
for funding the
original work &
ongoing support
Dr Sara Marsham
School of Marine Science & Technology
sara.marsham@ncl.ac.uk
Dr Alison Graham
School of Biology
alison.graham@ncl.ac.uk
Symposium on
Scholarship of
Teaching and
Learning
10th - 12th
November
2016
@sara_marine
@alisonigraham
http://www.slideshare.net/SaraMarsham/presentations