The document discusses a project that aimed to engage students in the marking process through the use of GradeMark. It describes how the researchers worked with students to develop marking criteria and provided feedback linked directly to the criteria using GradeMark's commenting tools. Students provided feedback indicating that the detailed criteria and formative comments helped them to understand expectations and improve. The researchers plan to continue refining criteria development and integrating it across more modules, and have additional questions about best practices for criteria writing and engaging students in the process.

1. +
Using GradeMark to
improve feedback
and engage students
in the marking
process
Dr Alison Graham
School of Biology
alison.graham@ncl.ac.uk
Dr Sara Marsham
School of Marine Science & Technology,
sara.marsham@ncl.ac.uk
Horizons in
STEM Higher
Education
Conference
30th June - 1st
July 2016
@alisonigraham
@sara_marine

2. + 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?

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. +Bioremediation - Marking criteria session

6. +
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

7. +
Reflective log - Marking criteria session

8. +
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?
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. +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

11. +
GradeMark
 Go to Assessment inbox
 See submissions, similarity score
and marks (once graded) for the
whole class
 Check if student has viewed their
feedback

12. +
Library comment
Text comment
Bubble comment
Final
comment
Using GradeMark:Types of Comments

14. +
Add a bubble comment

15. +
Add a bubble comment

16. +
Add a text comment

18. +
QuickMarks

19. +
QuickMarks
Making QuickMarks individual

20. +
QuickMarks

21. +
Highlighting/colour-coding

22. + 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

23. +
Turning criteria into comments
S/T
A
R
1 2 3 4 5 6

24. +
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

25. +
Mark work using criteria

26. +
Final general comments
 Voice (up to three minutes)
 Text (up to 5,000 characters)

27. +
Final mark

28. +
Activity
 Using the example assessment and the comment
library provided,‘mark’ the example assessment
with the library comments
 Try to make library comments individual to the
student
 Practice adding bubble and text comments
 Assign each criterion a grade using the rubric
 Consider including final comments using either
text and audio

29. +
Activity
Using either the marking criteria provided,
or your own criteria, create a series of
assessment-specific comments
Include comments to show:
How the student has achieved a grade
boundary for a specific criterion
What the student needed to improve to
achieve the next grade boundary

30. +
Student feedback - Reflective log

31. +
Student questionnaire - Bioremediation

32. +
Our 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?

33. +
Thank you for your
participation
Any questions?
Dr Alison Graham
School of Biology
alison.graham@ncl.ac.uk
Dr Sara Marsham
School of Marine Science & Technology,
sara.marsham@ncl.ac.uk
Horizons in
STEM Higher
Education
Conference
30th June - 1st
July 2016
@alisonigraham
@sara_marine
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