Newcastle University Innovation Fund Dissemination Event 2013

1. Dr Jon Goss,
Dr Alison
Graham,
Dr Christie
Harner &
Dr Sara
Marsham
USING GRADEMARK TO
IMPROVE FEEDBACK AND
INVOLVE STUDENTS IN THE
MARKING PROCESS

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
Trialled on three types
of coursework:
• BIO3020
(Bioremediation) –
grant application
• MST2017
(Graduate
Employability Skills
for Marine
Scientists –
reflective log
• Electrical and
Electronic
Engineering –
Stage 1 and 2 lab
reports
• Subsequent
Projects: Marine
Science Essays,
Biology Stage 1 lab
reports

3. AIM ONE: TO DEVELOP CONSTRUCTIVE
MARKING CRITERIA
Liaising with
Careers Service on
placement reflective
log criteria
Developing specific
criteria for Stage 1
and Stage 2 essays
(in which Stage 2
skills build on Stage
1)
Development of
marking criteria for
grant application
Focus group to
figure out what
students know
about lab reports
New set of
lab report
criteria for
Stage One

4. 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?

5. 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)

6. BIO3020 – MARKING CRITERIA SESSION

7. STAGE 1 ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
Results Feedback Example #1:
Results were aptly obtained in most
of the section of the experiment.
However, with filters there weren’t
enough readings/observations to
plot the frequency response
completely. The cut off frequency
deducted from the oscilloscope has
to be compared with the -3db cut
off frequency obtained from the
frequency response.
Results Feedback Example #2:
Not all of the results were presented
in the report, and some were poorly
presented. You should only use the
appendix to present secondary
results.

8. MST2017 – MARKING CRITERIA SESSION
Structured differently – had three examples of reflective essays (a 1st, a 2:1 and a
2:2). We first discussed the criteria. Students then worked in groups, using the
criteria, to rank each of the examples. We then discussed the three exemplars,
against the criteria, as a group.

9. 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
• 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

10. STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE – BIO3020

11. STUDENT FEEDBACK – MST2017

12. OUR REFLECTIONS ON THE PROJECT
Benefits for students:
1) feedback is easier to read and is automatically saved online; 2) students can
access feedback in private and on their own time; 3) more positive feedback; 4)
increased perceptions of fairness with rubric; 5) more detailed
Benefits for staff:
1) No printing/scanning for retention; 2) Linked to originality check; 3) More detailed
comments with less work; 4) Library bank of comments helps to avoid repetition; 5)
Easy record of submission and return of feedback

13. HEA STEM-Funded Workshop, 30 November 2013
‘Assessment and student dialogue: can online platforms use marking criteria and other
tools to improve feedback and engage students in the marking process?’