It’s not fair! Facilitating Problem-based learning in larger classes with the peer assessment tool WebPA

Katherine A Jones, Lecturer, School of Biological Sciences, Bangor University

1

How can we engage students in learning in a blended environment?

“Social-media-collage02” by Yoel Ben-Avraham CC-BY-ND 2.0

2

Why PBL at the Zoo?

• Motivational

• Real-world problem

• Emphasises skills

• Short time frame

3rd year Module BNS3004 “Advances in Behaviour”3

The “Zoo based project”

4

Project planZoo data collection

dayConference

Google doc plan (10%)

Reflective questions

(0%)

Reflective questions

(30%)

Individual presentatio

n (20%)

Group project (40%)

Challenges of group marking - conflict between product and process

5

“The conference and group plan allowed at least four members of my group to do the bare minimum and get good grades off my hard work!” (Student, cohort 2013).

Is group marking “fair”?

Real-life situations associated with PBL not

always welcome…

Peer review to the rescue?

6

Pro’s Cons1

Discourages free-riding Encouragement of dominant students

Encourages reflection on process of group working Discrimination/bullying

Increased perception of fairness (for some)? Hassle for students and staff

Students in control Ethics of handing responsibility of grades to students

2014 - adding peer review “old-school” style

7

Project planZoo data collection

dayConference

Google doc plan (10%)

Reflective questions

(0%)

Reflective questions

(30%)

Individual presentatio

n (20%)

Group project (40%)

Review Review

Emphasised variety of different skills (not just who shouts the loudest). GTA’s had to process 70+ individual e-mails…

• Not practical with larger class sizes

• Students feedback indicated they wanted peer

review earlier (after plan as well)

• Allow tutor to identify and help with problems

before they escalate

• Students generally took task seriously

2014 - adding peer review “old-school” style

2015 - making peer review more streamlined

WebPA - free tool for higher education

Students fill out questions and the website does all

the calculations…

WebPA first impressions

• Free but costs IT services time

• Took a year to set-up on the server

• Not fully integrated into blackboard VLE

• Costs IT time to e-mail students log-on’s

• Limited amount of flexibility

Lack of flexibility - common technical problems

• Students being in the wrong group or not in a group

• Once the review is “live” hard to fix

• All students in group need to re-do reviews

• Excluding a particular students scores not possible post-hoc

• control firmly with the students (although I didn’t tell them this to reduce game-playing!)

How it works…First question

13

I tried to give criteria that were as objective as possible

How it works…one groups answer!

14

Variance in student scoring, despite same criteria.

Student that others score lowest adopts a “give everyone five” approach

How it works…Justification a vital part of story

15

I attended all meetings early, including arriving to the Zoo to begin our study 45 minutes before others, despite not being allowed in.

Overall a good member of the group but was very rude and condescending when I uploaded my slides, for example Y insinuated that I hadn't bothered to read other peoples posts, which I had done

X had a very hard time in this project. X was bullied and excluded by X and X. X coped extremely well in a very difficult situation. X attend all meetings and was always on time. X completed all work that was agreed.

In this one case, I did not apply peer adjustment because there was evidence of

non-inclusive behaviour

Many justification comments were full of very specific “praise”

16

A real star with statistics especially with volunteering for the part in the group work. A constantly punctual member of the group with a good motivating attitude that rubbed off on others. We all reassured each other as all were worried about public speaking.

X became increasingly helpful at the group level as we progressed through the work. While originally only suggesting an idea if asked, she took the opportunity this time to interject in a discussion with her ideas, and helped with collating the sections of work, orchestrating the use of google docs on more than one occasion. Small things like this may not have improved the quality of the work, but definitely helped the group to work more smoothly together. She was dedicated to her work, and was happy taking criticism to improve, although again was hesitant to criticize others.

X worked really well with the group, in particular she helped me restructure some of my slides when we varied the data we were focusing on. She also spent a lot of time and effort designing illustrations for her method slides.

Peer review does not solve the intrinsic problem…

17

Where power battles come to dominate group projects, no one wins - no clear “side”

to the story.

Reviewing may reduce some free-riding but also encourage extroverts?

Summary

• Would I use WebPA again?

• Yes, and I am for a field course video assignment

• Is peer review a magic bullet for problems in group work?

• No. People will be people.

• Benefits of reflection good - comments essential

• Adjustment of grades

• A carrot to fill in a survey but a stick to punish the weak?

Take home message

WebPA generally makes it more efficient to adjust group marks using peer review

BUT not time-free - still need to consider WHY

to use it…

19

Not yet run the feedback on student perceptions of

it…

References

1. Kennedy, G.J. (2005) Peer-assessment in group projects: is it worth it? Proceedings of the 7th Australasian conference on Computing education. 42, 59–65.