Formative Peer Assessment in Biopsychology

1. FormativePeer Assessmentin Biopsychology Dr Martin Sharp and Dr Laura Mitchell

2. Background • Excellent grades but no evidence of learning • Made me reflect on relationship and my own practice • Over-teaching • Direct transmission model • Strategic learners • Deep/surface approaches to learning • Support vs. challenge • Relationship between learning/teaching/assessment is not straightforward

3. Assessment • Guides learning and not…teaching • Widely accepted that assessment tends to shape much of what students learn ‘Assessment defines what students regard as important, how they spend their time, and how they come to see themselves as students’ (Brown and Knight, 1994, p.12) ‘To the teacher, assessment is at the end of the teaching-learning sequence of events, but to the student it is at the beginning’ (Biggs, 1999, p141).

4. Assessment • National Student Survey – least satisfied with assessment and feedback • 123 institutions – ‘For a substantial number of institutions, further work in the development of assessment arrangements was judged either advisable or desired’ (QAA, 2006b, p.13) • Fundamental part of what we do in a professional capacity

5. Currently, the majority of assessment in the GCU psychology programme is summative Summative not traditionally regarded as having any intrinsic learning value. Simply generates a grade which reflects student performance • Hounsell et al. (2005) comment on the challenges faced when confronted with the modularisation of courses in which compression of assessment invariably means that: ‘assignments tend to be crowded towards the end of the course, leaving students with little or no scope to benefit from a tutor’s feedback on their work’ (p.3).

6. Has been a ‘resurgence of interest in formative assessment’. • This type of learning, which assists students as they are engaging in the process of learning (i.e. assessing ‘for’ learning), is summed up by Sadler (1989): ‘…students have to be able to judge the quality of what they are producing and be able to regulate what they are doing during the doing of it’ (p.121).

7. Formative peer assessment regimen, grounded in a robust pedagogical literature involves students not only as passive recipients of summative grades but as independent learners who are able to generate and set criteria (Biggs, 1999) • Moreover, in making judgments about the work of others, students are able to gain insight into their own performance. • Formative Assessment takes many forms.

8. Benefits of Peer Assessment • Peer assessment - aims to improve the quality of learning and facilitate the development of autonomous learners (McDowell and Mowl, 1996) • By eliminating the stamp of authority & introducing diverse, possibly conflicting feedback, students are required to exercise their critical judgment in deciding what information to accept and reject. • As Brown, Rust and Gibbs, (1994) note, peer-assessment can aid students in developing the ability to make critical judgments about themselves and others, which is a necessary skill for university study and professional life. • Van der Berg (2006) suggested: students who actively engage in peer assessment on the whole produce better structured interaction and effective ways of organizing their written work and assessment.

9. The Module • Biopsychology and Neuroscience – CW 50% / Exam 50% • Level 3, semester B • Large Cohort: 130+ students • 84% female, 77% under 25 • Wide range of backgrounds • Entry from different disciplines • Not especially interested in biology of behaviour • Multiple lab reports – don’t improve

10. Our Intervention • Complete biologically based experiment • Submit formative lab report –3000 words • Peer mark report and provide constructive feedback • Return report and feedback – have to engage • Meet to discuss feedback • Re-write and submit as summative • include: formative report, feedback, pro forma

11. Formative peer assessment should begin with • ‘Building students’ knowledge of how and why assessment takes the form it does, raising awareness of ongoing as well as final processes, and revealing how critical thinking about assessment is an integral part of the learning process…’ (Smyth, 2004, p.370).

12. Parallel Seminar Series • Discussion of what assessment entails - debate - pros/cons, address real student concerns • How to engage with it • How to provide feedback • Assess a lab report • in toto • each individual section • groups present to other groups • grade for each section and then total • tutor grade • Negotiate a final grade, discuss process and unify feedback with grade

13. Current Progress • Undergone three iterations • How was it received given resistance to tasks without an explicit summative grade?

20. Challenges • Not subject specialists • Parallel tutorial sessions goes some way towards equipping...and exploring issues • By eliminating the stamp of authority & introducing diverse, possibly conflicting feedback, students are required to exercise their critical judgment in deciding what information to accept and reject. • Don’t want to do it if it doesn’t count towards grade • Echoes MacLellan (2000): Students thought assessment was more about grading and had very little to do with improving their own learning • Partner didn’t put effort into feedback

21. Potential to copy – no trust • against notion of shared scholarship • summative reports marked in corresponding pairs • Some students handing in sub-standard work • frustrating, but, might not be that critical • Structure/timing of submission

22. Summary • Assessment is important • Difficult to get right • Introduction of a formative, peer assessed lab report • Well received • Not without challenges • Roll out earlier and in different format

23. Key References Biggs, J. B. (1999) Teaching for Quality Learning in University, (Buckingham, Society for Research in Higher Education and Open University Press). Black, P. &William, D. (1998). Assessment and Classroom Learning. Assessment in Education. 5(1), 7-74. Brown, G., Bull, J. & Pendelbury, M. (1997). Assessing Student Learning In Higher Education. London: Rouledge. Brown, E., Gibbs, G., and Glover, C. (2003). 'Evaluating tools for investigating the impact of assessment regimes on student learning', Bioscience Education E-journal, 2-5. http://bio.ltsn.ac.uk/journal/vol2/beej-2-5.htm (accessed 14 Sept 2008). Hounsell, D., Hounsell, J., Litjens, J. & McCune, V. (2005). (Symposium). Enhancing guidance and feedback to students: findings on the impact of evidence-informed initiatives. European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI). 11th Biennial Conference, August, Nicosia, Cyprus. Marton, F. & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitative differences in learning. 1: Outcome and process. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46: 4-11. McDowell, L. and Mowl, G. 1996 Innovative assessment - its impact on students, 131-147 in Gibbs, G. (ed.) Improving student learning through assessment and evaluation, Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff Development Mutch, A. (2003). Exploring the practice of feedback. Active Learning, 4(1), ILTHE, York. Ramsden, P. (2003) Learning to Teach in Higher Education. Second Edition Routledge. Falmer London Re-Engineering Assessment Practices in Scottish Higher Education. http://www.reap.ac.uk/ (accessed 20th Sept, 2008). Sadler, D.R. (1989) Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems, Instructional Science, 18, 119-144. Smyth, K (2004) “The benefits of student learning about critical evaluation rather than being summatively judged” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education Vol 29 No. 3 pp 369-378.