1 / 15

ALTC 2013 Writing Buddies

ALTC 2013 Writing Buddies. Parallel Session B2: Beverley Lawe, Jamie Tinney. Aim. To share experience of the ‘writing buddy’ system trialled within Design & Technology Secondary Initial Teacher Training (ITT)

parker
Download Presentation

ALTC 2013 Writing Buddies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ALTC 2013 Writing Buddies Parallel Session B2: Beverley Lawe, Jamie Tinney

  2. Aim • To share experience of the ‘writing buddy’ system trialled within Design & Technology Secondary Initial Teacher Training (ITT) • To evaluate the benefits of pre-assignment activity which engages with assessment using Learning Outcomes with students • To appraise the value of peer to peer review before submitting work for assessment

  3. The context • Prior to 2013 the PGCE in secondary education was a Level 3 default course with the option of 60 credits at Masters Level with qualified teacher status (QTS). • For September 2013 the course was revalidated and is now a PGDE with a default route of 120 Masters level credits and QTS. • The intake in terms of degree awarded has not changed significantly 35% of the intake had a 2.2 degree this year compared to 45% in 2011/12.

  4. Attainment in recent years: On the second assignment 66% passed at M level

  5. So what did we do? • Research suggests that when students are engaged in the assessment process they achieve better grades. PRICE, M. & O’DONOVAN, B (2006) • We carried out an exercise in class where the students marked/assessed anonymous work submitted at M level from a previous cohort, using a GBA assessment grid created for that assignment. • They did this with a partner so that they could discuss the work and engage with the criteria/LO’s use for assessment. • We took feedback and further discussions ensued. • Students then had an insight as to how we look for evidence against the LO’s

  6. Taking self-assessment further • Each trainee was given a buddy • The instructions were to use their buddy as an assessor prior to the assessment deadline and provide feedback to each other – this added another tier to the existing assessment & feedback plan. • Further work was carried out in sessions where students were paired with their buddy (where possible) to encourage collaborative work.

  7. The first assignment • Students worked on their first assignment before and whilst on school placement • A reminder e-mail was sent to encourage them to use their buddy before the hand-in deadline. • After the assignment had been submitted but before the next assignment was due in a ‘Survey Monkey’ was sent out to all the trainees in the cohort – several ‘chaser’ e-mails were sent to obtain a 75% response rate.

  8. Responses to survey questions All 5 said it was useful.

  9. As there is a group on 'Facebook' I just used that to answer any questions if needed. After reading my buddies essay I thought their feedback wouldn't be useful. I find it easier giving my work to peers who I am in regular contact with.

  10. Support given was useful, although very superficial. Showed me how to incorporate references into the text rather than using quotation marks.

  11. My buddy helped me look at being less descriptive and more reflective.

  12. More likely to if I can find the time. I will seek others views on my assignment - just not my buddy. I don’t think he can offer me any critical useful feedback. I will try to finish earlier to hand it to my buddy.

  13. Why would you not use your buddy for the next assignment? I am not sure how we should use them. I can't remember who it is. I don’t see a benefit working with someone who I have not got a already formed relationship with. I feel more comfortable giving work to those I am close to I don't have much confidence in my writing ability and find it embarrassing to share my work with my peers. I would sooner do bad in an assignment than have a peer reading it.

  14. Conclusions: • Uptake for the use of an assigned ‘buddy’ was low. • As teachers of the future we would expect peer assessment to be part of their classroom practice –yet many are reluctant to be part of it themselves • Those who did use their ‘Buddy’ found it beneficial • The majority probably missed out on a useful experience • Students probably need to choose their own ‘buddy’ • Work in class needs to reinforce the value of using a ‘buddy’ by modelling/encouraging good practice

  15. References: • O’DONOVAN, B, PRICE, M & RUST, C 2004) Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria, Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3) pp. 325-335 • PRICE, M. & O’DONOVAN, B 2006 Improving Performance through enhancing student understanding of criteria and feedback. In BRYAN C. & CLEGG K. Eds. Innovative Assessment in Higher Education. Routledge. London.2006 pp.100-109 • http://bejlt.brookes.ac.uk/article/assessment_standards_a_manifesto_for_change/

More Related