1 / 5

Peer Assessment of Student Talks in Micro

Improve student learning and engagement with peer assessment of talks in micro class. Receive instant feedback, foster critical thinking, encourage cooperation, and simplify grading using a public rubric on LMS. Pros and cons explored, along with data showing the effectiveness of peer grading. Optimize student presentations and learning outcomes today!

alec
Download Presentation

Peer Assessment of Student Talks in Micro

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. Peer Assessment of Student Talks in Micro Bruce C Hartman, Ph.D. ABS School of Maritime Policy and Management California State University Maritime Bruce Hartman, CSU Maritime

  2. Overview • Who? Student teams in soph Micro class. • What? Brief talk on subject from text (but not covered in class). • When? Where? Preso: class. Review: moodle. • How? Peer review + instant feedback. • Public rubric. • Use LMS (moodle quiz) • Why? Simplify grading, oral critical thinking, more interesting! Bruce Hartman, CSU Maritime

  3. Pros and Cons - + • Pros • Easy scoring • Critical thinking • Student talk skills • Teaches cooperation • In-depth learning transfers • Strong help weak • Cons • Fouls up moodlegradebook • Rubric  grade • Team members get same grade • Free rider problem • ¿Students grade too high? Bruce Hartman, CSU Maritime

  4. Results • Sample output. Average is grade for team. • H1: Peer grading produces higher grades than instructor grading. • H0: NOT! • 3 years of data ‘fail to reject’ null hypothesis. • Y1: Peer score a % of total grade on talk. • Y2: Regraded ones I thought were off. Lasted 2 rounds! • Y3: Don’t bother grading myself anymore! • Instant reviews are helpful! Bruce Hartman, CSU Maritime

  5. Questions? Thanks! Bruce Hartman, CSU Maritime

More Related