This case study demonstrates the use of the Workshop tool in Moodle to facilitate peer review of draft assignments in a distance learning Masters programme - MSc International Construction Management.  The students were able to upload their assignment drafts for peer review, and review other students' assignments anonymously using a set of criteria provided by the tutor. The activity was optional.

Background

 

Aims and objectives (what were you trying to do?)
 
Historically, the ICM programme has only ever offered tutor feedback on assignment drafts in the first (introductory) module. This is not ideal, and we would prefer to be in a situation where all tutors are contracted to provide detailed feedback on draft assignments. However, we felt that, while working towards a more desirable staffing solution, there was much more that we could do in order to encourage students to engage with the performance criteria, carry out a conscious comparison with their work and increase their awareness of how to improve their performance.
 
We set up a peer review activity using the Workshop tool in Moodle in order that the students could upload their assignment drafts for review, and review other students' assignments anonymously according to criteria provided by the tutor. Each student reviewed two other students' assignments, and received two reviews in return.
 
The main aim of encouraging the students to engage more consciously with the performance criteria was supported by our general aim of improving the experience of our distance learners, through increased opportunities for communication, collaboration and group work. Depending on the success of this pilot, a further direction we were initially considering was a preliminary activity where students use exemplar assignments to build up their own performance criteria. This could be run in the lead-up to the peer review activity.
What actually took place (describe what you did)?
 
The Workshop was set up with the following settings (among others):
 
 
The criterion statements or assessment elements were then entered. For Module 2 there were seven assessment elements - an example of one being "Demonstration of understanding of the involvement of multiple markets in the construction industry". A five-point scale (from Excellent to Very Poor) was provided as a means of response - students simply needed to select one of the points on the scale. Each element was also accompanied by a comment box for additional feedback, which the students were encouraged to use in a variety of ways - suggestions we gave included offering a view on how the student could improve on this assessment element, and asking a question about something a student had written in their assignment that was related to that assessment element. A comment box for general feedback was also provided to conclude the review. All seven assessment elements were given equal weighting.
 
Guidance was given to the students around ten days before the peer review workshop was launched - this was mainly regarding the aims of the activity and the potential benefits of taking part. A speciman feedback form was also made available to students so that they could see in advance what was involved, and how they would be using the criteria. Further guidance was provided at the start of the assessment period, focussing on tips for giving qualitative feedback. 
What was the role of the technology (what did the technology add?)?
 
The technology enabled students to exchange assignments anonymously and provide feedback efficiently using an online form. There was no administrative load attached to the running of the activity once it had begun - assignments were shared out and students were notified automatically. The tutor view provided a clear picture of which students had reviewed which assignments.
Outcomes

 

Were the objectives met?

The feedback received from the students on the pilot indicated that the activity had definitely increased their engagement with the performance criteria and increased the degree to which they consciously performed comparisons between the criteria and their own work. However, although most students claimed that the activity increased their awareness of how to improve their work, the feedback received indicated that there are several features of the activity that could be modified in order to meet this objective more effectively.


How did the students find it?

See the accompanying set of slides that display the student feedback received through formal module evaluation surveys and the discussion forums.

Were there any unexpected outcomes?

The analysis of the outcomes and feedback received have implications for future versions of these peer review activities, and for others who are considering implementing similar activities in their courses. These are summarised on the final four slides of the presentation (see link above).