Peer marking of simulated pharmacological experiments

1
Peer marking of simulated pharmacological
experiments

• Ian Hughes
• Professor of Pharmacology Education
• Co-director LTSN Centre for Bioscience
• University of Leeds
• i.e.hughes_at_leeds.ac.uk
• http//bio.ltsn.leeds.ac.uk

2
Why is assessment important?

• Takes a large amount of staff time
• Should be integral to the learning process
• Is a spur to student work
• Helps to indicate progress to students
• Provides contact between staff/students
• Monitors student progress, identifies problems
• Satisfies current grading requirements

3
Features of good assessment

• Appropriate to the learning objectives and
  teaching methods (knowledge, skills, attitudes)
• Appropriate to the individual student
• ALWAYS has a formative element
• Open and transparent criteria
• Appeals process for those dissatisfied
• Efficient and economic
• Accurate, timely and reproducible
• Develop self-assessment skills

4
Peer assessment

• accurate
• reproducible
• efficient and timely
• related to learning objectives
• monitor student progress
• provide staff-student contact
• provide high quality feedback
• stimulate learning
• develop self-assessment abilities

?
5
Why peer assess dry-lab write-ups?

• provides full explanation
• requires better understanding
• all get the information
• develops critical evaluation
• see others mistakes and standards
• saves staff time and effort
• improves learning

6
Peer assessment of dry-lab write-ups - Hows it
done?

• explain purpose
• instructions on format additional questions
• hand-in deadline (penalty)
• all in LT (350) (penalty) - distribute at random
• explicit marking schedule distributed
• prepared explanations OHP takes 50 minutes
• total marks and sign (10 checked)
• appeals procedure

7
Prac write-ups
Peer marked
8
Mark (out of 10)
7
Acad. staff marked
6
5
1
2
3
4
Practical
number
8
What are the problems?

• is it reproducible and accurate?
• introduction and initiation
• keep silence during marking!
• students dont like it (hard work, its your job,
  some are unfair)
• marking schedules get passed on
• cheating?
• scheduling all same prac time between prac and
  marking session standard answer /data

9
What else can be peer assessed?

• wet practicals
• oral communication skills
• poster presentations
• data interpretation exercises
• information retrieval and formating
• practical skills
• long essays ??????

10
.
Communication skills
80
.
.
.
.
Academic staff mark
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
60
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
y-0.1 1.05x r0.88
.
.
.
.
.
40
40
60
80
Peer mark
11
Communication skills

• MARKING
• n44 ACADEMIC PEER
• Global mean 63.27.8
  60.26.1
• Commonality
• Top quartile 11
  10
• means.e. 77.24.8
  74.15.6
• Bottom quartile 11
  9
• means.e. 48.23.5
  44.13.9

12
Peer poster assessment

• Group A Group B Group C
• n4 n4 n4
• staff peer
• first poster 564 554 593
• staff staff staff
• second poster 674 834 785
• NOTE peer process took significantly longer
  small numbers groups not isolated 6 weeks
  between posters rest of course ongoing self
  selection of groups new method effect

13
Peer assessment of long essays

• Medical students
• 3000-4000 words
• proforma for staff and students (properly
  referenced, critical approach, evidence based
  good presentation)
• Staff mark 70.22.1
• Student mark 72.62.2
• NSD Pgt0.7

14
Peer (self) mark
Academic staff mark