USING GRADEMARK TO
IMPROVE FEEDBACK AND
INVOLVE STUDENTS IN THE
MARKING PROCESS
Dr Jon Goss,
Dr Alison
Graham,
Dr Christie
Harner &
Dr Sara
Mar sham
Aims of Project
Initial aims: To engage students in the entire marking
process from the setting of marking criteria through the
receipt and feed-forward application of feedback
• To write/design effective marking criteria that are
specific to pieces of work
Trialled on three types
of coursework:
•
BIO3020
(Bioremediation) –
grant application
•
MST2017
(Graduate
Employability Skills
for Marine
Scientists –
reflective log
•
Electrical and
Electronic
Engineering –
Stage 1 and 2 lab
reports
•
Subsequent
Projects: Marine
Science Essays,
Biology Stage 1 lab
reports
• To engage students in the process of using marking
criteria in preparation for an assignment
• To provide feedback on coursework that links directly to
marking criteria
• Use GradeMark to develop libraries of feedback
comments that can function much like dialogue with
students
AIM ONE: TO DEVELOP CONSTRUCTIVE
MARKING CRITERIA
Liaising with
Careers Service on
placement reflective
log criteria
Development of
marking criteria for
grant application
Developing specific
criteria for Stage 1
and Stage 2 essays
(in which Stage 2
skills build on Stage
1)
Focus group to
figure out what
students know
about lab reports
New set of
lab report
criteria for
Stage One
BIO1004 – LAB REPORT FOCUS GROUP
If students do not know what a ‘scientific paper’ is, and have never read a peerreviewed article, then how can the marking criteria be used to make expectations
clear?
AIM TWO: ENGAGING STUDENTS WITH
MARKING CRITERIA
Objective #1 – to help students
understand the wording in the
marking criteria
Objective #2 – to encourage
students to start differentiating
between the descriptions of
different grade boundaries and
spotting what will help them to
achieve high marks
Objective #3 – to engage
students in the practice of peer
marking (marking existing
student work against the set of
criteria)
BIO3020 – MARKING CRITERIA SESSION
STAGE 1 ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
Results Feedback Example #1:
Results were aptly obtained in most
of the section of the experiment.
However, with filters there weren’t
enough readings/observations to
plot the frequency response
completely. The cut off frequency
deducted from the oscilloscope has
to be compared with the -3db cut
off frequency obtained from the
frequency response.
Results Feedback Example #2:
Not all of the results were presented
in the report, and some were poorly
presented. You should only use the
appendix to present secondary
results.
MST2017 – MARKING CRITERIA SESSION
Structured differently – had three examples of reflective essays (a 1st, a 2:1 and a
2:2). We first discussed the criteria. Students then worked in groups, using the
criteria, to rank each of the examples. We then discussed the three exemplars,
against the criteria, as a group.
AIMS THREE AND FOUR: USE GRADEMARK TO
PROVIDE FEEDBACK LINKED TO MARKING CRITERIA
GradeMark is:
• Part of Turnitin software, accessed at Newcastle University through Blackboard
• A platform through which students submit coursework online as Word document
or PDF
• A platform through which markers can provide three types of feedback:
o In-text comments: Bubble comments, Text comments, QuickMark comments
o Rubric
o General comments: Voice comments and Text comments
STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE – BIO3020
STUDENT FEEDBACK – MST2017
OUR REFLECTIONS ON THE PROJECT
Benefits for students:
1) feedback is easier to read and is automatically saved online; 2) students can
access feedback in private and on their own time; 3) more positive feedback; 4)
increased perceptions of fairness with rubric; 5) more detailed
Benefits for staff:
1) No printing/scanning for retention; 2) Linked to originality check; 3) More detailed
comments with less work; 4) Library bank of comments helps to avoid repetition; 5)
Easy record of submission and return of feedback
HEA STEM-Funded Workshop, 30 November 2013
‘Assessment and student dialogue: can online platforms use marking criteria and other
tools to improve feedback and engage students in the marking process?’