Student Partnerships and Discussion
Peer Assessment
“When I made the shift to include descriptive feedback through feedback loops, I have seen when students apply suggestions and consider critiques offered a significant increase in quality results.” -Amber Hartwell
Background
EDER 679.33 “Leading Citizenry in the Digital Age” is an online, graduate level course in the Werklund School of Education. The course ran for its first iteration in Spring 2018 as part of an interdisciplinary four-course topic called “Leading and Learning in the Digital Age” for Graduate Programs in Education. Most students took this course after taking the three other courses in the topic together, with one additional student joining just for this one. In this initial session were 18 students, with the majority working in K-12 or adult education. This is the typical size and demographic for online graduate education courses. Amber Hartwell, a sessional instructor in the Werklund School of Education, is the course instructor and guides the students in their exploration of social networks, digital citizenship and what educational leadership looks like in the digital age. Although this is an online course, she uses the same assessment strategies in it as she does in face-to-face or blended classes. She notes that a focus on feedback, growth, and improvement can be done in any setting.
Strategies
As this was the first time this class was taught, Amber looked through all the course outlines from the other course in the four-course topic and used them to inform hers. She also collaborated with Dr. Barbara Brown, the director of Professional Graduate Programs in Education to develop the course outcomes and assessments. Her inspiration for using extensive feedback and creating effective rubrics was from several scholarly sources, including Chappuis’ (2009) text, Seven Strategies of Assessment for Learning, Bennett and Mulgrew’s (2013) resource Building Better Rubrics, Wiggins & McTighe’s (2005) Understanding by Design and the Dick and Carey Design Model (2001).
The course has several synchronous sessions, where the group gets together online using Adobe Connect, where they can interact in real time. During the first of these sessions, Amber goes through each assessment in detail and gives students the opportunity to ask questions about each task. To answer these questions, she always refers back to the rubric to ensure that responses align with the stated expectations.
Further synchronous sessions are used for peer feedback loops. The major course assessment is a proposal and project related to implementing digital leadership in a student’s given context as an educator. This is an extensive, multi-part project, so getting as much feedback as possible is extremely helpful. There are also several smaller written pieces that are assessed. Amber used the “random group generator” function in Adobe Connect to divide the students evenly into 5 breakout rooms. In these smaller groups, students are prompted to ask for specific areas for their peers to give them feedback on. The purpose of providing descriptive feedback to peers is not only to engage in constructive critique, but also to strengthen individual understanding of the assessment criteria. Being able to evaluate another person’s work gives students a more clear picture of how they will be assessed (Chappuis, 2009). Amber is able to visit into the rooms and see how students are doing. They eagerly engage in scholarly dialogue, provide insights based on their reading and experiences to each other. She was impressed with how well they used the rubrics and the intelligent suggestions they gave to one another. Here are the assignment descriptions and rubrics for the proposal and final project
It can be challenging for instructors to remain objective when evaluating written work that covers a variety of topics and is presented in different ways. Students in EDER 679.33 all come from different background and roles, so their projects focus on very different issues and ideas. When marking final submissions, Amber aligned personalized descriptive feedback with areas identified in the rubric as in need of improvement. Having thorough rubrics and clear expectations allows grading to be straightforward for Amber and fair for her students. Thanks to the extensive opportunities for feedback and the effective rubrics, students know to succeed and have chances to improve. Most students do very well and are happy with their grades.
After each session, Amber takes time to reflect on the tasks and assessments to inquire into what areas could be improved for the next iteration of the course. Revisions are based on her experiences in the course as well as feedback and suggestions provided by students. She continually makes notes on every aspect of the course. Just like her students, Amber uses feedback and experience to improve her work. The feedback-focused environment means students feel comfortable sharing suggestions with their instructor.
The biggest challenge with the course itself was that sometimes students were unable to attend the synchronous sessions. Due to the absence, they would miss an opportunity to receive peer feedback. To support these students, Amber set up an additional discussion forum in D2L where they could post their assignments and notes about what kind of feedback they were looking for. Others could asynchronously review and comment on their work.
Outcomes
Amber will continue to use this instructional design and assessment framework, modifying to fit into different learning environments and contexts. She has found it to be effective for helping students succeed. Many of her colleagues are also impressed with the caliber of her rubrics, and she is happy to share them to help others develop their own versions. She also encourages the integration of peer feedback opportunities in all classroom environments. When a clear rubric is outlined to students, they can provide good feedback to their peers. This practice reduces the amount of help Amber has to give to her students and allows them to develop a deep understanding of the grading criteria.
Because the model is research-informed and included many voices in design, she considers this method strong and in line with her constructivist teaching philosophy. Of course, as new research emerges, she will continue to reflect on the model to ensure task design and assessment practices remain relevant in the learning landscape.
-Ashley Weleschuk
