- Thoughts about how it would work in a lesson:
- Supply students with “well-defined instructor-established criteria
- Have student post work to be reviewed in a public, class-accessible space.
- Reviewers (4 is best) look at work based and give feedback based on the specific criteria. In order for the feedback to be anonymous, it must go through another format. What could that be? Should it go through the teacher and be sent to the student? Anon is best and can be most brutal! TurnItIn and StudySunc are two platforms that support double-blind reviews. Both cost money. Alternative, reviewer sends to teacher who sends to reviewee.
- After corrections/adjustments, student work is resubmitted and re-evaluated by same team.
- Multiple purposes because, not only does the students get the feedback, they are able to look at other student work and learn from others. They are giving diagnoses, being informative, getting information, allowed to adjust their work and resubmit, then the same group re-evaluates for a summative assessment.
Link to lesson:
Helpful resources found this week:
Bostock, S. (2000) “Student Peer Assessment.” The Higher Education Academy.
Looney, J. “Making it Happen: Formative Assessment and Educational Technologies.” Assessment Network.
Vega, V. (2014) “Comprehensive Assessment Research Review.” Edutopia.
Rubistar rubric maker. http://rubistar.4teachers.org/index.php