Peer to Peer Assessment Assignment Evaluation
Assignments: Two assignments were used for this project, one research paper for two sections of Human Relations in Organizations (one face to face, one WebCT) and one lower stakes assignment for extra credit in Real Estate Practice. I met with Joy Hedrick September 15, 2008 to initially review the selected assignments. Several changes were made to each that included: Human Relations 1. More descriptive instructions on the formatting section. 2. Placing the due dates at the beginning of the instructions page. 3. Reformatting and rewording the topic selections. 4. Setting aside a day for Tammy Welsh to come to the class (in the face to face class) to speak to the students about resources for the paper; correctly formatting, where to find scholarly resources and plagiarism. 5. Providing models to the students, as well as the grading rubric that would be used. Real Estate: 1. Reformatting the assignment (important things in bold). 2. Providing the grading rubric and models. Results: Human Relations Face to face: Of the 21 students enrolled in the class, 19 were active participants and turned work in. Of those 19, 15 students submitted research papers: High score = 100 100-90 = 9 Low score = 73 80 – 89 = 5 Average = 90.133 70 – 79 = 1 60 – 69 = 0 This compared to the class from Spring 2008, composed of 25 students, 20 active participants, with 20 submitted papers: High score = 97 100 – 90 = 4 Low score = 68 80 – 89 = 9 Average = 82.7 70 – 79 = 5 60 – 69 = 2
Analysis: While the number of papers submitted was lower, I believe that was due in part to the class composition. Of the submitted work, the average score increased by 7.433 points. WebCT: Of the 21 students enrolled in the class, 13 papers were submitted: High score = 100 100 – 90 = 9 Low score = 74 80 – 89 = 3 Average = 92.38 70 – 79 = 1 This compared to the WebCT class from Spring 2008, composed of 19 students, with 13 papers submitted: High score = 100 100 – 90 = 6 Low score = 40 80 – 89 = 5 Average = 85.76 70 – 79 = 1 69 or less = 1 Analysis: Of the submitted work, the average score increased by 6.62 points. Real estate: Of the 10 students enrolled in the class, 8 did the extra credit assignment and 4 received full points (50 points), while the other 4 received between 44 and 50 points. Average for the class was 47.75. In previous semesters, on average 62.7% of the students took advantage of this opportunity. Of the 8 students from for Spring 2008 who did submit extra credit, 2 received full points and the class average was 40.6. Reflection This was an extremely worthwhile exercise. Not only did the quality of student work improve, my assignments were more focused and thoughtful. There were numerous qualitative improvements in the assignments. I broke the research paper into four submission deadlines; topic selection, resources, rough draft and final paper. In addition, I provided models and I believe that was extremely important to the students. I will be making several changes next semester. One of the interesting things that I discovered after reviewing the data, was the students in my WebCT class responded better to the interim dates that were set. When I looked back, it was obvious that they responded because at each step there were additional points associated with submissions. In my face to face class, I did not assign points, so the students were by and large not as responsive. I will be assigning points at all interim steps. Another change will be requiring all sources to be annotated. I had one student turn in her sources in an annotated format and have asked her permission for future classes to use it as a model.
I appreciated Joy Hedrick’s input immensely. It was helpful looking over her assignment and I learned several things from doing that. Being very honest with each other was crucial to the success of this project. Joy’s projects were high stakes, but not research papers. We did speak at length about her inability to use an exact model for some assignments, and I suggested that she use an approximate model. I would like to continue this process with her and perhaps enlist another colleague from my department to participate in this process. The more eyes we can have looking at these projects, the more we all will improve. The Student-Assessment of Assignment Instructions was quite effective at keeping me on track! Once I knew what I would be rated on, I focused on making sure that those items were addressed. The Human Relations classes responded with “Yes” on all items, except one student that responded “No” to purpose and audience. I wonder if this form could be revised on an individual basis to remove those items that might not apply and add items that we would be stressing.