Question 31

31. Did you utilize any student peer assessments in your course?

If yes, please describe. If no, in hindsight how do you think these might have been useful?

 

We had an informal session during part of a class both in Cortland and Anadolu what their impressions were and what their suggestions may be. They were useful to understand their level of interaction and the problems they faced in cooperating.

Not formally, but we saw that students sometimes corrected each other

ULPGC : Yes, we will definitely consider peer-assessment in a next course, above all as this kind of assessment is conducted on a regular practice in the English courses at our Faculty and as we gained some expertise in this field.

Students worked collaboratively with their globally connected partners to complete the first assignment, which required them to exchange images of their house layout. Students also worked with their institutional peers to peer review drafts of each major assignment, except the portfolio. Peer reviews were completed asynchronously as part of the asynchronous participation requirement.

Yes, students gave feedback to other students on their performances, and compositions.

No, we did not.  However, during three of the class-to-class videoconferences, students were asked to share their reflections about their intercultural communication processes. These reflections serves as self and peer assessment.

No. I (Steve) am not sure what might have come from such peer assessment but will be interested to hear of others’ experiences.

I (Irina) discussed my students' contributions to collaborative presentations in class. Other students participated in these discussions.

Since the institutions have different grading expectations, we did not utilize much peer assessment.  As a part of student final projects there was a space to discuss group dynamics and workloads.

KGU. No.

SJSU. Yes.  The student peer assessments helped students to recognize how to critique their own presentations.  However, they were not included in assessing the students’ final grade.

Yes. SJSU used the student peer evaluations when they presented their research in the class. Also, I included self-assessment as well for the presentations. I think it contributed to keeping their attention on the presentations and getting various types of comments from different perspectives.

The Kagoshima course also used the peer evaluations. The students created the video works based on the online discussions with the SJSU students. They watched each other’s work and evaluated them. All the teams received various comments from the peers.

Peer assessment was a constant at UWM because of the nature of the course--a Living Learning Community taking place in one of the student housing residences. The students lived together and worked together in an environment of constant cooperation in terms of the production of content, the overcoming of technological or technical hurdles, and the overcoming of interpersonal disagreements related to how a certain task should be completed.

Osaka U had a dedicated Teaching Assistant to provide feedback for the course, while UWM had a dedicated Residence Assistant to provide feedback and to keep things running smoothly.

In almost all online activities, students directly responded to and assessed each other’s work - the final projects were peer-reviewed with constructive critique encouraged

We did schedule a number of peer review sessions in the course, both within each section and across the globally linked sessions. Students did not grade each other, but simply offered feedback and suggestions. It was during one of these peer feedback sessions, in the fall quarter, that we encountered the most significant conflict/misunderstanding/difficulty. Looking back, we realized that part of the problem was our instructions for the assignment, and a big difference in student expectation for the purpose and type of feedback that was expected of them. (See section 10 for more details).

Peer review was a new concept for most of the ACMT students. They welcomed the idea in general, but many said at the end of the course that it was not very useful. They expressed a strong preference for feedback from the instructor on their drafts, rather than from their peers, particularly when their peer review partner was randomly assigned, either within their own section or from the RIT section.

No, the students did not assess one another’s work. However, there was lots of conversations in Dr. Aragon’s seminar about the efficacy of the Storytimed assignments and the online interactions with the American students. If anything, this attempt to internationalize the curriculum was met with some resistance by the UVIC students merely due to the other students being from a US based institution. This presented them an interesting opportunity to work with American students and some were excited and others were cautious because they had to work with American students!

The students in Dr. Gupta-Carlson’s course were interested in the opportunity to work with Canadian students, and shared in conversations on discussion forums and in e-mails with the instructor that they were surprised to encounter a negative view of Americans on the part of Canadians. Many expressed that the perspective made them more aware of how Americans and America might be perceived by others abroad.

They could have been then and they might be during our current collaboration as well, though we haven’t built anything formal into the course.

At CCC, I spoke to students informally about their experience in the COIL parts of the course, and their feelings about the process. We did not ask our students in the two different colleges to assess each other, although they often offered each other informal encouragement and feedback in audio or Facebook posts. I observed that the Actors’ College students were very generous in posting self-assessments on the Facebook page regarding their Voice and Movement work. Our students were less forthcoming with those self-assessments, although in class they often offered each other feedback. In hindsight, a formal student peer assessment might have been useful to help students focus and reflect on specifics of their International Collaboration, as well as on their experience of the class work.  

I utilize peer assessment in a classroom setting during almost every class. At the beginning the assessment is about observation, what can they see in someone else, so that they can develop an understanding of what might be happening in their own voice/body. Towards the end of the semester students are asked to informally assess the work of others with a view to increasing their voice and movement vocabulary/lexicon (how they speak about the voice and its connection to the body), to demonstrate development in their awareness of performative tasks and develop their critical/analytical skills.

No at UTEP

At VU, students were asked to submit a confidential individual report about their group work (either film or written summaries) via email. The details of the report were read only by me. My main objective for the exercise was to allay the concerns of some group members who felt that some of their peers had not contributed to the required task. The dynamics of group work was a subject that I addressed directly in class in order to promote student collegiality. Interestingly, the exercise of confidential reports was abandoned some time after. Most students worked well. 

Yes, there was an entire course module devoted to Peer Review, with a specific set of questions designed by Professor Burton for students to assess each other’s work. This was a word document questionnaire which has been attached here as a comment.