“Earth and Space” Peer Assessment Project

The background

I have been teaching two S2 classes for almost a year now. They have completed end of topic tests for each unit of work, and the grades for their reports were calculated based on their test results. Both classes have recently completed the “Earth and Space” unit, which is usually a favourite, both with pupils and teachers. I didn’t want to end the unit with a test, the result of which wouldn’t count for anything – their reports have been issued and their choices for next year made – so I decided to give them the chance to produce a project for peer assessment.

I put together a simple sheet of information, consisting of basic rules for the project and a checklist of information that should be included. I also clearly set out how it would be graded, with a grade 1 going to projects that covered all the topics on the checklist, were “very interesting and clear” and taught the reader something new (the latter was a suggestion from a pupil). Even though the focus in Assessment is for Learning is on comment-only marking, I felt that for an end of unit assessment the pupils would feel cheated if they didn’t get a grade in addition to comments, as that is what they had been used to.

The project

One of the interesting aspects to this activity was watching the different ways in which pupils applied themselves to it. Most groups opted to make a booklet or poster, but one or two made computer presentations of various kinds. I had given them two periods in class, plus whatever they wanted to do outside of class. Two periods was enough to cover everything on the checklist, and some groups did complete the project in class time, but most opted to do much more in their own time. The groups who opted to use computers used class time for planning and research, but made their presentations entirely in their own time, as I had ruled that it wasn’t fair to allow one group to use the only computer in my classroom.

The two classes approached the task in broadly different ways, too: one class seemed to focus much more on achieving the points on the checklist, and only spent time making their projects look pretty if they had the time. On the whole, they got higher grades (mostly 1s and 2s) in the final peer assessment stage. The other class seemed to be more interested in creating huge artistic pieces of work, which contained lots of information (but not always meeting the criteria on the checklist!). They achieved grades 2 and 3 in the peer assessment stage – but I wanted to acknowledge the huge amount of effort and teamwork some of them had put in, so I wrote out Positive Referrals for effort to go home.

The main problems that occurred related to the group work aspect. Even though the groups were self-selected, one group imploded spectacularly, with one pupil opting to sit the end-of-topic test instead, one coming up with a project single-handedly, and the third group member refusing to do anything at all. One or two people opted to work alone after the initial planning lesson, leaving the rest of their groups to catch up without them. One group ended up (somehow) with four members, when I’d stipulated that the limit was three. And various groups ran into problems with members being absent.

Despite the fact that there are usually a few people in these classes who hand in work late, every group had completed their project on time (although I gave an extension to one group who had been missing a member due to illness).

The peer assessment

I’d come up with a couple of simple forms for the self and peer assessment part of the project. We devoted an entire period to the assessment. First of all, I got each group to fill in a form to estimate what percentage of the work each member had done (I had told them about this right at the start, so they knew it was coming). Most groups had worked very equitably, but a few had one or two people who did much more of the work than others. Each member of the group had to agree the final percentages, which they did surprisingly easily, with no squabbling.

The main assessment involved taking another group’s project and filling in a form to assess: how many points on the checklist had been included, how clear and interesting the project was, and whether it taught the observer something new. Groups also gave a traffic light colour to the project they were assessing, as well as “two stars and a wish” and a final grade.

When the projects were handed back to their creators there was, understandably, some quibbling over grades, and I was called in to adjudicate a couple of times. Assessors were quite firm about their grades, and the usual complaint was that they were being too harsh! The main mistake groups made was not including all the knowledge and understanding required by the checklist.

Feedback

At the very end of the process, I asked each group to write on the back of their assessment sheet one thing they liked about the project, and one thing they didn’t like.

Good points included:

• It was much more fun (than a test)*
• I liked doing the project because it helped me to learn whilst doing it.
• I liked this activity because we could be social and choose whatever (format) we wanted.*
• I liked this activity because it was hands-on.
• I liked working in a team*
• I liked how it was fun and told you exactly what you needed to know about it because tests don’t always include the whole topic
• We liked designing the posters and colouring it in and also writing info
• I liked that it’s not put under as much pressure
• It was peer-assessed, and fair
• I liked making posters

Bad points included:

• It was hard to do in such little time*
• I didn’t like the fact that if someone is off in your group it makes it harder*
• We didn’t like the peer assessing!
• I would rather a test! (NB this was from a group who hadn’t included everything on the checklist, and felt their final grade was unfair)

* More than one group highlighted these points.

I collected in the projects and feedback sheets and assigned final grades. In most cases pupils got the grade their peer assessors had given to them, but in one or two cases I downgraded someone because their feedback indicated that they hadn’t pulled their weight in the group.

Conclusions

With only a few exceptions both classes preferred the project to a test, and most seemed to like the peer assessment (as long as they felt it had been done fairly). They particularly liked the group work and creative aspects. In giving them three periods (including the assessment) I tried to ensure that it took roughly the same amount of class time as a test (revision, assessment, and feedback), but there was a clear feeling that they would have liked more time.

As might be expected, many of the grades were higher than typical class test grades. I compared the pupils’ project grades to their composite grades on their S2 reports, which were based on the mean of their class test results up to that point. As a rough breakdown, out of 38 pupils in total:

• 8 (21%) got exactly the same grade.
• 9 (24%) improved their grade by one.
• 13 (34%) improved their grade by two.
• 5 (13%) improved their grade by three.
• 1 (3%) improved her grade by four.
• 2 (5%) got a slightly lower grade (one grade down).

Obviously, peer-assessed (or even teacher-assessed) projects can’t replace class tests – this project did not in any way assess individual retention of knowledge or problem-solving ability. I do, however, think that its status in replacing the end of topic test (rather than preparing for it or supplementing it) was part of the reason why most groups put in so much effort.

A caveat: the “Earth and Space” topic is one of the more engaging S2 topics, and pupils typically do well in it. I would like to try running similar projects for other topics, and other year groups.

Photo credit: Nick Hood

It was, as expected, an energising and inspiring evening. A non-exhaustive list of presentations I enjoyed included:

Krysia Smyth on “Failing Forward” – allowing free rein to pupils’ creativity and allowing them to “fail” with respect to the finished project. It’s the process, not the finished piece of work, that’s important. Reminded me of Carol Dweck’s work on mindsets.

Ian Stuart on useful open source applications. Loads to download and try out (when I declutter my hard drive so there’s space for them! One step at a time…).

Con Morris on +Glow (integrating links to  appropriate bits of Glow into existing websites and projects).

Neil Winton on using Google Aps for folio work (I’d never even heard of Google Apps before!).

Louise Henderson with some great ideas for using Glow in transition.

I’m sure there were others that I should have mentioned but that’s enough for now! I came away feeling inspired and full of ideas, and with a new people to follow on Twitter and in blogland!

]]> http://helengorman.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/teachmeet-perth-2010/feed/ 0 Helen tmperth10prezi http://helengorman.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/glow-first-impressions/ http://helengorman.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/glow-first-impressions/#comments Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:06:34 +0000 Helen http://helengorman.wordpress.com/?p=16 ]]> I’ve been interested in online learning tools for some time; I initially wanted to set up a Moodle (although I didn’t really know how – but that’s what Google’s for) but for one reason and another decided waiting for Glow was a better option (although in the meantime I have set up – and recently neglected – a blog for my Higher class). Fife is the last authority to get Glow (although I’m told our rollout is going to be very big and widespread, overtaking some of the others) and I basically pestered and begged networked and exercised my people skills until I was allowed to sign up as a Glow mentor. And on Thursday and Friday of last week I attended my Glow mentor training classes.

Lookit what I made!

I know, it’s not much use to my current Higher class (sadly) as I think they’ll have finished the course by the time they get their logins (staff aren’t getting theirs till Easter – not sure about pupils. Summer, probably). But I’ve learnt a lot while making the site about Glow groups – and, crucially, organising Glow groups.

First impressions are mixed. Glow is powerful, yes, but hard to navigate and clunky it is (sorry, showing my geeky roots here). It is difficult to find relevant groups (I can’t believe there isn’t a “groups” search yet) and I don’t quite understand why I’m automatically a member of the drama teachers’ group but not the biology one. Yet, I am very excited about Glow coming to my school. The potential for communication and discussion with pupils is immense. Being an organisation addict, I am already geeking out about having different levels of groups, each with its own discussions and links and files. And I’ve not even started to find out about Glow Learn yet!

Realistically, I think I’ll have trouble, as a mentor, convincing many members of staff that Glow is a good thing. Its innate clunkiness will instantly turn off those who need my help to send an attachment (in the unlikely event that you ever read this, you know who you are). But for those staff who are into the ICT stuff – like me – I think it’ll be a godsend.

Is it Easter yet?

A common complaint about A Curriculum For Excellence is that we simply don’t have enough time to develop schemes of work and resources for it. I’ve heard some teachers wish that there was some central development work going on so we could just get handed resources, rather than each school reinventing the wheel. I think a happy medium lies somewhere between these two extremes – after all, aCfE is supposed to allow individual teachers greater freedom, so being handed down a pre-written course from On High doesn’t make much sense from that point of view. On the other hand, there’s not much point in all schools covering the same development ground.

I wonder if Wave could be put to good use in developing new CfE resources? If there were a Wave for each subject area, for instance, and interested teachers could join the Wave and use it to develop schemes of work, activities and so on. I’m not sure how cross-curricular links would fit into this (as I said, I’m no Wave expert).

Is it worth exploring? Is someone already doing it? How could it work? All ideas welcome!

I liked Fearghal’s template so much that I tweaked it and used it with several of my other classes, particularly my S3 Standard Grade Biology class. They are a very able class, and particularly shine at collaborative group work. While it wasn’t feasible to give them free rein over what we studied in the topic (as there was a curriculum to teach and limited time in which to do it) I gave them a breakdown of the time available, showed them the material we had to cover, and let them plan how they wanted to do it. They suggested the order of the topics, and the kinds of activities we could do in class. The topic went well, and I got very enthusiastic feedback from the class at the end asking if they could plan all their topics in the same way for the coming year.

It was about then (early September this year) that I finally followed Nick’s advice and got a Twitter account to use for teaching discussions. I looked up Fearghal and sent him a message saying how helpful I’d found his Prezi and how much my Standard Grade class liked having the freedom to organise their own topics. He was surprised I’d used his template with a class above S1/2.

At the same time I was given the opportunity to attend one day of the Scottish Learning Festival, and chose to register for the Wednesday.

Fearghal asked me if I was going to the TeachMeet attached to the SLF. I knew a bit about TeachMeets because Nick had talked about them, but hadn’t really looked into them. The SLF TeachMeet just happened to be on the Wednesday, so I decided I’d go along after the SLF and find out what it was all about. And Fearghal invited me to share his presentation at TeachMeet to explain how I’d used his ideas with my Standard Grade class.

So I’d got onto Twitter, looked up someone whose blog I enjoyed, and was promptly preparing to help deliver a presentation with him less than two weeks later (I never even met Fearghal till the day of the SLF and TeachMeet!). How’s that for the power of social media?

When I put it like this to Nick and Fearghal, they agreed that it sounded like a blog post. One of the things we were encouraged to do at TeachMeet was to make a pledge about something we would do as a result of the meeting in the next few months, and I decided to finally take the plunge and start a teaching blog.

So here I am.