Peter Willmot

A case study of the development of WebPA: An online peer-moderated marking tool

Peer moderation of group work in higher education is rapidly advancing through the use of technological developments and is increasingly being informed by pedagogical research. The highly successful WebPA online assessment system has gone through a number of development phases over its 15-year history and has now evolved into a relatively mature and flexible tool for facilitating group work. This paper presents a case study of the approaches that have been used in the systems development from the technical perspective, and describes how the scope of the project has massively expanded and that the development has been continually backed by a sound and wide-ranging pedagogy. The benefits of using the online system are shown to be underpinned throughout by examples of good practice in the supervision of academic group work. A critical evaluation of the tool and surrounding pedagogical practices highlight future areas for technical expansion.

Peer review of team marks using a web-based tool: an evaluation

Abstract Of all the problems associated with student learning in a team situation, the difficulty of fair assessment of the individual team members is supreme. Academics who feel comfortable setting examinations and single-person assignments are deterred from setting team assessments because they fear that idle students may benefit from the efforts of their team-mates or that weaker team members might dilute the efforts of the more diligent. This paper discusses how accurately academics can recreate the rewards for good or bad performance in industry through undergraduate team projects. The arguments for allocating equal team marks are examined but the authors conclude this is not the correct approach. A web-based system for applying peer moderation to team marks is described and accumulated data from it allows peer marks to be compared with anonymous self-assessments. Validation is completed by comparing the peer assessment outcomes with control data supplied by independent mentors that were attached to each student team. The results generate a high level of confidence in the approach. Peer review results for teams were further used to estimate the degree of harmony amongst team members: a high standard deviation in peer marks might indicate conflict, whereas a low standard deviation could be a sign of a harmonious team that one might expect to out-perform the individual potential of its members. Previous academic track record was used as the benchmark for potential success but was found to be a poor predicator of actual achievement in team project work.

Evaluating the effectiveness of a first year module designed to improve student engagement

Abstract A key challenge for universities is to provide motivators beyond those gained by the award of marks. Student engagement is essential for learning - even the best teacher cannot succeed without it. This paper describes the evaluation of an innovative year-long module for mechanical engineering students that embraces competitive challenges, student-centred learning activities, problem solving, creative design and skills workshops that was designed to sit alongside and provide motivators for a broadly traditional first year curriculum. The module was under development for three years and anecdotal evidence suggested that there were positive benefits, thus an independent evaluation, funded by a small grant from the Higher Education Academy, was commissioned. The evaluation used both qualitative and quantitative methods of enquiry and largely confirmed what had been noted anecdotally. Following the evaluation, additional minor changes were made and feedback from the improved module is reported.