Phase 3: Project Outcomes

Peer Review - Project outcomes.
The third and final stage of the experiment will be to analyse / evaluate the project at its conclusion under the following headings on a web-log (blog):

1. The student’s reaction to the experiment
2. How the students benefit from the experiment
3. Outcomes / student's completed work.

Reason(s) for undertaking this activity
The reason for undertaking this activity was to ascertain the student’s reaction to the experiment in the following - Peer Review - areas:

•  Reading 
•  Reviewing
•  Scoring or
•  Evaluating one or many papers submitted by their classmates.

Also, this activity was undertaking to establish the principal benefits the students will gain from conducting electronic based Peer Reviews i.e. has the experiment helped maintained and enhanced quality both:

(1) Directly by detecting weaknesses and errors in specific works and

(2) Indirectly by providing a basis for making decisions about rewards and punishment that can provide a powerful incentive to achieve excellence. These rewards and punishments are related to prestige i.e. Final grades: Pass, Merit or Distinction level

Lastly, this activity was undertaking to furnish the experiment with some empirical evidence on the project's outcomes and student's use of the Peer reviewing.

Knowledge/skills gained
(1) Evidence of how to a (PEER-Review i.e. old version) - full Group Peer Review - is set-up and works TURN-IT-IN (UK). See URL below:

http://www.acquaint.me.uk/Btec-Miscellaeous/PRP/Resources/P.3_Unit.29_Reviewd-by-Group.mht

Also, log-in to Turn-It-In using:
http://www.submit.ac.uk/login_page.asp
Email address: h806:davidhilton.demon.co.uk
Password: indra2010

The above log-in information allows the project experiment reader to view active Peer Reviews by:

1.Clicking: Unit.29:e-Business (Tues) - Richard

2.Clicking: Unit 29: Task 4: (P3) - Peer Review
3.Clicking: Show details
4.Clicking: Reviews written for your paper (2)
5.Clicking: Full Review - by Olutade, Yusuff
6.Clicking: Full Review - by Brown, David

(2) Evidence of how an individual student produces a full Peer Review using (PEER-MARK i.e. new version) on TURN-IT-IN (UK). See URL below:

http://www.acquaint.me.uk/Btec-Miscellaeous/PRP/Resources/P.3_Unit.37_Reviewed-by-Amritpal.pdf

The above illustration verify the knowledge / skills which would be gained i.e. stated in the project outlined - phase 1.

What was the impact of the activity?

The impact of this activity from the students' perspective was that some felt that Peer Reviewing was an effective tool to consolidate learning outcome. However, overwhelming the students believed that the (Peer Review - early version) was not user friendly and the design of the Peer Review had too many questions to answers. Moreover, from the lecturer' s perspective the impact focused on the fact that the (Peer Review - early version) was too complicated and as a consequent would deter teachers/lecturers from using electronic based Peer Reviews in the classroom.

Notwithstanding, students were more positive regarding the(PEER-MARK i.e. new version) on TURN-IT-IN (UK). See URL below:

http://www.acquaint.me.uk/Btec-Miscellaeous/PRP/Resources/P.3_Unit.37_Reviewed-by-Amritpal.pdf.

Students acknowledged the benefits demonstrated in the Project Outline and felt that the lecturer had design the Peer Review correctly - when limited to four question

Reflection

The personal learning outcomes I have acquired during this project relate to using blogs in the class and applying Peer Reviewing to course-work and project work.

The new version of Peer Review, produced by Turn It In i.e PEER MARK is much more user friendly and has enabled to embark on a more comprehensive application of electronic Peer Reviews

The scope of the project was restricted by time resources, but a future recommendation for the experiment would be to apply Peer Review' s in much more diverse areas, so that, I can develop application and design skill to be more effective in this sphere.

Phase 2: Mid Project Review

Progress of experiment so far.

1. Instructor created a normal TurnitinUK assignment.
2. Instructor created a peer review assignment and assigns a peer review distribution, as well as creating topic and metric questions for students to use e.g: Unit 29: P3: Task 4 (a) and (b)
3. Student papers were submitted to a regular TurnitinUK assignment.
4. On the peer review start date: 6th December 2009, the papers assigned to each student show up in their class portfolio for the students to begin writing peer reviews.
5. For each assigned paper the student writes a review by responding to the topic and metric questions selected by the instructor.
6. Once the due date: 8th December 2009 of the peer review passes no more reviews can be written, completed, or edited by writer.
7. On the post date: 15th December 2009 of the peer review , reviews written by classmates on the paper a student submitted become available for that student to view.

Click here for: Overview of aformentioned process by screen capture

Outcomes and benefits so far?
The principal outcome thus far has ben that at least one cohort of student have been able to experience how a Peer Review is conducted.

The benefits has been to develop the editing skills of this cohort: .by looking critically at their peers’writing, students also learnt to look at their own papers critically while acquiring these important editing skills. The topic and metric questions that instructors had chosen for peer review assignments help students focus their feedback and offer more substantive comments.

Other features and benefits observed:

• Saved classroom time
• Allowed anonymous reviews where required
• Increases student awareness of their audience

What is still required to achieve the outcomes?
The principal requirement to achieve the outcomes of the project is to spread the practice of Online Peer Reviews assignment across all the 18 units covered in the two year BTEC: National Diploma in Business. However, this will start to be achieved through the follow-up assignment Peer Reveiwed being conducted on Friday 5th February 2010: Unit 37: Starting a small business. Section 3: Skills required to run and develop your business i.e. Unit 37: Task 4: P3.

Note: This review will utilse the PeerMark feature of Turn-It-In (UK), which is much more user friendly

In summary, the main problem area, so far, has been the quality and the students responses and reviews missed-out by absence students. Notwithstanding, the quantitative and qualitative data indicator that Peer Reviews are an effective tool develop the analytical and evaluation skills of the students, which is the core objective of their course.

Phase 1: Project outline.

Peer Review - experiment definition
The definition of a Peer review – for this experiment - is the evaluation of BTEC: National Diploma in Business  level 3 student’s work by other students in the same field at Ealing, Hammersmith & West London College in order to maintain or enhance the quality of the work or performance in that field.

It is based on the concept that a larger and more diverse group of students will usually find more weaknesses and errors in a work and will be able to make a more impartial evaluation of it than will just the person or group responsible for creating the work.

Raison d’être for choosing this experiment?
A Peer Review Turn-It-In based assignment  has been chosen because it allows a student to:

• Read
• Review
• Score or
• Evaluate  one or many papers submitted by their classmates.

The 1st assignment to be Peer Reveiwed will be Unit29: Introduction to the Internet and ebusiness. Section 3: Explaining the trends in the use of e-business i.e. Unit 29: P3: Task 4 (a) and (b).

At the end of the peer review assignment, the papers will be distributed so that all the students are able to read the comments left on their work.

Peer review was also chosen because, it utilizes the independence, and in some cases the anonymity (non-threatening environment), of the reviewers in order to discourage cronyism and obtain an unbiased evaluation. Typically, the reviewers are not selected from among the close colleagues, or students of the creator of the work, and potential reviewers are required to disclose of any conflicts of interest.

The follow-up assignment to be Peer Reveiwed will be Unit 37: Starting a small business. Section 3: Skills required to run and develop your business i.e. Unit 37: Task 4: P3.

Outcomes and benefits for the students?
The principal outcomes and benefits for the students, are to helps maintain and enhance quality both directly by detecting weaknesses and errors in specific works and indirectly by providing a basis for making decisions about rewards and punishment that can provide a powerful incentive to achieve excellence. These rewards and punishments are related to prestige i.e. Final grades: Pass, Merit or Distinction level.

How will the project be measured?
The project will be measured by the number of students engaging in the online Peer Review exercises and the amount of Merit and Distinction grades achieved in this area. Furthermore, by the quality of the comments feedback to this web-log.

What do I hope to learn through this experiment?
One key feature of Turn-It-In's Peer Review based assignment facility, is its capacity to allow an Instructor to choose questions for the review. Consequently, I expect that the application of Peer Review, which afford me the opportunity of posing assertive questions to the students. The corollary to this approach would hopefully be to help students focus their feedback and offer more substantive comments to their reviews.