Since its foundation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam has stood for scientific and value-driven education, research and knowledge transfer. We are free thinkers with expertise and A Broader Mind. And we work together to build a better world for people and the planet.
Dr. Danny Scholten is a lecturer of Innovations in Human Health and Life Sciences.
Since its foundation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam has stood for scientific and value-driven education, research and knowledge transfer. We are free thinkers with expertise and A Broader Mind. And we work together to build a better world for people and the planet.
Dr. Danny Scholten is a lecturer of Innovations in Human Health and Life Sciences.
This pharmaceutical sciences course aims to develop students’ academic skills, including scientific writing, discussion, comprehension, critical thinking, presentation, and feedback skills. These skills are often referred to as academic soft skills. As part of this course, students need to write a literature report.
By introducing Peer Review, the instructor aimed to improve on students’ feedback skills as well as final reports in the class. Through reducing the complexity of the feedback process and predetermining the review criteria, teachers aimed to increase the quality of students’ work while saving time. The peer assessment of each other’s group reports is a mandatory pass/fail element of this course and participation is monitored by the instructor.
For the Peer Review assignment, counting 20% towards the final grade, students give feedback on the draft literature report of another group, consisting of three students. Students need to address all questions related to the assessment criteria (e.g. structure, contents, argumentation, etc.). Students rate the quality of the feedback that they receive from three other students and also analyse whether the feedback addresses all relevant criteria. Feedback throughout the course is used to facilitate writing a final report. Additionally, students need to write a reflection based on the received feedback.
Learner activities based on the Bloom taxonomy are mainly at the level of:
The instructor reviews the group report and checks if the students completed the peer feedback activities. In addition the instructor gives students feedback on both objectives: ‘students are able to critically (self)reflect’ and ‘students are able to provide constructive feedback’. Here, the instructor also takes into account how the students have rated the feedback of others.
Students are also responsible for assessing each other, by rating the quality of their peers’ constructive feedback.
Unlike in previous years, there were no longer any complaints about the feedback process.
FeedbackFruits provided a better overview of where all students are in the process (progress analytics). An example of this was that the instructor could take direct action when students did not meet the submission deadline.
FeedbackFruits significantly optimised the logistics of the feedback process. According to the instructors the process was less time consuming and also the process of organising feedback was less ‘fragmented’.
Didactic advantages of the technology include the possibility of linking feedback directly to the rubric assessment criteria and requiring students to write comments for each assessment criterium.
Group dynamics were an important factor in overall performance and quality of work: the class will now be using Group Member Evaluation in order to give more focus to the way that groups are set-up and work with each other.
Improve student autonomy and feedback skills by asking them to evaluate their best contributions
Using technology-enhanced peer review to improve student final work and save instructors time
Learn how instructor at the Hague University of Applied Sciences enhanced student engagement with study materials