Peer asessment tutorial

Video transcript

Slide 1: Title slide

In this video, I'm going to assess 10 submissions that have come in for our Writing evidence for Open Badges badge. As I assess the badge, I'll go over my, the reasons for my scores. I'll try and tell you a little bit about the feedback that I'd give to the learner and explain what you might look for in an application while you're assessing submissions yourself.

Slide 2: Writing evidence for Open Badges badge criteria

So before I begin to assess, I will just give myself a reminder of the criteria we are looking for in the writing evidence badge. And so we just quickly go over these, so to earn this badge we'd expect the learner to watch the video, advice on Open Badges.

We'd expect them to download and read our Open Badges hints and tips fact sheet. So those are two things that if the, if the learner actually mentions those, they mention that they've done those, and they mentioned the date when they've watched the video and downloaded the fact sheet, then that would actually score them excellent on format.

In terms of the questions in this criteria, we're looking for someone to tell us about at least three things they've learned from the video and why those were important to them, So there's a 100 words minimum on that one. We're asking them to discuss the hints and tips with their manager or supervisor and tell us what they will do to involve their manager and supervisor in their future badge applications. There's a 25 words minimum word count on that. And finally, we are going to ask them to tell us about at least one thing they will do to make their colleagues aware of Open Badges and why evidence is important. Again, there's a 25 words minimum requirement on that. So in total, we're looking for 150 words minimum, and answers to all three questions from this criteria in the evidence that I'm about to assess.

Slide 3: Submission 781-779-435

Okay, so we start with the first submission here, that's submission 781-779-435. I'm just going to paste the evidence from the handout into the helper tool and have a quick look through.

First of all what strikes me here is that the format from here is really good. The learner's written this in a very clear format. The questions from the criteria have been included and used as a structure. This is ideal, not only for assessors, but for people they show this badge to later. So I would score excellent here for format.

Looking at reflection, while this is written in first person, and the learner clearly understands why what they've mentioned is important, had they mentioned their strengths and weaknesses in respect of these, I could have scored excellent here, but I think satisfactory is appropriate for reflection.

Just a quick look at the criteria. I think we could have scored excellent here if the learner had included the dates when they watched the video and held the discussion, but the requirements for a satisfactory have been fully met.

There are no links to policy here. So they haven't mentioned the codes of practice or their employers own policies with regards to continuous professional development. That could have got them a satisfactory or even an excellent, but as it stands, I think policy needs work.

In regards to engagement, the learner has discussed this with their manager, and they've mentioned something they will do to promote the learning resource to others. Had they been more specific about how they will do this, for example, if they had said maybe they were going to present at a meeting or arrange a session for their colleagues, or even if they'd gone into more detail about how the discussion with their manager went, did they get any next steps that were influenced as a result of this, then they could have earned excellent for engagement. But I think as far as engagement goes, satisfactory is probably a fair score here.

In terms of feedback to the learner, I would tell them that this was a really good submission. I'd mention that one area for improvement would be to consider their strengths and weaknesses in respect of what they have learned and to add this to their reflection. So for example, they could say how this learning has helped them identify a weakness that they can improve on, but all in all, this was a good submission and it scores a pass.

Slide 4: Submission 886-561-710

Now we've moved on to 886-561-710. So again, I'm going to paste the evidence into the helper tool so we can have a look at it.

Let's look at format. So first of all, I can see that the relevant evidence has been provided, meets the minimum word count. The questions here haven't been used as headings like we saw in the previous example, but I'm still gonna score this as excellent for format, because it has a very clear structure to it. They've kind of linked each paragraph to the questions. So it makes it easy to assess.

In terms of reflection, the learner has shown an appreciation of their weaknesses, considering what they've just learned, and they're very clear about what they're going to do. They haven't just repeated what the video told them, but they've shown that they've understood it. And this is really important when scoring excellent for reflection.

The criteria. If the learner had included dates for when they watched the video or when they discussed it with their manager, then they would have scored excellent for criteria. But I think satisfactory is fair here.

Just in terms of policy, again, I can't see any links to policy here. That's not unusual for this badge.

Looking at engagement, discussions have taken place and the learner has been quite specific about what they will do next. They are sharing the fact sheet with their team. While there could have been more detail here, I still feel that excellent is appropriate.

So in terms of feedback to the learner, what I would tell them is that this is very well-written. They might want to add dates for when they accessed the learning materials and held discussions. That will help them improve the quality of their evidence going forward. But this would be a pass and it would score seven out of 10 on the rubric.

Slide 5: Submission 456-993-223

So moving on to submission 456-993-223, this is blank. So there's nothing really for me to paste here into the helper tool. The learner has not submitted any evidence at all for us to assess. So because the learner hasn't provided any evidence for us to assess, all of the factors will be scored as needs work, and that would result in the badge, the application being returned to the learner for more work.

The feedback I would give here is, "Thank you for your application. Unfortunately, there was no evidence included to support your application for the badge. Please submit the evidence requested by the badge criteria." And that's a fairly standard response we give where we receive a blank application.

Slide 6: Submission 564-848-634

So moving on to submission 564-848-634, that's the fourth submission in the handout.

Just for a quick look here at format, it meets the minimum word counts. The correct badge has been applied for. Obviously had the learner added the questions as headings, as the video recommends, then they would have scored excellent here, but as it stands, I think format score is satisfactory.

Looking at reflection, this is written properly in first person. There is some understanding of the topic shown although the learner appears to have misunderstood why plagiarism should be avoided, I think, we can score a satisfactory here for reflection.

Looking at criteria, the essential elements of the badge criteria are met. However, not all of the, not all of the questions have been answered in detail, but still I think it's fine to award satisfactory here.

Links to policy. Again, there's no mention here of any policies. So what we would score this as needs work.

Engagement-wise, the learner mentions they will discuss the badge applications with their manager. They're going to show their badges to their colleagues. They've not gone into depth about either of these, but I get the impression that they are, they're talking about quick discussions, and as such, excellent would not be appropriate here, but I think satisfactory is okay.

So as it would stand, this badge would be awarded, so this would pass, and on the rubric, this scores four out of 10. In terms of feedback to the learner, I would let them know that their evidence was okay, but that adding the questions as headings to their evidence and answering those questions in more detail would help them improve their submissions next time round.

Slide 7: Submission 483-645-184

So now looking at submission 483-645-184, that's the fifth submission in the handout.

First of all, can look at this. Look at format, while the evidence is relevant to the badge, the minimum word count has been met, obviously to achieve an excellent score the learner would need to add the badge criteria as headings. They haven't done this, so a satisfactory would be appropriate here for format.

For reflection, I can see that this is written in the first person. The learner has done enough to score satisfactory, but to have scored excellent here, they would needed really to have expanded on their answers to explain why they've chosen these points, for example, where their weaknesses that they had to work on here. And if so, then how.

In terms of the criteria, one of the questions does not appear to have been answered. Cannot see what the learner will do to involve their manager or supervisor in their future badge applications. So the criteria we need to score needs work here.

Again for links to policy, well, there are no policies, procedures or any legislation mentioned here. So that would score needs work.

Engagement-wise, there's nothing in the evidence that tells me how the learner intends to involve their manager or supervisor. However, they have written about how they will promote the learning resource to others and have discussions with others after they receive a badge. That, I'm going to give them a satisfactory for this.

Obviously the badge is going to be returned to them anyway, because they haven't scored satisfactory on criteria. If they wanted to score more, they really need to talk about how they're going to involve their manager or tutor prior to submitting a badge application.

So feedback to the learner, to improve your evidence, please add something about the discussion you had with your manager or supervisor and tell us what you will do to involve them in your future badge applications.

Slide 8: Submission 528-312-798

So moving on to submission 528-312-798, I'm just going to paste that in.

Let's look at format, so immediately I can see the learner is short of the minimum word count by 34 words. So format would be scored as needs work here.

Reflection is written in first person, but it's not clear they have understood anything. They are just repeating points from the video. This would be needs work for reflection as well.

Criteria. Questions from the criteria have not been answered. So again, the criteria would score as needs work.

Links to policy, obviously there are no links to policy here, so that would be needs work as well.

Engagement. The learner has said they will direct colleagues to the learning resource if they need assistance. I'm going to give them a point here. So I'm going to score satisfactory for engagement, but they would need to improve, improve this significantly to, to get any more.

And so, as it stands, this submission really only scores one out of 10 on the rubric. The application will be returned to the learner for more work. They would need to rewrite this to achieve the badge.

So the feedback I'd give the learner is that they are short of the minimum word count, and because of this, I can't get a sense of how well they understood the learning materials for the badge. I'd also ask them to check the questions in the criteria to make sure that each has been answered in full. We're moving on to the seventh submission.

Slide 9: Submission 595-531-979

So that's submission 595-531-979.

And I can see that format, this is really good. The badge criteria has been used as headings, and the evidence is written in a way that's easy to follow. So I would score the format for this badge as excellent. What I would say is if they had put these in quotation marks and what I'm going through, I'm going through the helper tool, and I'm just removing the headings, because what that will do is it will stop the assessment helper tool from assuming that that's been written by the learner, and it kind of skews the scores a little bit. So we just analyse that again. We can see we're getting a more accurate score, but this format here is really good, and it deserves an excellent.

Reflection-wise, this is written in first person, there's explanations of why the learner finds the points important. It clearly meets the requirements to be scored as satisfactory; to score excellent here, I would probably need to see more from the learner about what they feel are their strengths and weaknesses in respect of the three points they've mentioned, or maybe even something about how they're adopting this approach to recording their learning in a way that might improve their practice and subsequently outcomes for people using their service. But reflection gets a satisfactory here.

Criteria-wise, the learner has used the full criteria as headings, they've provided responses to each, and they have accompanied these with dates. So that score is excellent for criteria.

Links to policy, I can't see any links to policy here, but engagement-wise, the learner has talked in some detail about the discussion they've had with their manager, especially around their future actions. And they've been specific about how they will encourage others to use the learning resource. I feel this is enough for them to score excellent.

So this submission would be a pass. I think it scores seven out of 10 on the rubric.

The feedback I would give to the learner is that this was an excellent submission. They could improve future applications for badges by exploring their strengths and weaknesses in respect of what they've learned, but this submission would pass.

Slide 10: Submission 873-395-021

Okay, so moving on to the eighth submission, that's submission 873-395-021.

First of all, let's have a quick look here around format. I think there's, there's relevant evidence provided here. It meets the minimum word count, although we're missing the questions as headings, I'm still going to this as excellent, because it has a very clear structure to it. You can, you can see where each of the questions has been answered.

In terms of reflection, it is written in the first person. The learner has explained why what they've learned is important to them and what actions they need to take. There's not quite enough to convince me this would fall under excellent, for that I'd be looking for them to expand on one or two of the things they've learned and be specific about how these things were applied in practice and how they will seek feedback on those. Again, it's about strengths and weaknesses.

Criteria, the dates are missing from the evidence, so it falls short of excellent. So they haven't provided dates when they've watched the video and had the conversations with their manager or colleagues. But apart from that, they've done everything they need to do to score satisfactory. They've answered the questions in full.

Links to policy, there's a glancing reference here to the SSSC continuous learning requirements, but I would need to see a sentence or two about why the learner feels this is relevant to them, and what they've just learned about to score satisfactory here. So again, with links to policy, it's not just enough to mention it, but you need to explain why you've mentioned it, why it's important.

Engagement. The learner has said they will discuss future badges with their deputy, and that they will help and support colleagues with badges. So that's enough to score satisfactory for the engagement factor.

In terms, so this badge would pass. We'd be looking at five out of 10 on the rubric.

In terms of feedback to the learner, I would let them know that this was a good application, and in the application for their next badge they might want to try to expand on one or two of the things that they've learned and perhaps be specific about how they will apply these in practice and seek feedback from others to make sure that they improve their practice.

Slide 11: Submission 819-659-121

And so moving on to the ninth submission, that's submission 819-659-121, immediately from the analysis, it's thrown a few reds at me here, and I can see that from a format point of view, we are 36 words under the minimum word count.

So let's have a quick look. Oh, okay, so the evidence submitted is not relevant to the badge. So it would, it would immediately score needs work for format, and regardless of how the other factors score here, the submission would need to be returned for more work.

In terms of reflection, the learner has listed a series of things they feel they've learned without explaining why these are important to them or how they can improve their future practice. So they haven't done enough for a satisfactory under reflection.

Criteria-wise, the questions asked in the criteria for the writing evidence badge have not been answered. And I would say it's highly unlikely the correct learning materials have even been accessed, because the submission provided is it doesn't look like it's for the writing evidence badge at all.

Obviously there are no links here to policy and nothing here about engagement. They haven't really engaged others in their learner, in their learning.

They've not answered the questions from the writing evidence badge to say how they're going to involve their manager or supervisor in their Open Badge submissions. So we would be scoring needs work for engagement as well.

So this would score a zero out of 10 on the rubric. It would be returned to the learner for further work.

In terms of feedback to the learner, I'd say "Thank you for your application. The evidence submitted does not appear to be relevant to this badge." Perhaps they meant to apply for a different badge instead. So I'd put something like that into the feedback, just to let them know that the evidence they've submitted wasn't relevant to the badge.

Slide 12: Submission 228-453-246

Okay, and we're on to the last submission, that's submission 228-453-246. I'm just going to paste that in. Oh, so clearly something red about the, yeah. What I can see here is that the evidence provided by the learner, their submission has been copied word for word from the handout materials.

This is plagiarism, and doing this in an academic setting would normally result in disciplinary action. I'm going to give the learner the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they haven't read the criteria or understood the learning materials associated with the badge. But as I know that the learner submitted the evidence, or they've submitted evidence they didn't write, I need to score all of the factors as needs work.

Even if I did not know this was not the learner's own work, it would still fail on reflection, because it's not written in the first person. And really none of the criteria questions have been answered. So even though I know that this has been copied, if you didn't know it had been copied, you would immediately tell from the warnings thrown by the assessment tool, that there was something, something strange going on here.

So all of the factors here would score needs work. That would be zero to 10 on the rubric. And the, the submission would be returned to the learner.

In terms of feedback, I would ask them to please submit evidence they have written themselves that answers the three questions asked in the criteria for the open badge.

Slide 13: Thank you

No narration. [10 seconds]