Abstract:

Group work in Higher Education is increasingly common as curricula extend to respond to market-driven agendas to improve the employability of graduates. Peer moderation of group work 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 fifteen year history and has now evolved into a relatively mature and flexible tool for facilitating group work. It is claimed that self and peer assessment offers benefits for enhancing student learning; moreover, peer moderation provides a convenient solution for awarding fair marks in group-assignments and helping to develop the management skill of self-reflection and judgement of others. This paper provides a significant review of peer-mark moderation through qualitative research at the home institution over several years. The qualitative research reinforces the evaluation of quantitative data extracted from the system. The research also describes new insights into the thoughts of students who appear to recognise the fairness they believe automated moderation offers. The statistics suggest few incidences of team-collusion when entering data but indicate that peer-marking behaviour is influenced by group size, selection method and year of study. Students comment positively on the recognition of their levels of achievement within a team. A critical evaluation of the tool and surrounding pedagogical practices highlight future areas for technical expansion.

Keywords:

Group work, Peer Review, Peer Moderation, WebPA.