error_outline Your ability to perform this action depends on the privilege settings of your school.
Peer-reviewed digital tests give students the opportunity to read and review each other's submitted work. Peer review has multiple benefits, such as:
- By allowing students to review each other, they will be presented with a diversity of opinions and different point of views.
- It encourages self-reflection which in turn fosters critical thinking skills.
- Peer review encourages students to engage with each other. As a result, they learn the strengths and weaknesses of their own submitted work after reviewing the work of other students.
To create a peer-reviewed digital test, follow the steps below.
- Click the domain School name in the menu on the left.
- Click label_important Courses in the menu at the top.
- Select your course or use the search bar.
- Click on New assignment and fill in the name of the test. If you use assignment templates, click the dropdown menu No template and select your template.
- Select Peer-reviewed digital test and click Create.
You can now start adding exercises to your peer-reviewed digital test in the same way as you would for a digital test. If you want to start your assignment creation from within a question bank, you can create a digital test like you are used to. As soon as you've planned the test into a course, you have the option to change the Grading method. This is explained below.
After creating a peer-reviewed digital test, you will need to set up the peer review options. This is to confirm the settings for how the digital test will need to be reviewed.
To set up a peer review, follow the steps below.
- Click the domain School name in the menu on the left.
- Click label_important Courses in the menu at the top.
- Select your course or use the search bar.
- Select your assignment or use the search bar.
- Click settings Settings in the menu at the top.
- Click Peer review options in the menu on the left.
- Click the dropdown menu Grading method and select Review, Self-review or Peer review.
- Under Options for reviewing, fill in the number of reviews each participant has and click Update.
- Check the box if you prefer for the participants to grade anonymously.
- Click Add new timeslot, fill in dates and times, and click Save.
- Participants can review their peer's work within this timeslot.
Grading method
- Peer review
By default, this setting is put on peer review. - Self review
This allows participants to review their own assignments after they have finished taking them. There are no additional settings for this selection. - Review
If you select Review in this setting, the digital peer-reviewed test is converted to a standard digital test.
The dropdown menu is only visible when no participant has started the assignment. After this, it's not possible to adjust the review options anymore.
Options for reviewing
- Number of reviews
With this setting, you can determine how many reviews the participant can do. After they are finished with their own assignment, they will see the option to start reviewing. Based on the number confirmed in this setting, the platform will indicate how many peer reviews are required. The participants will also see additional slots for optional peer reviews. - Grade anonymously
If this option is turned on, student numbers aren't visible during grading. The option is enabled by default. For written assignments, the cover page of the assignment isn't loaded, so the student number cannot be found manually.
The period in which participants can review
A timeslot needs to be set for participants to start their peer reviews. The availability of the peer review of the assignment is set for all participants. Click the dropdown menu New timeslot and fill in the date, start time and end time of your assignment and click on Save.
Furthermore, peer review has two types of indications:
- Reliability
Indicates to what extent the different gradings are similar to this result. - Consensus
Indicates to what extent the grading given by this participant corresponds with the grading of other participants.
Comments
0 comments
Article is closed for comments.