Skip to main content Skip to navigation

Student Forum

Student Forum Peer assessment discussion

You need to be logged in to post in this topic.
  1. Have a read of the attached - let's discuss what you think about the peer assessment proposal.

    This is for ALL students not just those with projects.

    1 attachment

  2. Hello :) 

    I think it is a great idea for marks to be agreed in a group before they are awarded, this will allow a discussion to take place, which I think will be helpful.  It is sometimes hard to distinguish between two neighbouring marks on the 17 point scale, (particularly the high 2.1 and the low first, in my experience) and so a discussion beforehand should help to iron out any discrepancies here. 

    I was also thinking that slightly more emphasis should be placed on how accessible the content of each presentation is to all the different disciplines included in the module.  Maybe it'd be an idea to split the marking groups so that there's perhaps one physicist, one mathematician, one philospher, etc as far as is possible.  For example, some material that is well understood by a group of third and fourth year physicists may not be accessible to second year philosphers. 

    Thanks :)

  3. I don't think I've understood at which point the discussion and allocation of marks will happen. I think we should discuss immediately after the presentation while it is still fresh in our minds. However, this could lead to other groups making small changes to their presentation spontaneously and puts the first groups at a disadvantage. I also think we should wait until we have seen other presentations (and more discussion) before allocating a final mark as I've never really done presentations and would need something to compare to!

    I think the content of the presentation and its structure and its pace are more important to get right in these presentations than the use of visual aids and speaking skills. Would it be up to the marking groups to decide which aspects are most important when allocating marks?

  4. The presentations in week 10 are just practice presentations; the ones which will be assessed happen in week 2 next term -  3rd May 10am-12. We will discuss the practice presentations as they happen, and go through more general points at the end of the session, so everyone should get feedback before the real thing.

  5. One of the things that I think should be addressed by the marking criteria in relation to presentation skills is the height of the person presenting. Being tall is an increasingly valuable asset in workplaces dominated by high shelves, raised desks, and small people whom your job requires you to boss around. Height has also been found to confer certain health benefits, including more flexibility, and greater prowess in some athletics events. I think IATL should recognize this, and award marks accordingly. My proposal is this: Marko and I are both quite tall- in fact, we have a combined interdisciplinary height of  over twelve feet. Therefore shouldn't we be entitled to automatically get twelve out of the seventeen points on the seventeen point marking scale?

  6. You are right in that it has been shown that being tall can confer advantages in the workplace. However what I believe you are suggesting could be construed as some kind of handicap system, similar to horse racing, where pre-existing advantages are evened out. In this case it would work against you, so you may not wish to pursue the idea 


Are you sure?

Are you sure?

Forum followers

Follower data is not currently available.

Search results