O SlideShare utiliza cookies para otimizar a funcionalidade e o desempenho do site, assim como para apresentar publicidade mais relevante aos nossos usuários. Se você continuar a navegar o site, você aceita o uso de cookies. Leia nosso Contrato do Usuário e nossa Política de Privacidade.
O SlideShare utiliza cookies para otimizar a funcionalidade e o desempenho do site, assim como para apresentar publicidade mais relevante aos nossos usuários. Se você continuar a utilizar o site, você aceita o uso de cookies. Leia nossa Política de Privacidade e nosso Contrato do Usuário para obter mais detalhes.
Scribd passará a operar SlideShare em 24 de setembro de 2020A partir desta data, o Scribd começará a gerenciar a sua conta, assim como qualquer conteúdo que você possua no SlideShare. Serão aplicados os Termos Gerais de Uso e clique aqui.
Groups of 4 – 6 for peer-assessment Randomised by KLE, but certain groups created specifically Students ‘unlikely to submit on time’ Students who did not consent to action research project Students in ‘unlikely’ group moved if presentation submitted Ensure gender and ability balanced
Taking the Timetable Out of Oral Presentations
Taking the Timetable Out of Oral
Variety in Chemistry Education
Dr Katherine J. Haxton
o Oral Presentations known to be valuable
o Timetable frequently dictates teaching methods
o Act of preparing presentation as important as
o Screencasts frequently used by teachers…but can
be used by students too.
o Self-, Peer- and Tutor- Assessments combined
First Year Chemistry Assignment
o 10% of Module Mark (replace 1 class test)
o Presentation on general topic
o List of suggested topics given
o Students sign up to topic to avoid overlap
o Produce 5 minute presentation in format to be
uploaded to Blackboard Blogs
o Directed to screencasting software, podcasts
o Assessment: 20 % self-, 50 % peer- and 30%
o Assessment criteria developed with students
o Self-Assessment when presentation submitted
o Peer-Assessment in small groups
o Limits number of presentation students have to mark
o Self-Assessment and Reflection AFTER Peer-
Participation in Assessment
No. Students 52 145 54 31
Words 3343 10569 2218 1327
17,457 words of feedback and self-reflection to 54 students.
52 participated to some degree in self- and peer- assessment
Some penalties imposed on those who did not participate (no
marks for self-assessment, reduced marks for peer-assessment)
Fewer participants in 2nd self- assessment/reflection
“Peer-marking is useful, but having it become a part of the other
students grade seems unfair on the marker. I personally find it too
much pressure. “
“Yes it was useful. Saw how other people carried out there
presentations etc. Highlighted flaws in my own presentation I will
know for another time.“
“the peer marks should not be worth more than 20%...Lectures
marks should have been worth a lot more”
“This was a very different and interesting way to assess the module
as it allowed a certain amount of freedom in terms of chosen
topics. Also, it allows you to learn about many different topics from
other students' point of view.”
I would have preferred to give my presentation
directly to a small group of my class
2 3 no opinion 4 5 strongly
1 very poor 2 3 average 4 5 very
I would rate my ability to use computers
2 3 no
4 5 strongly
My ability to use computers and
software made this task too difficult.
Hints and Tips
1 form for all assessment makes compiling feedback easier
GoogleDocs forms very useful for assessment of this sort
Random groups for peer-assessment with some
‘manipulation’ recommended – limits students to marking
4 or 5 presentations.
Best presentations were those the students had to come
up with themselves.
Don’t be afraid of the technology – our students are better
at this than we are!