1. COAS: Drexel University
waypoint online assessment and structured peer review
Andrew J. McCann
visiting professor of english, drexel university
founder and president, subjective metrics, inc.

2. Agenda Background Introduce waypoint Brief overview
Drexel applications
Live Demonstration
Evaluate
Manage
Libraries

3. Problem: Feedback Handwritten and/or manually typed “Lost”
Little accountability
Consistency issues
No data
Needed: not AI – but a technological tool

4. Waypoint: Evaluation Tool
Encourages pre-written feedback: clearer, more detailed explanations of key concepts
Facilitates sharing of assessments amongst instructors
Quantifies evaluations by skill
Archives all feedback
Web-based:
cross-platform
backed up
zero maintenance

5. Waypoint Process

6. Develop Assessment

7. Develop Assessment

8. Receive Paper or Exam (Hard copy shown here)

9. Receive Paper or Exam (Hard copy shown here)

10. Evaluate Against Skills

11. Evaluate Against Skills

12. Respond to Student

13. Respond to Student

14. Snapshot Analysis

15. Snapshot Analysis

16. Longitudinal Cohort Analysis

17. Process Summary

18. Drexel Applications tDec Humanities (Dr. Valarie Arms)
Evaluation of all major writing assignments (600 students)
Writing Center (Harriet Millan)
Customized assessments for WITs
College of Engineering (Kevin Scoles & Adam Fontecchio)
Evaluation of lab reports with WITs and TAs
College of Business (Frank Linnehan)
Structured response to student writing & accreditation data generation
Engineering Management (Mike Scheuerman)
Peer review

19. Demonstration www.gowaypoint.com Evaluate “Final Report” Peer Review
Manage
Quantification
Sorting
Data analysis

20. Additional Features Self-assessment Collaborative assessment
Multiple instructors can contribute to evaluation

21. Questions and Discussion

22. Testimonials
“I've been doing this for twenty years and have my own system of grading and commentary…and found little need to improve. And then Waypoint came along. Somehow--and I really can't even explain it--but my grading time has been cut down by more than half and my students are actually thanking me for the in-depth commentary.”
Professor Ken Bingham
“Usually I have trouble criticizing a peer’s paper if I’m not given certain criteria to judge. During this peer review, I was actually focused and excited about judging a peer’s paper.”
Erin Williams, COE 2008
“If this peer review program was available in high school, I would have probably done a lot better in English.”
Ed Itaas, COE 2008

23. Testimonials
“An innovative teacher-friendly, student-friendly, efficient approach to grading writing—the most creative and time-saving method for evaluating writing I have ever found or used.”
Gayle, a high school English teacher with 35 years’ experience
“I don’t know how I ran a writing program for three years without it.”
Harriet Millan, Director of the University Writing Program

24. Quantitative Data Anonymous survey of Peer Review process
114 freshman engineers: 51 use waypoint, 63 the ‘old’ method
1-5 Scale (1 – strongly disagree, 5 – strongly agree)
wp (N=51)
Mean
‘old’ (N=63)
P value
(t-test, 95% CL)
1. I received clear and helpful criticism of my draft.
3.90
3.52
p<0.025
2. Evaluating other students’ papers helped me better understand the assignment and the play.
3.86
3.48
p<0.02
3. I made significant changes to my first draft based on peer review feedback.
3.81
3.25
p<0.005
4. I made significant changes to my first draft independent of peer review feedback.
3.49
3.43
p=0.38