1. ALTC 2013 Writing Buddies Parallel Session B2: Beverley Lawe, Jamie Tinney

2. Aim To share experience of the ‘writing buddy’ system trialled within Design & Technology Secondary Initial Teacher Training (ITT) To evaluate the benefits of pre-assignment activity which engages with assessment using Learning Outcomes with students To appraise the value of peer to peer review before submitting work for assessment 19 January 20162

3. The context Prior to 2013 the PGCE in secondary education was a Level 3 default course with the option of 60 credits at Masters Level with qualified teacher status (QTS). For September 2013 the course was revalidated and is now a PGDE with a default route of 120 Masters level credits and QTS. The intake in terms of degree awarded has not changed significantly 35% of the intake had a 2.2 degree this year compared to 45% in 2011/12. 19 January 20163

4. Attainment in recent years: 19 January 20164 2010/112011/122012/132013/14 Success rate on 1 st assignment Level 3 16 Mlevel 17 Level 3 16 Mlevel 18 Level 3 13 Mlevel 14 Level 3 3 Mlevel 11 49%51%47%53%48%52%22%78% On the second assignment 66% passed at M level

5. So what did we do? Research suggests that when students are engaged in the assessment process they achieve better grades. PRICE, M. & O’DONOVAN, B (2006) We carried out an exercise in class where the students marked/assessed anonymous work submitted at M level from a previous cohort, using a GBA assessment grid created for that assignment. They did this with a partner so that they could discuss the work and engage with the criteria/LO’s use for assessment. We took feedback and further discussions ensued. Students then had an insight as to how we look for evidence against the LO’s 19 January 20165

6. Taking self-assessment further Each trainee was given a buddy The instructions were to use their buddy as an assessor prior to the assessment deadline and provide feedback to each other – this added another tier to the existing assessment & feedback plan. Further work was carried out in sessions where students were paired with their buddy (where possible) to encourage collaborative work. 19 January 20166

7. The first assignment Students worked on their first assignment before and whilst on school placement A reminder e-mail was sent to encourage them to use their buddy before the hand-in deadline. After the assignment had been submitted but before the next assignment was due in a ‘Survey Monkey’ was sent out to all the trainees in the cohort – several ‘chaser’ e-mails were sent to obtain a 75% response rate. 19 January 20167

8. Responses to survey questions

13. Why would you not use your buddy for the next assignment?

14. Conclusions: Uptake for the use of an assigned ‘buddy’ was low. As teachers of the future we would expect peer assessment to be part of their classroom practice –yet many are reluctant to be part of it themselves Those who did use their ‘Buddy’ found it beneficial The majority probably missed out on a useful experience Students probably need to choose their own ‘buddy’ Work in class needs to reinforce the value of using a ‘buddy’ by modelling/encouraging good practice 19 January 201614

15. 19 January 201615 References: O’DONOVAN, B, PRICE, M & RUST, C 2004) Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of assessment standards and criteria, Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3) pp. 325-335 PRICE, M. & O’DONOVAN, B 2006 Improving Performance through enhancing student understanding of criteria and feedback. In BRYAN C. & CLEGG K. Eds. Innovative Assessment in Higher Education. Routledge. London.2006 pp.100-109 http://bejlt.brookes.ac.uk/article/assessment_standards_a_manifes to_for_change/