Introduction
Peer review is an evaluation of work done by different people in work production (Ludwick, 1998). In normal assessment of work, it involves gathering work from the interest group. The main aim of review is to correct mistakes in the final document. In many schools, the peer review acts as a means of analysis for the student.
In our project model, our focus was on peer review software that is active in our school, Southampton Solent University. The aim of our research was to check on the appropriateness, effectiveness and the suitability of the software to its intended purpose. In addition, to evaluate the requirement of the software in terms of tools and the method adopted. Originally, the software was developed to ease assessment of the student and make the results open for the students and stakeholders. The guiding principle the research was to study the prototype of the software and analyze the point of view of both the student and the tutor. We identified the stakeholders who were willing to participate in the research and sourced the model of the software.
Screen model of the software, feature requirement
The model prototype contained login details and sartorial representation of access points from which the users of the software can log. A segment is left for the tutor to write the criteria for analysis of the student’s work. The teacher can also dictate the writing criteria and the method of analysis in order to justify the grading of the student. In addition, the software enables the tutor to specify the dates of these assessments and the frequency of assessment for multiple groups.
Another segment of the tutor’s login deals with assignments of groups. The teacher is able to access student list and allocate groups to the students, with preference and merit.
Concerning the systems services, the system gives a representation of assessment completion, which provides the teacher with credible time to complete work sent by students. It also gives a representation of the number of students that have not hand in assignments. It also exports data results to spread sheets. The software also sends emails to the student regarding teacher’s requirements on dates and upcoming assessments. In addition, the segment should have secure logout details.
On student login, the system allows the students to login with their preferred login details. After login, the student can asses themselves in a split100 scale, or 1-5 scale and can grade their peers on the two scales. In addition, the students are able to justify the assessment by the teacher in writing and to view the dates of assignments completion. Finally, the student segment must provide the students with feedback information on results of previous assessments and logout information safely. A model of this information is below
Stakeholder identification
The software requires stakeholders who are to support its purpose. The stakeholder should include the project leaders, the project team and the users, as the key stakeholder’s team (Howlader, 2013). We identified three key stakeholders who work with the software. These included the teaching staff at SSU, the students and the staff working at learning technology units and the academic service. All stakeholders were interviewed to determine their contribution to the software.
In the interviews, the student questionnaires were set to ask relevant question on what they lack and need in the software if they may need it. The questionnaire for the students asked questions of whether: the student’s course assed group works, the method of grading, odder preferred for distribution of marks between group members, fairness of the peer assessment project. In addition, the questionnaire aimed a figuring out the preferred deadlines for work assessments and the privacy levels and the preferred data collection method.
The staff questionnaire on its side was set to investigate: the units done by the teachers, whether they require group work, whether the teacher is interested in the peer review software and their view of this method of assessment. Contribution of the teacher to the peer review software and the method they will prefer in using it.
The success of the software and further requirement
The analysis determined that the students preferred evaluation of their peers within the group. In addition, it should be able to deal with false grading of groups and respond to uncommitted work. The students also emphasized on security of the page on. They wanted a chance to comment on the assessment done by the tutor (Petkov, 2013). The students suggested that, it should offer distinct information the work done, but should not emphasize on multiple assessment. The student also suggested that the system be linked with myCourse (Alexandra, 2013).
The constraints that resulted from this software project include the provision of user support to other the student and the tutor and the training of the user support group. The other issue was the server to be used in delivering the features of the software. In addition, there was the issue of task delegation in for success of the program.
Issues also aroused in determination of the methods of backing up information, the speed of back up and response in case of failure. Furthermore, there was a need for the software to priorities information and its reliability rated. The time for implementation of the software’s purpose is four months (Roger, 2013).
Recommendation report of the project
The studies indicated that the self and peer assessment software provided a more satisfying experience in-group work (Malehorn, 1994). For success of the software there has to be willingness for the use of the software and fund relevant for its maintenance. There was need for identification of new stakeholders in the field and better interviews and surveys. In addition, there has to be considerably high level of software analysis in this field.
On decision making, the criteria was evaluated by SRS, the requirements are to be compared with SRS. There is grouping of the requirements against features selected. The system, which matches the most requirements, is to be put in use for better results. The issues that cannot be put to comparison are to be brought up through qualitative research. These may include focus groups, in-depth interviews and survey responses. The software has been chose on merit of its locality and the fact that it is free. The use of web PA will have high recommendation for the use in the trials. The whole group through distant communications and constant meetings did the management of the project. This was though email communication and exchange of notebooks. The agendas of the meetings were recorded in minutes (Abdalla, 2013).
Conclusion
The software is successful. The students and the teachers, who participate in any group work, find the software helpful. The requirements that aided the forming of the software help in its success. The feature requirements provide efficient use of the software with careful consideration to every aspect relevant to the teacher and the student. The stakeholder’s contribution advanced its success. There is a need to increase security of the software.
Although this is the cases, the student can still access their group assessment results and the tutors offered a better chance to communicate and asses the students. The tutors can control what happens in their section and asses the student. For better results there should be constant monitoring of the software and improvement of its functioning.
References
Malehorn, Hal "Ten measures better than grading." Clearing House 67.6 (1994): 323]
Sadler, Philip M., and Eddie Good "The Impact of Self- and Peer-Grading on Student Learning." Educational Assessment 11.1 (2006): 1–31.]
Mohammad A a Howlader, To identify the stakeholders and who is paying for the system, 2013
Roger Emery Interview, stakeholders, 2013
Jennifer Muskett, Interview Transcript, 2013
Ludwick R, Dieckman BC, Herdtner S, Dugan M, Roche M (November–December 1998). "Documenting the scholarship of clinical teaching through peer review". Nurse Educ. 23 (6): 17–20.
Alexandra Theodorou, Requirements Gathering Student Survey for a software based Peer Review System, 2013
Nicholas Woodland, Compare features of different peer assessment packages, 2013
Nicholas Woodland / (Jono McKay v1), Initial comparison of different peer assessment packages, 2013
Mark Udall, Interview Analysis-Requirements, 2013
