Case Study No. 19 - Site Specific, Contemporary Performance, Central School of Speech and Drama

Elements addressed by study

Special Features:

Peer assessment conceived as an exercise on establishing relative achievement according to students' evaluation of their colleagues' work. The assessment is then moderated according to benchmarks established by the examiners. The marks which a student is awarded by her/his peers form the basis of her/his final Peer Assessment mark for the project.

Description of Key Aspects:

The student is presented with a marking scheme to enable them to generate the mark. The student is also encouraged to do an indicative graded self-assessment. A notional Peer Assessment mark for each student is then calculated, which is an average of all marks awarded by her/his peers. The course team retains a responsibility to students and to the probity  of the degree to treat as discretionary marks generated under the peer assessment scheme. A student may be required to account for the mark and to resubmit the mark sheet or the mark may even be invalidated in exceptional circumstances and the External Examiner notified. The individual marks awarded by the course team to students will have a benchmarking function in relation to Peer Assessment marks and may be scaled up or down. This will be done by producing a median Individual mark and a median Peer Assessment mark. If the difference between the two median marks is greater than 5 percentage points, the Peer Assessment marks for all students will be scaled up or down by the number of percentage points difference between the two median marks above or below the initial 5 percentage points tolerance. The Peer Assessment mark recorded for examination purposes and published to the student will be the mark produced after any scaling up or down.

Analysis

Each student will submit Peer Assessment marks on a separate sheet (distributed at the end of the project). The marks will be confidential.

The two factors that the student should consider are:

-your colleague's usefulness to the project

-the appropriateness of your colleague's work at all stages of the project.

The considerations might include the colleague's flexibility, consistency, focus in carrying out key tasks, artistic achievement, enabling skills, manner of team working and professional discipline in keeping with the company's needs.

As part of the peer assessment system, each student is required to submit notes detailing one-to-one verbal feedback from their peers given after the conclusion of the project. These notes record feedback from colleagues and should be submitted along with the mark sheet on a separate sheet distributed at the end of the project. It is the student's responsibility to seek feedback from a peer.

High and low marking descriptors:

70% and over (Distinction): shows outstanding qualities of responsibility; responsiveness and creativity; clear ability to implement appropriate strategies in the interest of colleagues and the company; evidence of effective use of previous experience allied to the application of appropriate skills and intelligence in the moment; the work is likely to be characterised by a sustained mix of brilliance and consistency.

Less than 40% (Fail): insufficient qualities of responsibilities, responsiveness and creativity; limited ability to implement appropriate strategies in the interest of colleagues and the company; inadequate evidence of effective use of previous experience allied to the application of appropriate skills and intelligence in the moment; inconsistent and counterproductive work and may also be irresponsible.

Evaluation:

The student should have this degree of analytic skills at MA level but it is made clear that the course team retains a responsibility to students and to the probity of the degree to treat as discretionary marks generated under the peer assessment scheme.