Students that use PeLe may receive immediate feedback on their learning processes, and not several days or even weeks after tests, exams and exercises. PeLe helps the teacher or instructor to focus their resources towards problem areas experienced during the actual test or exam.
Lack of feedback on the students’ performance is often a challenge in education and training. Courses usually
contain a number of exercises, and a final exam for assessment of knowledge. PeLe introduces peer learning assessment solutions through verification or elaborative learning processes by utilizing immediate feedback after tests, exercises and/or exams.
This page contains links to videos that describe how teachers and instructors may provide and receive feedback to the students after a PeLe test. These videos were developed during the Done-IT project (2011-2013) and describe what the teacher or instructor could do in various situations. A PeLe assignment, test, exercise, exam, etc., is divided in three phases:
Test with or without alternative answers?
Another question is whether multiple choices (multiple answers to the test questions) should be offered at the beginning of the test, or whether the teacher should wait till the end of the test to offer a list of choices/possible answers to the students. Multiple-choice tests are often criticized for only measuring superficial knowledge. If the teacher hands out the list of choices only when it is five to ten minutes till the end of the test, the students are encouraged to think on their own just as they do on a "regular" test where there are no choices offered. The benefits of such implementation are:
Review: Creating a venue for learning
When the test and the break that followed it were finished, it is time for the test review and analysis. Its goal is to facilitate learning. The students get the chance to discover their own misconceptions and learn from them while their performance and the reasons for their answers still were fresh in the memory. The following methods were used during the test review and analysis in the classes we tested:
Usually teachers chose to review and analyze all the test questions, using different amount of time on each task in order to explain all of them. If 90% of students have answered a task correctly, it does not mean that all 90% have understood it. Therefore a basic principle a teachers is to reviewe and analyze all the questions regardless of the response distribution. The teachers’ choice of method to analyze various questions is dependent on the question response distribution and included histogram and response rate.
Explanation from teacher
If most of the students have given an incorrect answer to a multiple-choice question, this method is often used as the main explanation method. In this case the response distribution clearly shows the students are lacking certain knowledge, thus it is pointless to make a discussion about the question unless the teacher introduces the discussion with a constructive hint. Teachers find it more appropriate to make a thorough analysis of the question and write the detailed explanation on the board, involving students by asking questions from the syllabus.
According to the students, explanation from teacher is by far the most important method. It is a method that should always follow all other methods the teacher chooses to use regardless of the response distribution. Even if the students discuss a question in small groups or participate in a class discussion, or if most of the students have given the correct answer to a question, the students still want the lecturer to summarize the task in the end and tell what is correct, less correct or wrong, and more importantly, why. They are keen on hearing the teacher’s version. This is supposed to ensure a knowledgeable explanation of the question and given choices. This is why each question should be analyzed by the teacher regardless of the response distribution.
Small group discussions
Hints from teacher
Second chance voting by using SRS
Larger class discussion
Funded by the European Commission under the Erasmus+ programme as a strategic partnership in vocational education.
This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use, which may be made of the information contained therein.