Student’s perception of an implemented formative and participatory assessment in oral group presentations

Abstract

Competency-based education requires a change not only in the learning process, but also in the assessment, towards a formative, continuous and participatory model. We present here a set of changes introduced in the assessment system of the Biology subject in Dentistry, aimed at promoting its formative dimension and encouraging the participation of students through peer assessment. Furthermore, these implementations were retrospectively evaluated by the students. The object of the study was the oral group presentation, whose evaluation traditionally consisted of a single rubric that measured the final product. This activity was redesigned considering the learning process in its entirety and, although it continued to be graded with a single final grade, it implemented three tasks, each one associated with an assessment instrument: i) preparing an initial draft; ii) delivery of the final presentation material before the date of the presentation; iii) the final oral presentation. In addition, students participated in the process performing two peer assessment: a teamwork intra-group assessment and an inter-group assessment of the oral presentation. Once the activity was finished, the students were given a survey to find out their opinion regarding the experience. A total of 60 students participated in the study, most of whom were the first time they had to prepare an initial draft and conduct a peer assessment. In general, the participants valued the innovation positively, indicating that it helped them to improve the four transversal competences of the subject: responsibility, interpersonal understanding, teamwork and planning. They highlighted the benefits of the formative feedback given by the professor after delivering the initial draft, which was useful to be aware of weak points and to improve their performance. In addition, students appreciate the fact that the tasks were well structured and organized, because it made it easier to plan their work. On the other hand, students’ perception for the peer assessment was lower. In general, students preferred professor’s assessment and found peer assessment difficult or did not find it useful or did not understand its purpose. We think that this resistance to peer assessment could lie in a lack of habit, inexperience in making a value judgment and the influence of personal relationships between students. In terms of performance, all students passed the activity, with an average grade higher than last year. To conclude, we think that our proposal reached the formative and continuous dimension of the assessment, thanks to two points: i) have a well-structured and clear assessment system from the beginning; ii) include partial deliveries in which students can receive formative feedback that allows them to identify weakness and take actions to improve their learning. However, we did not obtain the expected results concerning the participatory dimension and we think we still have a way to go in terms of achieving meaningful student involvement. Our intention in the next course is to maintain the activity and improve it, to fully focus the attention on the students, so that they really learn for themselves. We believe that the key of a successful innovation will be training them and making them feel more prepared and aware of the benefits of participating in the assessment.