Assessors' and external comments

 

 Assessors are asked to comment on sites from a number of points of view as described under assessment in the course website. Because the websites are published on the Internet, they can and do receive attention from far and wide. We don't necessarily receive very many of these as course organisers, as they are likely to go directly to those involved and to the tutors of the individual groups. We do know that a number of the sites have been discussed quite widely, and some have been cited in publications and at meetings. Some selected comments are reproduced below.

Quick links: Assessment comments year by year; What assessors love and hate

About the scheme in general:

This method of submitting a group project is still very unusual - and new tutors have almost always been impressed.

'Your students must have benefited from these projects on several fronts, including team working, self learning and presentational and IT skills. The course organisers, tutors and students deserve congratulations.'

'I was impressed by the enthusiasm and scope of the topics covered.'

'This is a really very different use of students' time during their undergraduate years, but it is so easy to see how important this type of approach and thinking could be for medicine. It is really impressive what they manage to achieve in only four weeks.'

About individual sites:

xxx

See also Assessment comments year by year

xxx

About non-medical subjects:

xxx

 

 

Assessment

Each site was looked at by at least two or three assessors as well as by their own tutor. Here are some general comments about each year's output, followed by some comments about what assessors love and hate.

Assessors comments, 2001/2

FIRST BLOCK - An impressive set of projects, the top half dozen or so of which attracted top grades. These were the following sites: 1 Fas; 3 Olfaction; 9 HSPs; 10 Food safety; 21 Multiple sclerosis; 24 Lung cancer. Congratulations to participants. However many of the others were really good too.

Site by site comments - first block

Assessors comments, 2000/1

xxx.

Assessors comments, 1999/2000

All agreed that the overall standard was impressive. The lowest mark received by any group was well into the 'good' category, and 5 groups were rated as 'excellent'. This is impressive when marking is double or triple, as this tends to reduce extreme values. Many have shown the sites to colleagues or around their departments - this would almost never happen with an essay.

The top scores were received by the groups covering liver transplant rejection, innate immunity, ecstasy, the ethics of preimplantation diagnosis, integrated control systems (Lego robots), and art - super sites, presenting really good information, clearly. Non-medical sites (11 of the 32) scored on average slightly more highly than medical or scientific sites. Each accounted for 5 of the 10 highest-scoring sites.

Site by site comments - second block

What assessors love and hate

A good, but also clear and well-linked home page is clearly a big asset.
Some sites failed to introduce the subject adequately, or to explain the aims and intentions clearly on the home page. This made it difficult to understand what the scope of the investigation was.
Good presentation undoubtedly enhanced the effect and the mark of some groups, but examiners were asked to focus mostly on content, and from their comments have clearly done so. Many simple (but clear) websites have obtained high marks.
Poor presentation: occasionally illegibility (eg odd colour mixes or complex backgrounds) obscured the message. On one or two sites bits of presentation trickery (eg animations) irritated readers - sometimes by slowing down loading of the page. At other times illustrations were a great asset.
Tutors enjoyed the personal pages. Several commented that they always turned to these first, that they were disappointed if the links didn't work, or if they didn't find a photograph of you there.
There have been instances of inadequate attribution, especially of diagrams and figures, in some sites. This a marking criterion.
Linking of individual references to the appropriate part of the text is liked - but it should include a link back to the appropriate part of the text. A short description (2 or 3 lines) of the salient features of the paper is also well received - it helps to show that that you've read and understood it.
Hyperlinks to other sources of information on the internet could sometimes be used more widely - preferably with a critical comment about the source being referred to.

 

Back to 2yO home page