First time I’ve done this and a great opportunity to discuss the assessment in a module in a collegiate manner. We looked at the MLOs and the assessment to see did they align and the group suggested some strengthening. I had felt this myself but I will be amending this for the next iteration now.
It was also good to hear the questions that they asked as they were able to help me see whether the instructions/rubric made sense to outsiders and students. I had a lot of positive feedback from the moderation group on the feedback mode I gave. I used audio feedback (in order to separate the feedback on the work which is the grade and that on the person’s effort and future work. Also I hope that by speaking directly to the person I could be kinder, and not misconstrued).
My grading held up across the moderation which was a relief. I already thought my rubrics and marking were both consistent and workable as a process.
I always say that when looking at the four lenses that Steven Brookfield talks about, the colleague/peer lens is the one most often neglected. Any chance to change this is to be grabbed with both hands.
Obviously I also got the opportunity to be that lens for others in a collaborative collegiate environment. I love group teaching and I think I am able to be relatively ego free in a team. It helps if you actually care about what you are doing that the outcome is important. In that kind of environment there is no such thing as an argument you lose but rather a situation where your opinion survived peer review or one where you learn and grow.
The suggestions are going into the course review form and we will evaluate the output and whether it improved the students’ learning.