Abstract
Improving graphics education may begin with understanding best practices for providing, receiving, and improving formative feedback. Challenges related to anonymity, efficiency, and validity in peer critique settings all contribute to a difficult-to-implement process. This research investigates university-level computer graphics students while engaged in adaptive comparative judgement (ACJ), as a formative learning, assessment, and feedback tool, during several open-ended graphics design projects. A control group of students wrote feedback on papers in small group critiques while the experimental group students participated in ACJ, acting as judges of peer work and providing and receiving feedback to, and from, their peers. Relationships between the paper-based group approach and the ACJ approach and student achievement were explored. Further, this paper discusses the potential benefits, and challenges, of using ACJ as a formative assessment and peer feedback tool as well as student impressions of both approaches toward peer formative assessment and feedback.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
