An Example of Large‐group Drama and Cross‐year Peer Assessment for Teaching Science in Higher Education

Abstract

Undergraduate students pursuing a three‐year marine biology degree programme (n = 86) experienced a large‐group drama aimed at allowing them to explore how scientific research is funded and the associated links between science and society. In the drama, Year 1 students played the “general public” who decided which environmental research areas should be prioritised for funding, Year 2 students were the “scientists” who had to prepare research proposals which they hoped to get funded, and Year 3 students were the “research panel” who decided which proposals to fund with input from the priorities set by the “general public”. The drama, therefore, included an element of cross‐year peer assessment where Year 3 students evaluated the research proposals prepared by the Year 2 students. Questionnaires were distributed at the end of the activity to gather: (1) student perceptions on the cross‐year nature of the exercise, (2) the use of peer assessment, and (3) their overall views on the drama. The students valued the opportunity to interact with their peers from other years of the degree programme and most were comfortable with the use of cross‐year peer assessment. The majority of students felt that they had increased their knowledge of how research proposals are funded and the perceived benefits of the large‐group drama included increased critical thinking ability, confidence in presenting work to others, and enhanced communication skills. Only one student did not strongly advocate the use of this large‐group drama in subsequent years.

Keywords:

• Assessment
• Drama
• Environmental education
• Learning environment
• Peer assessment
• Science education
• University

Acknowledgements

We thank Poppy Leeder from the NERC for helping to facilitate the drama and John I. Spicer for constructive advice. Stefanie Broszeit, Piero Calosi, and Mal Jones are thanked for their help on the day. Thanks also to Tony Harland for comments on a previous version of the manuscript and Debbie Cotton for guidance with questionnaires. This work was funded by a University of Plymouth Teaching Fellowship Award with ethical permission from the University of Plymouth.