Margaret Green 2008

771 views
700 views

Published on

Session B - H6-09

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
771
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Information re PCS 101 8 CRT’s, aim of course
  • Margaret Green 2008

    1. 1. Developing Functional Feedback: A Case Study Margaret Green UniSA
    2. 2. Asking for feedback <ul><li>We listened to: </li></ul><ul><li>what the students said they wanted </li></ul><ul><li>what they didn’t like </li></ul><ul><li>how they thought the course could be improved </li></ul>
    3. 3. We acted on it <ul><li>Feedback </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Tutor feedback within 24 hrs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Structured feedback form </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li> consistency </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Easily identifiable criterion </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Peer feedback </li></ul></ul>
    4. 4. Theories of education
    5. 5. Cooper et al. (2001) Systematic review <ul><li>Evidence supporting IPP </li></ul><ul><li>Only 30/141 studies rigorous enough </li></ul><ul><ul><li>73% those did not reflect on theory </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Does this infer educational strategy inadequate? </li></ul>
    6. 6. Theories of education: No evidence
    7. 7. Feedback sheet Grade Hypotheses Questions Learning goals: before tutor intervention Group dynamics HD Excellent hypotheses with excellent reasoning formed under all relevant headings. Excellent use of current knowledge base Excellent range, very well ordered and phrased. Able to modify planned questions depending on the answers received. Very specific, well described. All LG identified and excellently applied to “client” and hypotheses. Excellent contribution from all members, taking into account different roles in a group. No help with group dynamics required Comments: D Very good hypotheses with very good reasoning formed under most relevant categories. Very good use of current knowledge base Very good range, ordered and phrased. Able to modify some planned questions depending on the answers received. Mostly specific, well described and appropriate to the problem. Most LG identified and very well applied to “client” and hypotheses. Very good contribution from all members, taking into account different roles in a group. Little help with group dynamics required Comments:
    8. 8. 24 hours
    9. 10. Peer feedback <ul><li>3= major contribution 2= some contribution </li></ul><ul><li>1= minor contribution 0= no contribution </li></ul><ul><li>-1= a hindrance to the group </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>Josh’s rating 15/15= 1 80%  80% Jess’s rating 12/10 = 1.2 80%  96% Jem’s rating 9/10 = 0.9 80%  72% Jenny’s rating 5/10 = 0.5 80%  40%
    10. 11. Conclusion <ul><li>High learning payoff </li></ul><ul><li>Highly efficient Not highly efficient </li></ul><ul><li>Low learning payoff </li></ul>25 Race 2005, p. 117
    11. 12. Impact Lowest quartile  Highest quartile

    ×