Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Institutional roll out of submission and marking ss
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Introducing the official SlideShare app

Stunning, full-screen experience for iPhone and Android

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

Institutional roll out of submission and marking ss

401
views

Published on

Presentation for HeLF - EMA Electronic Management of Assessment Workshop

Presentation for HeLF - EMA Electronic Management of Assessment Workshop

Published in: Education, Technology

2 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Thanks for the comments on the presentation. Anything that makes the process easier to understand is a sensible step forward ;-)
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Excellent presentation Rob - I really like the idea of breaking the assessment lifecycle down into numbered sections and cross referencing all your support materials to this.

    all the best

    Graham
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
401
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
2
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Welcome and introductions
  • Have submission areas which support the e-learning flowhttp://www.researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/search [look for feedback]
  • Transcript

    • 1. Institutional Roll Out of Submission and Marking Rob Howe The University of Northampton Presentation at HeLF – EMA Electronic Management of Assessment Workshop 9th July, 2013
    • 2. Learner Considerations 1. Flexibility of submission points 2. Readability 3. Feedback prompt and useful (NSS) (Hepplestone et al, 2011) 4. Usability and training See the SaGE blog for more details on Northampton’s approach
    • 3. Need to join up University approaches Timings: <2010 – Small scale trials (Turnitin, SoundsGood Rotheram (2009) and Looks Good) 2010-2011 - Piloting 2012 – Whole University approach to submission and marking Items to consider: •Basic Comments •Rubrics •Voice Comments •Quickmark comments •Video feedback •Peer Assessment •Second marking •External examiners •Submission points •Letter grading vs numeric grading •Ensure robust functionality of the tools •Archive results in line with University policy
    • 4. The SaGE workflow
    • 5. Creating feedback opportunities Do students value feedback (or just the grade ?) “Staff complain that feedback does not work (Weaver 2006) and that students do not act on feedback (Mutch 2003). It is claimed that students are only concerned with their grades (Wojtas 1998; Nesbit and Burton 2006), see feedback as a means to justify the grade (Price and O’Donovan 2008; Price et al. 2010) or only read the qualitative comments if the quantitative mark is outside of their expectations (Duncan 2007).” (Hepplestone et al, 2011)
    • 6. Some benefits for students • Allows students to read it at a time convenient to them • Allows them to concentrate more deeply on the comments in the absence of their peers. • Students able to access feedback whenever and wherever they complete future assessments. • Where grades are presented alongside feedback, students can use this information to inform their performance in future assessment tasks. • Feedback returned electronically may be returned quicker as time may be saved during administrative processes.
    • 7. Did staff like it ? • Some did (after adapting their style)......others.....
    • 8. Is it working? Feedback from students •Email • Blog • Spot surveys • Focus groups I also feel that lecturers returned grades to students much more promptly when they were on paper I do think that electronic feedback is good because it is easy and quick. It was beneficial as it is easier to hand in assignments instead of having to travel into the university however feel there is less feedback given It would be better if it was more uniform.I think its brilliant and it saves time and money on travelling.”
    • 9. Top five tips 1. Pilot extensively on robust tools and ensure all areas of the institution are represented. 2. Consistent University policies and procedures – do assessments have to be bunched at the end / moderation or second marking ? 3. Mandatory (re)training for all staff involved and phased rollout. 4. Clear instructions for students. 5. Survey feedback – and keep refining.
    • 10. Questions? Contact details: Rob Howe Rob.Howe@northampton.ac.uk 01604 892483
    • 11. References etc. Useful links • Hepplestone, S., Holden, G., Irwin, B., Parkin, H., Thorpe, L., (2011) Using technology to encourage student engagement with feedback: a literature review . Research in Learning Technology Vol. 19, No. 2, July 2011, 117–127. • Rotheram, B. 2009. Sounds good: Quicker, better assessment using audio feedback. JISC funded project. http://sites.google.com/site/soundsgooduk/downloads. Image credits • Photography by Rob Farmer, University of Northampton