• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Assignment Feedback Process Improvement
 

Assignment Feedback Process Improvement

on

  • 940 views

Suggestions for improving the assignments feedback process in Manchester Business School

Suggestions for improving the assignments feedback process in Manchester Business School

Statistics

Views

Total Views
940
Views on SlideShare
940
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Assignment Feedback Process Improvement Assignment Feedback Process Improvement Presentation Transcript

    • Assignment Feedback Process ImprovementBusiness Improvement Tools, Techniques & Systems Presented by Group 1: Bai, Shujie Daskalopoulou, Athanasia Kalra, Tejasav Ridhwan, Tengku Adam Su, Jing Yang, Qi
    • Table of Contents• Problem Description• Brainstorming• Interviews• Flowchart• Online Survey• Analysis of Data Collected in The Online Survey• Cause and Effect• House of Quality• Main Findings• Recommendations• Evaluation of Approaches• References
    • Problem Description• Quality feedback is a highly valued component of student learning.• “Feedback must be provided in a timely manner that helps students understand the marks they have received for the work submitted, and how their performance might be improved in the future”. (Policy on Feedback, University of Manchester)• A general dissatisfaction is observed amongst MBS postgraduate students due to delays in receiving their assignments feedback as well as being disappointed with the low level of helpfulness of the feedback comments.
    • Brainstorming• An initial perception of the problem is clarified by holding a brainstorming session in an Obeya room style meeting to ascertain the main crux of the problem.Interviews• Administrators PGT office: In order to understand the process and identify all the stakeholders involved.• Lecturers: In order to understand the actual process of marking the assignments and the moderation process.
    • Flowchart Little’s Law: Work in Process (WIP) x Cycle Time (CT) = Thoughput (TH) Exam scripts = WIP = 40 papers Marking time per script = CT = 30 minutes 40 papers x 30 minutes = 1200 minutes or 20 hours
    • Online Survey• To gain insight into how assessment feedback and procedures are perceived by the students and how they might be improved in our postgraduate education courses. – Sample size: 63 postgraduate students from different MBS courses. • “I think the whole process needs an overhaul. I think there should be much more of a focus on the student so that he/she feels like the university is investing time in his/her progress. Communication is key regarding the reception of feedback after it has been marked. Furthermore, there could be short meetings organised with students and tutors to talk about assignments. This would help most”. • “Online feedback and more details for improvement would be nice, maybe details of your work as example where more in depth writing is needed or criticism mentioned”. • “Schedule the deadlines for marking and feedbacks and announce to the students well in advance. e.g. put into the handbooks”.
    • Analysis of Data Collected inThe Online Survey (A) 1=Strongly Disagree 5=Strongly Agree Feedback received in standard format Constructive criticism Clarity of penalties Personalised feedback Feedback aids academic learning Substantial feedback Feedback received on time Easily found on student system Clear marking benchmark Unprejudiced and impartial 1 2 3 4 5 Average Marks Given by Students Investigated
    • Analysis of Data Collected inThe Online Survey (B)• Statistics information in detail• Strong correlations between students’ perceptions
    • Cause and Effect
    • House of Quality Feedback in a pre agreed Moderator assigned by More time for marking Importance to student Substantive feedback Own feedback forms Balanced workload Set time to provide Smaller class size verbal feedback Use BB more Preferences of university lecturers timePreferences of students On time 10 ● ○ ● Personalised 8 ○ ● ● Detailed 9 △ ○ ○ ● Impartial/fair 7 ● Standard format 2 ○ Constructive 7 △ ● ● Digitised (readable) 5 ● Marks easily locatable 3 ● Absolute importance 9 63 78 58 90 30 162 90 216 Relative importance 9 6 5 7 3 8 2 3 1
    • Main Findings• The coordination between the two markers is made casually and the marking process is not standardized.• The set timeframe for assessment feedback is unrealistic, based on Little’s law it would take on average a little less than 3 working days (20 hours) to completely mark all of the assignments.• Students are generally tolerating the feedback process. In particular, they have difficulties in finding marks on the student system, receiving feedback on time and getting substantial feedback to aid their academic learning.
    • Main Findings• Students perceived that detailed and personalized feedback is positively associated with academic learning.• Although the students strongly desire timely feedback, it is the substantial details that give the most significant improvement of the feedback quality.• Feedback template given to lecturers are too restrictive and inflexible to give out substantive feedback.
    • Recommendations• The moderator should be assigned by the University before the feedback process starts to avoid any delays subsequently.• Inform students of any delays. Queuing Theory states that informed subjects are less likely to be further dissatisfied.• Feedback should be published in the Blackboard system.• In terms of balanced workload the assignment deadlines should be evenly spread throughout the semester and not skewed towards the end of each semester.
    • Recommendations• Smaller class sizes will definitely help with more immersive learning and substantive feedback, however this needs to be balanced with the financial impact to the University of having smaller class sizes.• Changing from 15 working days to 20 working days for assignment results and feedback, thus lecturers have more time for marking and provide more substantive feedback.• Lecturers should inform students at every opportunity that they can have a face-to-face meeting during defined periods to discuss their assignment results. A strapline of “ If you wish to discuss any aspects of your assignment, please come and see me during my office hours”. This aspect is very important according to the HOQ.
    • Evaluation of Approaches Tools Used Advantages DisadvantagesFlowchart  Better way of communicating the  If alterations are required the logic of feedback process. flowchart may require re-drawing  Effective analysis. completely.  Proper documentation.  As the flowchart symbols cannot be typed, reproduction of flowchart becomes a problem.  The fundamentals of what is done can easily be absent in the technical facts of how it is done.Histogram  To show the distribution and  Unable to read exact values because variation of students’ perceptions data is grouped into categories. of feedback.Scatter Diagram  Observing the possible correlation  It may show false correlations that is between two variables. no linkage between two variables.Ishikawa  To break down the main causes of  Student feedback process is indeed a student dissatisfaction. complex process, Ishikawa most  Identify the root causes. effective in solving less complex problems.House of Quality  Highlights the voices of students.  Time consuming.  Easily understand the needs of the  Requires organisational wide students. participation.  Provides a priority for lecturers  Requires cross-functional teams, when making trade-off decisions. resource intensive.
    • House of Quality Feedback in a pre agreed Moderator assigned by More time for marking Importance to student Substantive feedback Own feedback forms Balanced workload Set time to provide Smaller class size verbal feedback Use BB more Preferences of university lecturers timePreferences of students On time 10 ● ○ ● Personalised 8 ○ ● ● Detailed 9 △ ○ ○ ● Impartial/fair 7 ● Standard format 2 ○ Constructive 7 △ ● ● Digitised (readable) 5 ● Marks easily locatable 3 ● Absolute importance 9 63 78 58 90 30 162 90 216 Relative importance 9 6 5 7 3 8 2 3 1
    • Thank you
    • References• Dale, B. G. and Shaw, P. (1991), Statistical Process Control: an examination of some common queries. International Journal of Production Economics, 22(1), 33-41.• Dale, B. G., van der Wiele, T. and van Iwaarden, J. (2007), Managing Quality, Fifth Edition, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford• Ferguson, P. (2011), Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 51-62.• Hauser, J. R. and Clausing, D. (1988) The House of Quality, Harvard Business Review, May- June, 63-73.• Hill, R.C., Griffiths, W.E. and Lim, G.C. (2011). Principles of Econometrics, 4 th ed.• Kenneth B. Yap, Jillian C. Sweeney, (2007) Zone-of-tolerance moderates the service quality outcome relationship, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 21 Iss: 2, pp.137 – 148• Kenneth B. Yap, Jillian C. Sweeney, (2007) Zone-of-tolerance moderates the service qualityoutcome relationship, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 21 Iss: 2, pp.137 – 148• Slack, N., Chambers, S.., Johnston, R. (2009) Operations Management, 6th edition. Pearson• Straker, D. (1995). A toolbook for quality improvement and problem solving. Prentice-Hall International• University of Manchester, (2010). Policy on Feedback