Feedback on summative assessment group presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Feedback on summative assessment group presentation

on

  • 2,079 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,079
Views on SlideShare
2,077
Embed Views
2

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0

1 Embed 2

http://coxypgcap.wordpress.com 2

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

Feedback on summative assessment group presentation Feedback on summative assessment group presentation Presentation Transcript

  • Action learning set 3 Feedback on summative assessmentPresentation outlineJohn Cocksedge – Using a Hybrid approach to feedback and summative assessmentTahira Majothi – The impracticalities of summative assessment in careers guidance and planningJaime Pardo – Investigating feedback on summative assessment within MMP and exploring possible alternate approaches to provide better feedback to studentsMonica Casey – Using Clickers for feedback on summative assessment in library sessions
  • Product design deptThe Hybrid approach to feedback on summative assessment John Cocksedge
  • “Summative contrasts with formative assessment in that [the former] is concerned with summing up or summarizing the achievement status of a student, and is geared towardsreporting at the end of a course of study especially for purposes of certification; it is essentially passive and does not normallyhave immediate impact on learning, although it often influences decisions which may have profound educational and personal consequences for the student” (Sadler 1989)
  • The nature of product design studentsDesigners• Produce novel, unexpected solutions• Tolerate uncertainty, working with incomplete information• Apply imagination and constructive forethought to practical problems• Modelling media as means of problem solving• Resolve ill-defined problems• Adopt solution-focussing strategies• Employ abductive/productive/appositional thinking• Use non verbal graphical/spatial modelling media‘The Nature and Nurture of Design Ability’, (Cross 1990)
  • So how do we assess & feedback to product designers “Whilst the value of process, personality traits and the social environment, is clearly important, creative output is the finalbenchmark on which judgments are made and upon which consensus is achieved or disputed regarding the merit of the work”. (Karl K Jeffries, 2007)
  • We do feedback on summative assessment - BUT• Outgoing method is time consuming and produces assessment/feedback fatigue• Does not capture the individual learning journey• Does not capture/identify student diversity• Does not identify deep learning• Danger of influencing teaching methods/material• Could motivate students to only pass and not to learn
  • We use a hybrid approach of formative (feed forward) and summative assessment to produce feedbackWhy?• To facilitate learning• To monitor learning in progress• Provide feedback/feed forward to learners• Provide feedback to colleagues• Diagnose learners needs or obstacles to learning
  • The hybrid approach and Kolb’s experiential learning cycle Concrete experiences Testing in new Observation & situations reflection Forming abstract concepts
  • The hybrid approach and Kolb’s experiential learning cycle Formative feedback / feed forward Concrete experiences Testing in new Observation & situations reflectionThe learner tries Feedback & out the new Forming abstract concepts observation – the approach learner considers the formative feedback Tutor activity received and decides what next Student activity
  • “Formative assessment must be pursued for its main purpose of feedback into the learning process; it can also produceinformation which can be used to meet summative purposes” (Black 1995, cited in Brown 2007)
  • How do we do this in product design• Align our ILO’s with the Module plan and the assessable tasks (Constructive alignment, Biggs 1999)• Atelier model of learning (Design Council, Creative and Cultural Skills, 2006) – Personalise the curriculum• Sequence the modules, tasks and ILO’s along a consistent design process framework – Research, Ideation & verification• Weight the assessment tasks in relation to the ILO’s – Focus• Sustained frequency of one to one feedback• Capture and record formative feedback – ‘Doctors notes’, consistency• Criterion referencing – ‘Detailed module maps’• Encourage Ipsative assessment – Self awareness• Encourage Diagnostic self assessment - Motivation
  • The formative and summative assessment engine – the Module MapInterface design module - 2010-11 Mark sheet Percentage Sub-total Sub-total Sub-total Sub-total Sub-total Sub-total Sub-total Total Design requirements - Mood board, lifestyle board & Design developm ent & 2D/3D softNo# Student name Gantt chart Task analysis board w ritten brief design culture boards prototype for user evaluation study Final design proposal and 3D appearance model Project docum ent 50 30 40 40 60 70 60 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 350 100 1 Najiya Akhtar 5 8 4 0 0 17 10 6 5 21 10 5 6 5 26 10 8 8 8 34 5 0 0 3 0 0 8 7 5 5 3 10 5 0 35 10 10 6 10 6 5 47 188 53.71 2 Michael Beaney 5 5 4 0 0 14 10 7 5 22 5 5 5 5 20 10 4 4 0 18 5 0 10 10 0 0 25 9 8 10 4 10 8 10 59 5 10 5 9 6 5 40 198 56.57 3 Alexander Bridge 8 8 4 0 4 24 10 0 0 10 9 6 10 5 30 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 5 0 0 15 6 6 5 5 10 5 7 44 10 10 5 10 10 5 50 173 49.43 4 Daniel Doyle 9 5 10 0 4 28 5 6 5 16 9 8 7 5 29 5 5 5 0 15 7 0 10 10 3 0 30 10 8 9 7 10 8 8 60 10 10 8 9 7 5 49 227 64.86 5 Laura Ferns 10 10 10 0 7 37 10 9 7 26 5 5 5 5 20 10 7 7 8 32 8 9 8 10 5 6 46 9 8 9 9 10 5 10 60 10 10 8 10 10 10 58 279 79.71 6 David Gallagher 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Ryan Healey 5 5 4 0 0 14 10 4 0 14 8 4 5 4 21 10 4 4 5 23 4 0 10 0 2 0 16 6 4 8 2 10 10 5 45 10 10 0 0 4 0 24 157 44.86 8 Richard Jones 9 10 10 5 7 41 5 8 10 23 10 9 6 8 33 10 6 6 8 30 9 0 5 4 0 6 24 10 8 10 10 10 5 10 63 10 10 10 10 5 10 55 269 76.86 9 Stuart Kellett 5 6 5 0 4 20 0 0 0 0 6 5 6 0 17 10 4 5 5 24 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 5 4 5 0 0 5 25 10 10 10 9 5 0 44 134 38.29 10 Wincey Lam 5 5 4 0 0 14 10 6 5 21 7 6 5 5 23 10 5 6 5 26 4 0 0 5 0 0 9 6 5 5 4 10 5 5 40 5 10 5 10 6 0 36 169 48.29 11 Ellie McCormick 5 7 4 0 0 16 10 6 7 23 5 5 5 5 20 10 7 5 5 27 5 0 4 8 5 0 22 8 5 5 0 10 0 5 33 10 10 5 0 5 0 30 171 48.86 12 Ross Miller 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 3 5 17 5 3 0 0 8 4 0 0 6 0 0 10 10 2 4 0 0 0 5 21 10 10 5 0 2 0 27 83 23.71 13 Ashish Patel 10 10 7 0 5 32 10 8 5 23 10 8 5 5 28 10 6 5 0 21 6 0 5 4 4 0 19 8 8 8 8 10 8 7 57 10 10 5 10 10 5 50 230 65.71 14 Andrew Taylor 5 4 4 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 6 4 0 20 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 11.43 15 Christopher Walker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Robert Warren 5 5 4 0 0 14 10 7 5 22 0 0 0 0 0 10 5 5 5 25 7 0 5 5 0 0 17 7 6 5 4 10 5 5 42 10 10 6 5 5 5 41 161 46 17 Richard Worswick 6 6 4 0 0 16 5 5 5 15 0 0 0 0 0 10 5 0 0 15 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 6 5 4 10 5 6 43 10 10 10 0 0 5 35 128 36.57 18 Jordi Molina 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 6 5 21 10 6 7 0 23 10 6 6 5 27 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 6 5 5 10 6 7 45 10 10 10 0 6 5 41 162 46.29 19 Cheryl Battlebury 6 6 10 0 0 22 10 4 0 14 5 4 5 0 14 5 4 4 0 13 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 5 7 2 5 10 0 0 29 10 10 5 3 4 0 32 131 37.43 20 Matthew Bowman 5 10 8 0 0 23 10 8 5 23 10 5 5 0 20 10 5 5 5 25 8 0 10 8 9 6 41 8 9 8 8 10 8 7 58 10 10 5 10 8 5 48 238 68 21 Jordan Cooper 8 7 4 0 4 23 10 6 8 24 8 8 5 6 27 10 8 6 5 29 8 0 10 10 8 6 42 8 8 9 7 10 5 8 55 10 10 9 9 9 5 52 252 72 22 Daniel Fairhurst 10 9 4 5 7 35 10 8 7 25 7 5 5 7 24 10 4 0 5 19 8 10 10 5 0 4 37 8 6 5 0 10 7 8 44 10 10 5 10 9 7 51 235 67.14 23 Neill Ford 5 5 4 0 0 14 5 4 0 9 5 6 5 0 16 5 5 5 5 20 5 0 10 5 0 0 20 8 8 7 8 10 8 5 54 10 10 5 5 6 5 41 174 49.71 24 Thomas Grant 5 6 4 0 0 15 10 4 5 19 10 5 6 5 26 10 5 4 5 24 5 0 5 4 0 0 14 7 4 8 2 0 0 5 26 10 10 5 10 7 5 47 171 48.86 25 William Holland-Leavens 10 8 10 0 7 35 5 6 0 11 8 6 9 5 28 10 6 6 5 27 5 0 10 9 5 0 29 7 6 5 2 10 5 7 42 10 10 10 10 10 5 55 227 64.86 26 Alim Karmali 5 5 5 0 0 15 10 7 5 22 5 5 5 5 20 10 4 4 0 18 4 0 5 0 0 0 9 8 8 8 8 10 7 5 54 5 10 5 10 9 0 39 177 50.57 27 Barzin Keywankhosrow 5 8 4 0 4 21 10 6 0 16 5 4 4 0 13 10 7 7 5 29 7 5 5 10 8 6 41 8 8 9 0 5 10 10 50 10 10 5 10 6 5 46 216 61.71 28 Jack Makin 5 8 4 0 5 22 10 9 10 29 10 5 9 5 29 10 10 10 10 40 7 0 10 10 10 9 46 8 8 6 8 10 10 10 60 10 10 6 10 7 7 50 276 78.86 29 Nathan McDonald 10 10 10 5 8 43 10 6 5 21 5 5 5 5 20 10 7 7 6 30 9 0 5 5 0 6 25 7 3 4 0 10 8 10 42 10 10 5 10 9 5 49 230 65.71 30 Simon Poki 5 8 4 0 4 21 10 9 7 26 10 8 6 7 31 10 6 6 6 28 10 5 8 9 4 10 46 8 2 4 4 0 0 0 18 10 10 8 10 9 5 52 222 63.43 31 Mariya Todorova 9 8 10 0 5 32 0 0 0 0 10 8 7 8 33 10 6 6 10 32 6 0 5 0 0 0 11 8 6 4 3 10 0 7 38 10 10 5 8 6 5 44 190 54.29 32 Becky Wareing 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 9 10 29 8 6 5 5 24 10 6 6 5 27 8 0 0 4 9 8 29 8 8 4 8 10 5 8 51 10 10 5 8 7 5 45 205 58.57 33 Rowan Westwell McGeoch 5 4 4 0 0 13 10 7 7 24 8 6 5 5 24 10 6 3 0 19 4 0 10 3 5 0 22 6 2 4 2 10 5 5 34 10 10 5 10 7 5 47 183 52.29 34 Tina Wahle 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8 6 19 0 0 0 0 0 10 6 6 7 29 5 0 2 0 0 0 7 7 6 5 8 10 5 5 46 10 10 8 0 6 8 42 143 40.86 35 Romain Nicoloso 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 5 16 4 0 0 0 4 10 6 6 6 28 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 2 5 2 8 5 5 33 10 10 8 0 5 8 41 127 36.29 36 Mike Power 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 3 4 17 10 7 5 6 28 5 0 0 0 0 0 5 6 5 8 4 10 0 5 38 10 10 5 0 2 5 32 120 34.29 A3 board - Prototype user evaluation partial model with interface elements semantics - Form, materials, colour, Visual narrative of user experience - design with exploded Dwg & full Bill Good collection of images reflecting Good collection of images reflecting quality, exploration & progression of session, issues shown & annotated Table of contents with sub sections User activity defined, analysed and Solid works assembly model of the Evidence of self initiated deadlines 3D model with - Material, physical, 2D/3D soft prototype of the design detailed in a chronological manner Clear coherent construction of the proposal for direct user evaluation Specification comprehensive and Project background, objectives & Comprehensive representation of composition & annotation quality A3 Presentation boards - Image, Individual technical Dwgs of the semiotics - Signs, system logic, Evidence of concurrent planning Com prehensive identification of functional & symbolic attributes target audience clearly detailed represented in a visual manner Concept development - sketch 3D appearance model - Full or the range of existing products the user lifestyle and culture Visual representation of the Visual representation of the modes and stages of use Progressively maintained Presented on A3 format Digital submitted copy tasks and sub tasks Bound A4 hard copy 17.61 16.222 18.81 22.5 19.25 40.22 40 174.6111 49.89 i l bl assembly model module activity l Cover sheet informative A3 layout t t X Factor X factor X factor X factor X factor X factor X factor fM brief t t id A consistent framework and point of reference for student feedback
  • How does this help us with feedback• It allows us to assess work on the fly• It allows us to monitor the flow of the module and adjust accordingly• It allows students to have full sight of and plan for assessable tasks• It allows us to develop/plan for appropriate resources• It allows us to develop timely feedback• It allows us to give very specific feedback• It is non threatening to students• It encourages students to ask questions / seek guidance• It allows students to experience success• It allows us to improve
  • Development in response to student feedback
  • What next ?‘As we use formative and summative assessment on our learners we must also use it on ourselves and our methods’
  • What next ?‘As we use formative and summative assessment on our learners we must also use it on ourselves and our methods’• Task mapping ‘power bulge’• Module maps• Exemplars• Feedback groups• Peer to peer• Self assessment (pre and post module)• Dynamic online self report diagnostics• Statement banks• Personalised development plans
  • “The indispensable conditions for improvement are that the student comes to hold a concept of quality roughly similar to that held by the teacher, is able to monitor continuously the quality ofwhat is being produced during the act of production itself, and hasa repertoire of alternative moves or strategies from which to draw at any given point. In other words students have to be able to judge the quality of what they are producing and be able toregulate what they are doing during the doing of it ” (Sadler 1989)
  • Tahira
  • Challenges of Summative Assessment in a Careers Context• Stand alone careers workshops• Singular interactions• Diversity and the diverse range of students• Limited input into formal assessments © mylot.com, Google images
  • Self awareness: Gain knowledge and understanding about your career-related interests, skills, aptitudes, preferences and goals.Transition learning: OpportunityImplement your career awareness:decisions and put your SODT Model: Career Identify sources ofplans into effect. Planning information andProduce CVs, apply for opportunities in training,jobs and gain work education and work.experience. Decision-making: Evaluate opportunities, make decisions, action plan and set goals.
  • Assessment activities within Careers• Salford Student Life Award• 1:1 QQ or long appointments• Workshops• Filmed mock interviews• Graduate Gateway © Salford Careers and Employability Service• Career planning exercises• MBTI/Belbin How does this meet UK Professional Standards Framework (Areas of activity, Core Knowledge and Professional values) ?
  • Fluidity of assessments• Associative perspective (acquiring competence) – voting pads• Constructivist (learning as achieving understanding)– construct own learning, self reflection – SSLA, Graduate Gateway• Social constructivist (learning as achieving understanding) – workshops, peer learning• Situative (learning as social practice) – ‘learning as arising from participation in communities of practice’ e.g. GG placements, SIFE, employer-led assessments etcJISC (2010), Effective Assessment in a Digital Age. (p9-11) © elated.com Google Images.
  • Future Plans: Patchwork Text (Winter 2003) MethodologyEmployability modules/Bespoke delivery:• Blackboard/Elluminate/VDS• Camtasia/Meebo• YouTube• Peer reviews/student observations• Case studies• Work experience• Specific support for care leaver graduates © Flickr. Nicky PerrymanThis will involve:• Variety of assessments• Small working groups• Little and often – assessments“…online tools can support peer and self-assessment in any location and at times to suit learners – the value of peer and self-assessment in developing learners’ ability to regulate their own learning is increasingly recognised.” JISC (2010), Effective Assessment in a Digital Age.
  • Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy• Remembering – recalling relevant knowledge• Understanding – constructing meaning• Applying – implementing• Analyzing – differentiating• Evaluating – critiquing, self reflection © boohewerdinesblogthing.blogspot.com• Creating – putting elements together in coherent stepsRevised version of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) cited in Forehand 2010)
  • Working towards Constructive Alignment: Biggs (1999)Biggs, J (1999). The chapter above was taken from Houghton, Warren (2004) Engineering Subject Centre Guide: Learning and Teaching Theory for Engineering Academics. Loughborough: HEA Engineering Subject Centre. http://www.engsc.ac.uk/learning‐and‐teaching‐theory‐guide/constructive‐alignment
  • References• Biggs, J (1999). ‘Teaching for Quality Learning at University’, in Houghton, W (ed) (2004) Engineering Subject Centre Guide: Learning and Teaching Theory for Engineering Academics. Loughborough: HEA Engineering Subject Centre.• Forehand, M. (2010) Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Technology. University of Georgia website http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Bloom%27s_Taxonomy [Accessed 20/03/11]• JISC (2010), Effective Assessment in a Digital Age, A guide to technology- enhanced assessment and feedback. JISC pp9-11.• Law, B. and Watts, A.G. (1977) DOTS Model. London: Schools, Careers and Community. Church Information Office.• The Higher Education Academy (2006) The UK Professional Standards Framework for teaching and supporting learning in higher education.• Winter, R. (2003) ‘Alternative to the Essay’, on Guardian Education website http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/jun/10/highereducation.uk [Accessed 23/03/11]
  • Jaime
  • “Feedback on paper is the most dangerous, most widely-used, yet leasteffective way of helping students to learn from their triumphs anddisasters. Face-to-face feedback helps students to make sense of theirthinking, aided by tone of voice, facial expression, body language,encouraging smiles, speed of speech, emphasis on particular words,and the ability to fine-tune the feedback on the basis of how it is beingreceived. Paper-based feedback allows for none of these.”http://phil-race.co.uk/if-i-were-in-charge/
  • Equality & DiversityAccording to the Subject benchmark Statements from the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education: “Research indicates that dyslexia is more prevalent amongst students of art and design than in other subjects…”Umran Ali, Equality and Diversity Coordinator for School of MMP: “The percentage of students on support plans within the school of MMP has been as high as 30% but is usually somewhere around the 10% mark. Compared to an average of a round 4% across the University as a whole.”
  • Group: Students with learning difficulties such as dyslexiaMeasures:• Use of a variety of different teaching methods, including workshops and one on one tutorials• Use of staged handouts to support verbal delivery (handouts throughout the lecture instead of one big clump at the end)• Blackboard & other electronic resources used for notes and exercises• One on one tutorials for support & guidance
  • Group: Students with physical difficultiesMeasures:• One on one tutorials for support & guidance• Careful choice of room/access• Use of a variety of audio/visual/text based content (for visually/hearing impaired students)• Pre planning for external visits to ensure disabled access/support.
  • Group: Students with mental health/personality disordersMeasures:• ‘Opt out’ option for presentations, alternative provided(private or other form of assessment)• Small group presentations & gradual introduction of potentially difficult tasks (i.e. weekly practise of presentations building up to final formatively assessed task)• Sensitivity to personal needs: Not drawing accidental undue attention to student by asking questions to individual students during lectures/seminars.
  • We know from week 6:“The dialogic feedback system puts the students at the centre of learning,providing them with a series of opportunities to act on feedback.” (Duhs, 2010, 5)Underlying my account is the view that:“The single, strongest influence on learning is surely the assessmentprocedures …even the form of an examination question or essay topics set canaffect how students study … It is also important to remember that entrenchedattitudes which support traditional methods of teaching and assessment are hardto change.” (Entwistle,1996, pp. 111–12)
  • Student FeedbackWhat was most useful?“Tutor support, comments and information on handouts was provided nice andearly on.”“The tutor and peer help.”“The group discussions, well organised.”“The guidance throughout assignments.”Are there any changes you would recommend making to the module?“To be longer, the whole year perhaps?”
  • “Emphasis is placed on active rather than passive uses of the tool to encourage anethos of independent learning: students set up their own blog, invite others to join,and upload images and other digital resources to support one another in researchactivities.” (p3.)“…now marks recorded in Turnitin are only visible to the individual student and hisor her tutor. Students are also more likely to return to the feedback they havebeen given: grades and feedback remain stored in the system and are notlost by the time of the next assignment.” (p3.)JISC Case study 3: Supporting The Transition To Degree Level Study, Loughborough College.http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearning/digiassess_supportingtrans.pdf
  • “While it is difficult to establish that oral feedback has a greater impact on students’cognitive development than written feedback, students on the MSc OccupationalPsychology course appear to be more attentive to spoken feedback; most respondpositively to the intimacy of the spoken word and perceive tutors’ advice as beingclearer and more detailed. Audio-recorded feedback is also helping to reduce theisolation of learning remotely; early evidence from course data suggests that theremay have been a positive impact on retention rates, although this has yet to beempirically evaluated:‘Podcasts made me feel closer to my tutors and I think they help you to builda relationship with them.’ Student, MSc Occupational Psychology, University ofLeicester” (p3.)JISC Case study 6: Enhancing The Experience of Feedback, University of Leicesterhttp://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearning/digiassess_enhancingfeedbk.pdf
  • Conclusion• “Feedback is a worthy focus of academic effort since it focuses students on what they need to improve.” ( Blayney and Freeman, 2004:2)• Written Feedback on Summative Assessment is widely used yet ineffective.• Technology can enhance the experience of feedback • Audio Feedback – podcasting • Use of blogs and e-portfolios
  • Monica
  • Using Clickers for summative assessment and feedback What are Clickers? Clickers* are similar to the technology used on the TV program “Who Wants To Be a Millionaire” during ‘ask the audience’. A teacher asks questions in-class and students use a ‘clicker’ to respond. The students’ responses can be viewed immediately on projector screen and/or scores can be captured then reports generated for further analysis. * Clickers are also known as Personal Response Systems (PRS), Audience Response Systems (ARS), Electronic Response Systems (ERS), Student Response Systems (SRS), Interactive Response Systems (IRS), Electronic Voting Systems (EVS), Classroom Response Systems (CRS), Zappers, Voting Pads …. and more.Taken from Dunleavy, C (no date) 
  • Using Clickers in Library Inductions• Context: – Information Literacy strategy aims to provide students with transferable skills – Wide range of students – ‘One shot’ sessions• Inductions: – Student centred – Clickers used for immediate summative assessment and feedback (links with UK PSF Core Knowledge 4, ‘Use of appropriate learning technologies’)
  • What are the benefits for the learners?• Anonymous – Caldwell (2007) indicates they like to know they are not alone in their thinking• Responding to questions ‘encourages all students to think actively’ (McCune, no date)• Immediate face to face feedback• Enables feedback to be accessible and inclusive
  • Student Feedback“The voting pods were awesome”“Enjoyed the session with the interactive key pad and made me engage and learn more from the session”“Who knew being in a library could be so much fun!”“Overall, clickers have the potential to improve classroom learning, especially in large classes. Students and instructors find their use stimulating, revealing, motivating, and – as an added benefit – just plain fun” (Caldwell, 2007, p19)
  • Implications for ongoing practice ‘As we use formative and summative assessment on our learners we must also use it on ourselves and our methods’ • Exemplars • Feedback groups • Peer to peer • Self assessment (pre and post module) • Dynamic online self report diagnostics • Statement banks • Personalised development plans • Use of technology for feedback/summative assessment • Student feedback • Hybrid formative/summative approach Feedback on assessment should be about putting students at the centre oftheir own learning and equipping them with the tools for lifelong engagement
  • References & BibliographyBiggs, J (1999). ‘Teaching for Quality Learning at University’, in Houghton, W(ed) (2004) Engineering Subject Centre Guide: Learning and Teaching Theoryfor Engineering Academics. Loughborough: HEA Engineering Subject Centre.Brown, S. (1997) ‘Using formative assessment to promote student learning’,www.ldu.leeds.ac.uk/news/events/documents/BrownPowerPoint.pdf, accessedon 09/03/11Cross N.G. (1990) ‘The nature and nurture of design ability’, Design Studies,Vol. 11, No 3, pp.127-140Jeffries, K. (2007) ‘Diagnosing the creativity of designers: individual feedbackwithin mass higher education’, Design Studies, vol. 28, issue 5, pp.485-497Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learningand Development, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-HallSadler, D. R. (1989) ‘Formative assessment and the design of instructionalsystems’, Instructional Science, vol. 18, 119-144
  • • Biggs, J (1999). ‘Teaching for Quality Learning at University’, in Houghton, W (ed) (2004) Engineering Subject Centre Guide: Learning and Teaching Theory for Engineering Academics. Loughborough: HEA Engineering Subject Centre.• Forehand, M. (2010) Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Technology. University of Georgia website http://projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title=Bloom%27s_Taxonomy [Accessed 20/03/11]• JISC (2010), Effective Assessment in a Digital Age, A guide to technology- enhanced assessment and feedback. JISC pp9-11.• Law, B. and Watts, A.G. (1977) DOTS Model. London: Schools, Careers and Community. Church Information Office.• The Higher Education Academy (2006) The UK Professional Standards Framework for teaching and supporting learning in higher education.• Winter, R. (2003) ‘Alternative to the Essay’, on Guardian Education website http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/jun/10/highereducation.uk [Accessed 23/03/11]
  • Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2007) Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Society for Research intoHigher Education & Open University Press.Duhs, R. (2010) „Please, no exam”‟ Assessment strategies for international students, in: SEDAEducational Developments, Issue 11.4, Dec, pp. 3-6Hattie, J. and Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Education Research, 77, 81-112.Knight, Peter T.(2002) Summative Assessment in Higher Education: Practices in disarray, Studiesin Higher Education, 27: 3, 275 — 286Entwistle, N. (1996) Recent research on student learning, in: J. TAIT & P. KNIGHT (Eds) TheManagement of Independent Learning, pp. 97–112 (London, Kogan Page)JISC Case study 3: Supporting The Transition To Degree Level Study, Loughborough College.http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearning/digiassess_supportingtrans.pdfJISC Case study 6: Enhancing The Experience of Feedback, University of Leicester.http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearning/digiassess_enhancingfeedbk.pdfJISC Case study 8: Reflecting on Feedback, University of Westminster.http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearning/digiassess_rereflectingfdback.pdfSubject benchmark Statements, Art and Design (2008).http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/benchmark/honours/artanddesign.asp
  • Biggs, J.B. (2003) Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd edition).Buckingham, Open University PressCaldwell, J. E. (2007) “Clickers in the large classroom: current research andbest-practice tips” CBE-Life Sciences Education, Vol 6, Spring, pp 9 – 20Deleo, P., Eichenholtz, S. and Sosin, A. A.(2009) “Bridging the informationliteracy gap with clickers”, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 35 (5)pp438 - 444Dunleavy, C (no date) Enhancing face-to-face teaching with Clickers.<www.ldu.salford.ac.uk/html/tel/tools/clickers.html> [accessed 20/03/2010]Julian, S. and Benson, K. (2008) “Clicking your way to library instructionassessment”, C&RL News, May, pp 258 – 260McCune, V. (no date) “Effective use of clickers in the College of Science andEngineering”, one The College of Science and Engineering, EdinburghUniversity website.<www.scieng.ed.ac.uk/LTStrategy/clickers_effectiveUse.html> [accessed21/03/2010]