Electronic Assessment Repertory Suite

Library Science Forum




Michael Sobek
                                    28 Augu...
Scope
•     EARS (Electronic Assessment Repertory Suite) is an
      initiative that will provide an end-to-end solution f...
Existing Practice
•     Electronic Assignment Submission
      –   Available today through L@G, however adoption is limite...
Best Practice
 1. Electronic     2. Text Matching        3. Print &            4. Online         5. Course
 Submission    ...
Proposed Implementation Timeline

• Week 9/14 – Academic Trial

• S1 2008 – University Wide Rollout




 Information Servi...
How Text Matching Software Works
•    Papers are submitted electronically by Students or Academics in MS Word, PDF, Text,
...
Limitations of Text Matching Software
•    Text Matching Software:
      – Cannot distinguish quoted versus non-quoted tex...
EARS Contacts
•    Project Manager
       – Michael Sobek (M.Sobek@griffith.edu.au)
•    Change Manager
       – Lynette R...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Library Science Forum

1,001 views
946 views

Published on

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
1,001
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
28
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Library Science Forum

  1. 1. Electronic Assessment Repertory Suite Library Science Forum Michael Sobek 28 August, 2007 Project Manager, EARS
  2. 2. Scope • EARS (Electronic Assessment Repertory Suite) is an initiative that will provide an end-to-end solution for: 1. Electronic Assignment Submission 2. Text Matching Software 3. Electronic Assessment Marking 4. Gradebook Information Services 2
  3. 3. Existing Practice • Electronic Assignment Submission – Available today through L@G, however adoption is limited – Remote Assignment Submission / Print available from OC&AHS • Text Matching Software – No institutional software solution for plagiarism prevention is in place – Some academics are implementing software at a local level – SafeAssignment was trialled for ease-of-use and technical fit • Electronic Assignment Marking – Available in Quiz/Survey form today via L@G assessment items – Electronic document marking not currently available • Gradebook – Available today in L@G, however adoption is limited – Marks Entry Spreadsheet (MESS) used to record course grades – MESS is not updated by L@G, however MESS feeds into PeopleSoft Information Services 3
  4. 4. Best Practice 1. Electronic 2. Text Matching 3. Print & 4. Online 5. Course Submission Deliver Marking Gradebook • Improved, • Any-time, Any- • GU And Common • Paperless Marking • All Grades Consistent Cover place Student Sources Recorded In • Library Of Saved Sheets Access One Place • “Draft” Option Comments • Date And Time • Student/Staff • Students Can • “Student Can See • Rubrics Stamped friendly See Own Own Report” • Can Voice-record Grade • Choice for • Word/PDF/Text Option Comments • Grades Students & Staff Format • Comments Transferred To Archived With MESS Paper Information Services 4
  5. 5. Proposed Implementation Timeline • Week 9/14 – Academic Trial • S1 2008 – University Wide Rollout Information Services 5
  6. 6. How Text Matching Software Works • Papers are submitted electronically by Students or Academics in MS Word, PDF, Text, HTML, RTF or Postscript format • Papers are matched against the following sources: – Internet comprehensive index of documents available for public access on the Internet – ProQuest ABI/Inform database with over 1,100 publication titles and about 2.6 million articles from '90s to present time, updated weekly – Institutional Database all papers submitted by users in their respective institutions – Global Reference Database containing papers that were volunteered by students from Blackboard client institutions to help prevent cross-institutional plagiarism. – Note: TurnItIn makes the check against their equivalent of the “Global Reference Database” an institution-specific option, but does not currently allow students to optionally contribute their papers to the Global database. • An “Originality Report” is generated showing: – Matched text and the source (as a URL) – An overall “Matching Index” (TurnItIn: “Similarity Index”) as a percentage Information Services 6
  7. 7. Limitations of Text Matching Software • Text Matching Software: – Cannot distinguish quoted versus non-quoted text – Cannot process a bibliography – Does not contain all sources – Does not know if the source itself was plagiarised • Therefore, Text Matching software cannot determine if plagiarism has occurred – only the Academic can determine this • Text Matching software can determine if text contained in the submitted paper already exists within its database of sources • The “Matching Index” percentage score, and the sources, need to be interpreted and verified to determine if plagiarism has occurred Information Services 7
  8. 8. EARS Contacts • Project Manager – Michael Sobek (M.Sobek@griffith.edu.au) • Change Manager – Lynette Revelle (L.Revelle@griffith.edu.au) • Project Officers – Ula Kosal (U.Kosal@griffith.edu.au) – Loren Sommer (L.Sommer@griffith.edu.au) Information Services 8

×