Strathclyde chiang

806 views
719 views

Published on

Audio Feedback projects described by Dr I-Chant Chiang from the University of Aberystwyth.

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
806
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Strathclyde chiang

  1. 1. EVALUATION OF THREE AUDIO FEEDBACK METHODS DR I-CHANT CHIANG IAC@ABER.AC.UK 2 FEBRUARY 2011
  2. 2. PROBLEMS WITH WRITTEN FEEDBACK LEAST SATISFIED AREA IN NATIONAL STUDENT SURVEY (BBC, 2007; UNISTATS, 2009) LACK OF DEPTH, SIMPLY STATE THE PROBLEM ILLEGIBLE HANDWRITING OVEREMPHASIS ON AREAS OF WEAKNESS INABILITY TO PRIORITIZE
  3. 3. BENEFITS OF AUDIO FEEDBACKSTUDENT EASIER TO UNDERSTAND MORE DEPTH RICHER FORM OF FEEDBACK NUANCED FEEDBACK TONE OF VOICE MORE GENUINE, ACCESSIBLE, PERSONAL (KING, MCGUGAN, BUNYAN, 2008; BETTER WORK, BETTER MARKS ICE, CURTIS, PHILLIPS, WELLS, 2007; MERRY AND ORSMOND, 2008)
  4. 4. BENEFITS OF AUDIO FEEDBACKTUTOR MORE DEPTH FLEXIBILITY TIME SAVINGS LONG-TERM GIVING FEEDBACK HIGHER QUALITY WORK (KING, MCGUGAN, BUNYAN, 2008; ICE, CURTIS, PHILLIPS, WELLS, 2007; MERRY AND ORSMOND, 2008)
  5. 5. DIFFERENT TYPES OF STUDENTS DIFFERENT TYPES OF TUTORS
  6. 6. RESEARCH QUESTIONSHOW DO DIFFERENT STUDENTS RESPOND TO AUDIOFEEDBACK?HOW DO DIFFERENT METHODS OF AUDIO FEEDBACKCOMPARE?
  7. 7. RESEARCH QUESTIONSHOW DO DIFFERENT STUDENTS RESPOND TO AUDIOFEEDBACK? LOW-PERFORMING STUDENTS DO NOT TAKE FEEDBACK ON BOARD LIKE HIGH-PERFORMING STUDENTS(VAN DER ZEE, 2009) LISTENING AND READING SKILLS DEVELOP DIFFERENTLY WHEN LEARNING IN A NON-NATIVE LANGUAGE (HERRON, MORRIS, SECULES, & CURTIS, 1995)
  8. 8. RESEARCH QUESTIONSHOW DO DIFFERENT METHODS OF AUDIO FEEDBACKCOMPARE? IMPLEMENTATION, EFFECTIVENESS, AND PREFERENCE TUTORS AND STUDENTS ACROSS ASSESSMENT TYPES
  9. 9. THREE METHODS
  10. 10. AUDIO ONLYTUTOR: RECORDS ONDIGITAL RECORDERSTUDENT: RECEIVESMP3 FILE
  11. 11. AUDIO-VISUAL ASYNCHRONOUSTUTOR: RECORDS VIAHEADSET AND ADOBEACROBAT 9.0STUDENT: RECEIVESPDF FILE
  12. 12. AUDIO-VISUAL SYNCHRONOUSTUTOR: RECORDS VIAHEADSET AND SCREENCASTSTUDENT: RECEIVES LINKTO WEBSITEHTTP://SCREENCAST.COM/T/PBQZFECJ744
  13. 13. STUDY METHODOLOGY5 ACADEMIC STAFF MEMBERS33 PSYCHOLOGY HONOURS STUDENTS “HIGH-PERFORMING” AND “LOW-PERFORMING” 11 NON-NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS14 ASSESSMENTS
  14. 14. EVALUATIONQUESTIONNAIRESSTUDENT PERFORMANCEINTERVIEWSFOCUS GROUPS
  15. 15. RESULTS
  16. 16. TIME PER METHOD Percent Listened Average Minutes Recorded100% 1275% 950% 625% 3 0% 0 Audio Only A-V Asynchronous A-V Synchronous
  17. 17. % LISTENED TO FEEDBACK High Performing Students Low Performing Students100% 100% 96% 94%75%50% 60% 48%25% 35% 0% Audio Only A-V Asynchronous A-V Synchronous
  18. 18. AUDIO ONLYSTUDENT PERSPECTIVE VERY USEFUL, LEAST CHALLENGING, LISTENED IN A VARIETY OF SETTINGS PREFERENCE: 2ND AMONG LO STUDENTS, 3RD AMONG HI STUDENTS “IT IS ALL IN ONE GO RATHER THAN HAVING TO CLICK ON SOUND BITES INDIVIDUALLY”
  19. 19. AUDIO ONLY TUTOR PERSPECTIVE VERY EASY TO USE, PORTABLE GAVE BROADER, LESS SPECIFIC FEEDBACK LEAST PREFERRED METHOD “IT WAS VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD”BEST FOR POSTERS, NON-ELECTRONIC WORK
  20. 20. AUDIO-VISUAL ASYNCHRONOUSSTUDENT PERSPECTIVE VERY USEFUL, SPECIFIC AND DETAILED, SELF-PACED, NO WAY TO STOP MID-COMMENT, MANY CLICKS, SOMETIMES INCONSISTENT PREFERENCE: 1ST AMONG LO STUDENTS, 2ND AMONG HI STUDENTS “IT PINPOINTS EXACTLY WHERE THEY’RE SPEAKING ABOUT AND IT ALSO OFFERS THE MARKER AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE MORE ELABORATE, EXPRESS THEMSELVES BETTER”
  21. 21. AUDIO-VISUAL ASYNCHRONOUSTUTOR PERSPECTIVE CLEAR, SIMPLE, STRAIGHTFORWARD, EXPANSIVE TEDIOUS, SPENDING MORE TIME HALF THE TUTORS PREFER THIS METHOD MOST “I LIKED IT, BUT I TOOK WAY TOO LONG” BEST FOR REPORTS, PROPOSALS
  22. 22. AUDIO-VISUAL SYNCHRONOUSSTUDENT PERSPECTIVE FELT LIKE SITTING WITH THE TUTOR, GOOD FOR FORMULATING ARGUMENTS, MUST HAVE GOOD INTERNET CONNECTION, COULD NOT SAVE THE FILE PREFERENCE: 3RD AMONG LO STUDENTS, 1ST AMONG HI STUDENTS “I CAN SEE THE LECTURERS’ THOUGHT PROCESS”
  23. 23. AUDIO-VISUAL SYNCHRONOUS TUTOR PERSPECTIVE CANNOT WAFFLE, FOCUS ON IMPORTANT POINTS PINPOINT SPECIFICS, RE-RECORD SOMETIMES HALF THE TUTORS PREFER THIS METHOD MOST “IT IS MORE LIKE A (ONE-SIDED) CONVERSATION”BEST FOR ESSAYS, FORMAL PRESENTATIONS
  24. 24. STUDENT TYPES NO DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKERS Overall High Performing Low Performing A-V SynchronousA-V Asynchronous Audio Only SOME ABOUT SOME MUCH SLIGHTLY SLIGHTLY MUCH WHAT THE WHAT LESS LESS MORE MORE LESS SAME MORE
  25. 25. OVERALL THEMESTUTORS ENJOYED GIVING FEEDBACK THROUGH AUDIOMEANS BUT SOME ARE PUT OFF BY TECHNOLOGYEND OF YEAR EVALUATIONS WERE HIGH FOR FEEDBACKLANGUAGE COMPETENCE MAY BE A FACTOR IN 1ST YEARDIFFERENCES IN HIGH AND LOW PERFORMING STUDENTS
  26. 26. OVERALL THEMESMARKS INCREASED MOST WITH A-V ASYNCHRONOUSMATCH METHOD TO ASSESSMENT TYPE AUDIO ONLY: POSTER, NON-ELECTRONIC WORK A-V ASYNCHRONOUS: REPORTS, PROPOSALS A-V SYNCHRONOUS: ESSAYS, FORMAL PRESENTATIONS
  27. 27. FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PROJECT:HTTP://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/AUDIOFEEDBACKUK/

×