Understanding current practice around the Assessment of Multimedia Artefacts

610 views

Published on

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
610
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
79
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Understanding current practice around the Assessment of Multimedia Artefacts

  1. 1. Understanding Current Practicearound the Assessment ofMultimedia Artefacts Denise Whitelock denise.whitelock@open.ac.uk DMW - eLC - October 2012
  2. 2. Why use multimedia artefacts for a TMAin H817?• Learning by doing• Choice• Story telling in a digital age• Testing high level skills • Communication, Synthesis, Evaluation, Reflection DMW - eLC - October 2012
  3. 3. Assessment criteria/The tutors perspective • Marking criteria again open to interpretation • Ranking easier than marking • Thurstone’s graded pairs, see eSCAPE project (2006) Richard Kimbell, TERU, Goldsmiths College DMW - eLC - October 2012
  4. 4. Assessment criteria/Students perspective• Assessment literacy?• Students misunderstood even when explained face to face, Bennett & Barker (2011)• Need ‘feed forward’, Sadler (1983) DMW - eLC - October 2012
  5. 5. Peer Assessment • Peer Assessment and EVS (Bennett & Barker, 2012) • First year computer science. Designing and implementing a website • 6% improvement (P<0.001) • Following year 4% improvement (P<0.001) DMW - eLC - October 2012
  6. 6. Food for thought?• Understand what is a good piece of work• Know own level of performance• Compare the two• Practice• Route to self monitoring DMW - eLC - October 2012
  7. 7. References• Bennett, S. & Barker, T. (2012). Using Peer Assessment and Electronic Voting to Improve Practical Skills in First Year Undergraduates. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers and Assessment CAA 2012, Southampton, July 2012• Bennett, S., & Barker, T. (2011). The use of electronic voting to encourage the development of higher order thinking skills in learners. Proceedings of the International Conference on Computers and Assessment CAA 2011, Southampton, July 2011• Draper, S.W. (2009). Catalytic assessment: understanding how MCQs and EVS can foster deep learning, Special Issue, Whitelock, D. (Ed), British Journal of Educational Technology, 40 (2) 285 – 293. DMW - eLC - October 2012
  8. 8. References 2• Falchikov, N and Goldfinch, J (2000) Student peer assessment in higher education: A meta-analysis comparing peer and teacher marks. Review of Educational Research 70, (3) 287 – 323.• Kimbell et al (2007) Phase 2 eSCAPE, http://www.gold.ac.uk/media/e-scape2.pdf (Accessed 9 October 2012)• Russell, M.B. (2008). Using an electronic voting system to enhance learning and teaching, Engineering Education 3 (2). DMW - eLC - October 2012
  9. 9. References 3• Sadler, D.R. (1983). Evaluation and the improvement of academic learning. Journal of Higher Education, 54: 60-79.• Topping, K. 1998, Peer Assessment Between Students in Colleges and Universities, Review of Educational Research, 68 (3) 249-276.• Wimshurst, K. and Manning, M., (2012): Feed-forward assessment, exemplars and peer marking: evidence of efficacy, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, DOI:10.1080/02602938.2011.646236• Zundert, M., Sluijsmans, D. & van Merriënboer, J., (2010) Unravelling Peer Assessment and Instruction, 20 (4) 270-279. DMW - eLC - October 2012

×