1. Understanding Current Practice
around the Assessment of
Multimedia Artefacts
Denise Whitelock
denise.whitelock@open.ac.uk
DMW - eLC - October 2012

2. Why use multimedia artefacts for a TMA
in H817?
• Learning by doing
• Choice
• Story telling in a
digital age
• Testing high level
skills
• Communication,
Synthesis,
Evaluation,
Reflection
DMW - eLC - October 2012

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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