SCOF: A Standardised, Customisable Online Feedback Tool

513 views

Published on

Presentation from Edmedia 2012 on a tool that I developed to help teachers quickly provide rich assessment feedback to students.

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
513
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Feedback charter has 10 principles: 1. Formative assessment and feedback should be used throughout the programme 2. Students should have access to face-to-face feedback for at least the first priece of assessent each academic year 3. Receiving feedback should not be exclusive to certain forms of assessment 4. Feedback should be timely 5. Students should be provided with a variety of assessment methods 6. There should be anonymous marking for all summative assessment 7. Students should be able to submit assessment electronically 8. Students should be supported to critique their own work 9. Programme induction should include information on assessment practices and undersatning marking criteria 10. Students should be given a choice of format for feedback
  • Scof derived from Scoff – Eat lots quickly.
  • http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/~sbbf700/scof-demo/final/prepareToFeedback.html
  • 0.30 – 0.48 4.44
  • SCOF: A Standardised, Customisable Online Feedback Tool

    1. 1. SCOF: A Standardised, Customisable Online Feedback Tool Dr. Ian Glover City University London, UK {ian.glover.1@city.ac.uk}
    2. 2. Outline • The Problem(s) • Possible Solutions • SCOF • Potential Uses • Demonstration • Early Results • Future Work
    3. 3. Problem - Sector (UK) • Increasing student demand for meaningful feedback. • Higher student fees = better ‘value’ needed. • Reduced government funding = less resources per student. • National Union of Students Charter on Feedback & Assessment (Summary)
    4. 4. Problem - Institution • Institution-wide feedback timescale (3 weeks max.) • Increased reliance on PhD students for grading • Huge pressure to increase research outputs
    5. 5. Problem – School/Faculty • Wide variety of assessment methods: • Online, Offline (Hard copy), Situated (Labs) • Reports, schematics, models, software, presentations, … • Little exposure to learning technologies or pedagogical good practice • Conservative mind-set – resistant to new processes
    6. 6. Possible Solutions • Quality-focussed solutions • Formal moderation of all feedback • Mandatory training in providing good feedback – including periodic reviews • Peer review of feedback • Speed-focussed solutions • Rubrics/Feedback schema • Brief audio/video summaries • Generic feedback for whole cohort
    7. 7. But… • Rubrics/Schemes trade individuality for speed (Stevens & Levi, 2004) • Detailed feedback necessarily focuses on errors/problems • Little time to encourage and praise good work (Nicol & Macfarlane-Dick, 2006) • Students have mixed reactions to rubrics • Like the speed of feedback they allow • Dislike the impersonal text (Andrade & Du, 2005) • Yet, standardisation can help students make better use of feedback (Duncan, 2007)
    8. 8. None ideal, so a ‘third way’ needed
    9. 9. SCOF • Aims to give the speed of rubrics, but encourage consistent, high-quality personal feedback. • Can include grades for each feedback item. • 3-stage process • Select scheme values • Customise generated output • Save final file Example Scheme in SCOF Feedback Editing
    10. 10. SCOF • Produces ‘rich’ electronic documents with images, links, styling, etc. • Output not obviously based on a rubric Example Final Output File (PDF)
    11. 11. SCOF • Intended for use on Tablets (e.g. iPads, Android, etc.) and Smartphones, as well as PCs. • Can import gradebook from Moodle for easier personalisation. • Though not linked to particular assessment type, or distribution platform (i.e. VLE).
    12. 12. Potential Uses • ‘Instant’ feedback, e.g. for presentations • Support ‘Feedforward’ practices by giving links to extra resources. • Provide quality base feedback for use by inexperienced graders • Peer review by students • Focus on common aspects = more time on specifics
    13. 13. Demonstration[Click Here]
    14. 14. Early Results • Pilots across 4 schools at City (Social Sciences, Health, Informatics, Engineering) • Students appreciate the increased speed of receiving feedback • Staff like the efficiency increases in producing quality feedback • But, some resistance due to having to plan the feedback scheme prior to grading.
    15. 15. But Don’t Just Take My Word For It! Daniel Apau (Pilot User, Lecturer in Health Sciences)
    16. 16. Future Work • Open Source release • Feedback bank to enable reuse of existing items • Save values in database, then statistical analysis of performance across assessments • Closer integration with Moodle • Offline version?
    17. 17. Questions? http://blogs.city.ac.uk/ted http://www.flickr.com/photos/irglover/ CC BY-NC-SA 3.0
    18. 18. References • Andrade, H. & Du, Y. (2005). Student perspectives on rubric-referenced assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(5). [Online] • Duncan, N. (2007). ‘Feed-forward’: improving students’ use of tutors’ comments . Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 32 (2). [Online] • Nicol, D. J. & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006). Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of g . Studies in Higher Education, 31 (2). [Online] • Stevens, D.D. & Levi, A.J. (2004). Introduction to rubrics: An assessment tool to save grading time, convey effective feedback and promote student learning, Sterling, VA: Stylus

    ×