Icem&siie 2011 peer-assessment

785 views

Published on

Presentation made at the ICEM&SIIE 2011, join conference, Universidade de Aveiro

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
785
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The project participant (30 teachers and 10 researchers) are also presented as well as how the IPEC CoP evolved. Then some results are described and discussed. Finally, I will share with you some of our doubts and questions.
  • The methodology is based on a case study, being the case the CoP itself. A variety of research tools are being used, such as interviews, documental analyses, observation and questionnaires.
  • The methodology is based on a case study, being the case the CoP itself. A variety of research tools are being used, such as interviews, documental analyses, observation and questionnaires.
  • No ponto anterior – dinâmicas de interacção , foi feita uma primeira abordagem às dinâmicas criadas nos diferentes grupos que importa aprofundar num futuro próximo. Não obstante, cremos poder avançar que o trabalho desenvolvido até ao momento permite assinalar que através das interacções na CoP foi possível: - identificar uma temática curricular de trabalho a desenvolver, bem como as áreas de dificuldades – avaliação e competências, o que poderá ter contribuído para as clarificar e aprofundar. Note-se que está prevista uma análise mais detalhada das discussões em curso e a recolha das percepções dos participantes no que respeita ao desenvolvimento pessoal e profissional que as interacções desencadearam; - desenvolver materiais curriculares de qualidade , segundo a opinião dos professores e investigadores envolvidos, e segundo as reacções dos alunos depois da respectiva implementação; - proporcionar aos professores a solicitação de informação bibliográfica que ajude a encontrar respostas para as suas dificuldades. Esta informação serviu de fundamentação à elaboração dos materiais produzidos e, necessariamente, cremos, ao crescimento pessoal e profissional dos envolvidos . O acesso facilitado à informação bibliográfica disponibilizada e a sua discussão terá também contribuído para a qualidade dos materiais curriculares desenvolvidos/adaptados; - facilitar aos investigadores o reconhecimento das dificuldades emergentes da prática lectiva dos professores envolvidos e, portanto, aproximar-se dessas mesmas práticas , apropriando-se das condições em que elas ocorrem. O acima exposto, cremos, não é despiciente no quotidiano dos investigadores em Educação em Ciência e constitui factores que podem aproximar a investigação e as práticas lectivas em Educação em Ciência, objectivo do projecto apresentado neste documento.
  • No ponto anterior – dinâmicas de interacção , foi feita uma primeira abordagem às dinâmicas criadas nos diferentes grupos que importa aprofundar num futuro próximo. Não obstante, cremos poder avançar que o trabalho desenvolvido até ao momento permite assinalar que através das interacções na CoP foi possível: - identificar uma temática curricular de trabalho a desenvolver, bem como as áreas de dificuldades – avaliação e competências, o que poderá ter contribuído para as clarificar e aprofundar. Note-se que está prevista uma análise mais detalhada das discussões em curso e a recolha das percepções dos participantes no que respeita ao desenvolvimento pessoal e profissional que as interacções desencadearam; - desenvolver materiais curriculares de qualidade , segundo a opinião dos professores e investigadores envolvidos, e segundo as reacções dos alunos depois da respectiva implementação; - proporcionar aos professores a solicitação de informação bibliográfica que ajude a encontrar respostas para as suas dificuldades. Esta informação serviu de fundamentação à elaboração dos materiais produzidos e, necessariamente, cremos, ao crescimento pessoal e profissional dos envolvidos . O acesso facilitado à informação bibliográfica disponibilizada e a sua discussão terá também contribuído para a qualidade dos materiais curriculares desenvolvidos/adaptados; - facilitar aos investigadores o reconhecimento das dificuldades emergentes da prática lectiva dos professores envolvidos e, portanto, aproximar-se dessas mesmas práticas , apropriando-se das condições em que elas ocorrem. O acima exposto, cremos, não é despiciente no quotidiano dos investigadores em Educação em Ciência e constitui factores que podem aproximar a investigação e as práticas lectivas em Educação em Ciência, objectivo do projecto apresentado neste documento.
  • Icem&siie 2011 peer-assessment

    1. 1. E-assessment in collaborative blendedlearning: evolving practices and students’ perceptions Loureiro, MªJoão, Pombo, L. Balula, A. Moreira, A. Loureiro et al. (2011). E-assessment in collaborative blended learning
    2. 2. Sumary• problem/research questions• context• user generated content experience – objectives – methodology• results• final considerations Loureiro et al. (2011). E-assessment in collaborative blended learning
    3. 3. • problem policy/management practice interaction research how to improve? Loureiro et al. (2011). E-assessment in collaborative blended learning
    4. 4. focus bLearning •nature •teaching strategies •learning Online •e-assessment context impact practices (evolve, improve, innovate) research Loureiro et al. (2011). E-assessment in collaborative blended learning
    5. 5. • evolution/research questions EES DE DE (MsD) (PhD 2008/09) (PhD 2010711) evauation of teaching evauation of PA activities evauation of PA activities (students’ perceptions) assessment of coll. work assessment of coll. work (students’ perceptions) (students’ perceptions) quality of peer assessment Loureiro et al. (2011). E-assessment in collaborative blended learning
    6. 6. – PhD program in Multimedia in Education module • Distance Education (DE) – two editions (2008/09 and 2010/11)– blearning regime • face-to-face and at a distance • group work– DE module aim - develop research competences – • search, select, systematize, synthesize and literature related with DE; • communication, collaborative work and assessment competences (self- and peer- assessment) “good enough doctorate” (Wisker, 2010) Loureiro et al. (2011). E-assessment in collaborative blended learning
    7. 7. – PA benefits: • promote higher order thinking, developing students’ critical thinking, communication, lifelong learning, problem solving… • increase the amount of feedback, from teachers and from peers • enhance students’ sense of ownership, responsibility and students’ motivation, since they find it useful, attractive and enjoyable • support active and autonomous learning • can avoid the involvement of free-riders in group work, i.e, facilitate the identification of individual contributions Boud and Falchikov (2007), Joordens et al. (2009), Li et al. (2009, 2010), Peng (2010), Rourke et al. (2008), Sluijsmans et al. (2004), Topping (2000, 2008, 2010), Zundert et al. (2010) Loureiro et al. (2011). E-assessment in collaborative blended learning
    8. 8. – PA pitfalls: • students’ attitudes toward PA may hinder the above mentioned benefits – unconfidence towards PA –> resistant toward PA • PA can be subjective – students might be too hard, critical or boasting, or not used to assess their peers -> increase students’ anxiety • PA is time-consuming – training, preparation, and monitoring are needed– PA advantages increase – formative feedback Boud and Falchikov (2007), Joordens et al. (2009), Li et al. (2009, 2010), Peng (2010), Rourke et al. (2008), Sluijsmans et al. (2004), Topping (2000, 2008, 2010), Zundert et al. (2010) Loureiro et al. (2011). E-assessment in collaborative blended learning
    9. 9. • User Generated Content (UGC) experience and methodology – case studies (blearning courses/user generated content – literature review ODL) / action research (reflexion on/after action). – strategies - project work, problem solving, collaborative learning and assessment for learning -> quality in online learning. – duration of the DE module, participants & tools: • 2008/09: five-week period – 24 students – Wiki ( http://ead0809.wetpaint.com), Google Docs, EndNote Web…; • 2010/11: four weeks) – 18 students – Ning (http:// labconteudosdigitais.ning.com), Google Docs, EndNote Web… Loureiro et al. (2011). E-assessment in collaborative blended learning
    10. 10. • changes in 2010/11 edition: – provided extra opportunities for shared PA and use of assessment criteria of the group work • it was used for formative e-assessment of three versions of the ongoing work instead of one; – assignment made by email -> confidentiality -> authenticity. Loureiro et al. (2011). E-assessment in collaborative blended learning
    11. 11. • results (difficulty and relevance of PA activities) 2008/09 Academic Year! 2008/09 20010/11 2010/11 Academic Year Survey of perceptions about how to make a Survey of perceptions about how to make a literature search! literature search… Partial and final individual reflection (self- Weekly workgroup reflexive analysis assessment) ! Self and peer-assessment of the group work and of Self and peer-assessment of the group work the develloped competences! and of the develloped competences 0%! 10%! 20%! 30%! 40%! 50%! 60%! 70%! 80%! 90%! 100%! 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Difficulty! Relevance! Difficulty Relevance Loureiro et al. (2011). E-assessment in collaborative blended learning
    12. 12. • results (privacy, participants and components ) Academic Year2008/09 - 2008/09 20010/11 Academic Year - 2010/11 Self and peer assessment of developed competences Self and peer assessment of developed competences (inside each group) should be published in the (inside each group) should be published in the modules site modules site Self and peer assessment of the group works should Self and peer assessment of the group works should be published in the modules site be published in the modules site Collabarative work should be assessed only by Collabarative work should be assessed only by teachers teachers Collabarative work should be assessed individuall, Collabarative work should be assessed individually, by teachers and by colleagues by teachers and by colleagues Collabarative work should beassessed with several Collabarative work should beassessed with several components components Collabarative work should be assessed as a whole Collabarative work should be assessed as a whole with the same mark for all elements with the same mark for all elements 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%60% 70% 80% 90%100% completely disagree disagree agree completely agree completelydont know disagree disagree agree completely agree dont know Loureiro et al. (2011). E-assessment in collaborative blended learning
    13. 13. • final considerations - connections with UGC state of art 1. definition of UGC  content created by postgraduate students (literature reviews);  shared freely;  content has not been evaluated through a process of formal peer review (journals);  students performed self-reflexive task concerning the groupwork and the developed competencies. 2. quality in elearning – activities fit the students’ needs and enriched learning context, active involvement in the production of a literature review (product and processes). Loureiro et al. (2011). E-assessment in collaborative blended learning
    14. 14. • final considerations - relations with the CONCEDE framework – CONCEDE framework for peer creation - peer-validation • writing process involved several activities: authoring, editing, updating, revising, reflecting…; • DE module has been evaluated by different stakeholders: – students; – university professor not involved in the module - peer-evaluation; – formal peer-assessment - submitted for publication (journals and international conferences, the experience has been evaluated at the first and second level of the quality pyramid. Loureiro et al. (2011). E-assessment in collaborative blended learning
    15. 15. • final considerations – limitations - personal experience, few contexts, number of students/comparability, qualitative approach… – further work • content analysis (PA, reflexive activities, products…), triangulation • share, dissemination -> transfer to other context – old - improve students learning - meets new??? • does the available ICT tools help, how, in what circumstances? • is its use sustainable? – environment, economical, social development impact??? – inclusion or exclusion??) Loureiro et al. (2011). E-assessment in collaborative blended learning
    16. 16. questions and comments??? mjoao@ua.pt lpombo@ua.pt balula@ua.pt moreira@ua.ptLoureiro et al. (2011). E-assessment in collaborative blended learning
    17. 17. • results (1th edition DE) – quality of PA Adequacy of the final considerations Fairness of the score Provision of constructive feedback (suggestions for improvement) Provision of constructive feedback (questions) Provision of constructive feedback (criticisms) Adequacy of the chosen vocabulary Use of the negotiated criteria 0 20 40 60 80 100 % Loureiro et al. (2011). E-assessment in collaborative blended learning
    18. 18. • module organisation modules organisation (DocProg) Loureiro et al. (2011). E-assessment in collaborative blended learning

    ×