InterACT fry-up implementation talk


Published on

Implementation presentation of InterACT May25 2012

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Recognise this course?
  • Feedback in relation to criteria?
  • InterACT fry-up implementation talk

    1. 1. CENTRE FOR MEDICAL EDUCATIONinterACT – interactive assessment and collaboration via technology Rola Ajjawi, Susie Schofield, Karen Barton, Sean McAleer, Grant Murray Centre for Medical Education, University of Dundee Lorraine Walsh, David Walker Library and Learning Centre, University of Dundee
    2. 2. Context Postgraduate Certificate, Diploma and Master’s in Medical Education Longstanding internationally renowned course, distance and paper-based 2010-2012 curriculum review  Online delivery  Larger modules (15 cps)  Update content  Criterion referenced F/P/D
    3. 3. The Postgraduate Certificate The Diploma will equip The Masters will equip will equip practitioners to be practitioners to be leaders in practitioners to be educational teachers driven by a strong medical education and will researchers utilising rigorouspedagogical and evidence-based consist of an additional 4 and diverse methodologies to approach. modules – 2 core answer innovative and original It will consist of 4 modules – 2 (“Curriculum Planning in questions. It will consist ofcore (“Teaching and Learning in Medical Education” and either: a 10,000-15,000 word Medical Education” and “The “Management and dissertation or a research based Principles of Assessment in Leadership in Medical journal article (45 credits) plusMedical Education”) + 2 options Education”) + 2 options an additional optional module
    4. 4. Student profile 3000 students, 550 average new enrolments per year Primarily doctors but some health professionals including nursing and dentistry 75% UK-based, remainder global Non-cohort based, no deadlines (flexible start and finish dates)
    5. 5. Challenges of current feedback model monologic culture of feedback lack of learner engagement with feedback lack of understanding of feedback transmitted feedback creates dependency on teacher no evidence of feedforward not utilising self and peer feedback lack of a shared context for assessment for teacher and learner high teacher effort— low efficiency reduced staff satisfaction as developmental potential of feedback not seen
    6. 6. AimThe overall aim of this project is to improve feedback dialoguein an ODL postgraduate medical education programme1. a longitudinal self-reflective feedforward system developed within Blackboard2. a toolkit of e-activities designed to improve self, peer and tutor dialogic feedback through the use of available technologies such as blogs, Friendfeed, Skype/webinars, or synchronous chat
    7. 7. Baseline activities Document analysis: external examiner reports (2006- 2011); end of course evaluations (2006-2011); additional evaluation surveys conducted in 2010 and 2011 as part of our curriculum review; and the HEA postgraduate student experience survey Meeting with staff including outmarkers Currently doing a feedback audit of 2011
    8. 8. Baseline activities revealed1. Inconsistency in the quality and quantity of feedback provided2. Assessment design (e.g. over-assessment, over- reliance on essays, lack of formative assessment)3. Timeliness of the feedback4. Lack of assessment and feedback dialogue
    9. 9. Outcome measures Attrition rates: based on graduation per year Rates of progress through the module: manual obtained from BB Student survey of perceptions/experiences of feedback: annual February Relevant data from regular module evaluation Relevant data from external examiner reports Qualitative focus groups: students, academic staff and admin Feedback audit: sample size needed? Tool to measure reflective gain ?? Community engagement
    10. 10.
    11. 11. Generic principlesAssessment for learning should:1. Support personalised learning2. Ensure feedback leads to learning (i.e. feedforward)3. Focus on student self-development4. Stimulate dialogue5. Induct students in the educational culture and assessment and feedback practices6. Be acceptable to all stakeholders
    12. 12. Effective feedback dialogue: involves a transactional approach to communication is jointly owned is based on self-evaluation comprises negotiation of meaning is a two-way developmental process is a learning experience
    13. 13. Proposed changes – phase I (09/11-08/12) • Student submits assignment with self-evaluation • Student receives feedback on assignment word document • Student uploads assignment document into wiki • Reflects on feedback/answers questions • Tutor comments on student reflection
    14. 14. Step 1 – cover page Content (understanding of theory / Self-evaluation: principles and application to own Teaching and Learning in Medical Education - context) Assignment 1 - Cover Page - Understanding of learning theory Name: Matriculation No: - Evidence of critical reflection on learning theory and key learning and Tutor feedback: teaching principles Date: Email Address: - Evidence of application of learning theory to own practice Please write a short evaluation of how well your assignment addresses the criteria listed: Style, format and language (e.g. Self-evaluation: structure, coherence, flow, formatting, use of language) Tutor feedback: Sources and references (e.g. range of Self-evaluation: references cited, relevance, consistency, accuracy and completeness of referencing) Tutor feedback: Which aspect(s) of your assignment Student comment: would you specifically like feedback on? Tutor feedback: How did previous feedback inform this Student comment: assignment? Name of Tutor: Date:
    15. 15. Reflection on feedback Wikiquestions1. How well does the tutor feedback match with your self- evaluation?2. What did you learn from the feedback process?3. What actions, if any, will you take in response to the feedback process?4. What if anything is unclear about the tutor feedback?
    16. 16. I thought it was pleasing to hear at yesterdays seminar that Neil McPherson had found significant benefits of students having the ability to access previous feedback on-screen - bodes well for this project.
    17. 17. How does student know who to share with?
    18. 18. Challenge  How is list populated?  What happens if 2+ people same name?  What happens if tutor has different name (John McAleer known as Sean)
    19. 19. How does tutor know when a wiki is updated?
    20. 20. Alert by email
    21. 21. Challenge  Numbers (35 per month)  Searchable?  Sortable?
    22. 22. Advantages Challenges across programme  student and staff open to individual student engagement and staff  alerts to staff and students staff can see all feedback  technology clunkiness provided during programme  administrative issues with promotes dialogue about returned assignments feedback opportunity to calibrate/benchmark instant feedback to marker!
    23. 23. Proposed changes – stage II (09/12-08/13) Develop a toolkit of e-activities designed to improve self, peer and tutor dialogic feedback through the use of available technologies such as blogs, Friendfeed, Skype/webinars, or synchronous chat
    24. 24. Project website
    25. 25. Thank youinterACT is a JISC-funded