1 / 16

Providing Feedback to Students Electronically: The Electronic Feedback Freeware

Providing Feedback to Students Electronically: The Electronic Feedback Freeware. Philip Denton Faculty Learning Development Manager Liverpool John Moores University. Contents. Electronically-assisted feedback Electronic Feedback v15: Short Demo

chaela
Download Presentation

Providing Feedback to Students Electronically: The Electronic Feedback Freeware

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Providing Feedback to Students Electronically: The Electronic Feedback Freeware Philip Denton Faculty Learning Development Manager Liverpool John Moores University

  2. Contents Electronically-assisted feedback Electronic Feedback v15: Short Demo Traditional versus Electronic feedback: Comparative Case study Conclusions

  3. Electronically-assisted feedback Typed remarks via Emails/VLEs1 Automatic feedback on MCQs2 Web-facilitated peer assessment of free-response type questions3 Video4a / Streamed Audio4b feedback Bespoke subject specific systems e.g. assessment of computer code writing5 Marking assistants: Turnitin Grademark 6 Electronic Feedback freeware 7,8

  4. Electronic Feedback v15 Facilitates the synthesis of feedback Tutor inputs Student names, email addresses Comments (including standard comments) Marks and allocation of standard comments Software outputs (Auto)Mark, Mark stats, allocation stats Individualised MS Word feedback reports … which may be emailed to students

  5. Example feedback sheet (Abridged) Dr Philip Denton 18 Dec 2008 PHCDF1015 Log P Extended Laboratory Reports ANDREW N OTHER <37665> 58% 2(ii) Class Your % mark is shown above. As detailed in the supporting information, I've considered the following aspects of your work. The % weightings allocated to each section in the markscheme are indicated. INTRODUCTION (Weighting: 10%) A very good start to report that dealt with most of the underlying theory associated with this practical: Partition phenomena, acid dissociation, apparent partition coefficients, Lambert-Beer law. Take care with symbols when writing the equation that defines log P. METHOD (Weighting: 5%) A good account of what you did but remember the importance of writing in appropriate scientific style RESULTS, TABLES, GRAPHS AND CALCULATIONS (Weighting: 35%) [H+] is given by antilog(-pH) and you should have stated this explicitly. The title of one (or both) of your graphs is inappropriate: It should detail what is being plotted and identify the system (salicylic acid) that is being considered. This was generally a good report, Andrew, but the lack of references and a failure to fully discuss the role of log P in drug development stopped it from being first class. Thank you for the effort that you put into this work.

  6. Short demo of v15 Consists of 3 files Guide15.xls: Read-only interactive guide Fb15.doc: May be ignored by the user Feedback15.xls: Template on which all feedback files are based. Usual to create one feedback file for each assignment.

  7. Case study: Traditional versus Electronic Feedback9 Study of Level 1 Pharmaceutical Science and Pharmacy (PSP) extended lab report ‘Traditional’ and electronic feedback returned to 198 PSP Students by 7 markers Characteristics of effective feedback identified from literature Questionnaire designed so that students could rate their feedback

  8. Case study: Method 4 Markers returned traditional feedback only 3 Markers returned traditional (T) and electronic (E) feedback Standard Comments agreed by E-marking team E-markers interviewed after marking complete Lab reports and feedback returned within class: Student confer over questionnaires Average Likert scores calculated (5 = agree)

  9. Case study: Results Response rate 85%: Average Likert for E (n = 40) is 0.9 units greater than T (n =129) Responses to all questions were correlated with each other, r = +0.162 to r = +0.657 Correlations were significant (P<0.05)  First principal component score can be used as an overall satisfaction rating We undertook a principal component analysis and two-way analysis of satisfaction rating variance using Minitab General Linear Model

  10. Case study: Results (cont.) Marker identity and feedback type were treated as the two factors Influence of individual markers was not found to be significant (P = 0.238) Feedback type v. significant (P < 0.001) Mann-Whitney test: Responses to Q2 (legibility), Q3 (amount), Q5 (identifies errors) and Q6 (where did well) differed significantly according to feedback type

  11. Case study: Results (cont.) Informal interviews conducted with the 3 markers that used Electronic Feedback Took 2 to 3 minutes less marking time per script (up to 2 hours for 40 scripts) Average marks awarded by Markers 1 to 3 (n = 129) were within 6% of each other: 19% for Markers 4 to 7 (n = 69) Tutors appreciated facility to automatically return emailed feedback

  12. Case study: Conclusions Students prefer E-feedback, as noted.7 This study identifies specific features: Legibility (SENDA) Amount (e.g. model answers) Identification of negative/positive aspects Staff favour E feedback, as noted.8 Consistent feedback (bottom/top of pile) Reduced marking time (once set up) Feedback returned more quickly, by email

  13. What next? Electronic feedback freeware available: www.tinyurl.com/36oem5 v15 expires 30/09/09: v16 then available for download V16 will correct (non-critical) issues when running EF on Office 2007. A consultancy are working on a BlackBoard VLE version of the software (HEFCE TQE funding)

  14. References Collis, B., De Boer, W. & Slotman, K. (2001). Feedback for web-based assignments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 17, 306-313. Bull, J. & Stephens, D. P. (1999). The use of question mark software for formative & summative assessment in two universities. Innovations in Education & Training International 36, 128-136. Bhalerao, A. & Ward, A. (2001). Towards electronically assisted peer assessment: A case study. Association of Learning Technology Journal 9, 26-37. a) Hase, S. & Saenger, H. (1997). Videomail - a personalised approach to providing feedback on assessment to distance learners. Distance Education 18, 362-369. b) e.g. http://www.wimba.com/products/wimba_voice/ (www.tinyurl.com/qxrjlj) Heo, M. & Chow, A. (2005). The impact of computer augmented online learning & assessment tool. Educational Technology & Society 8, 113-125. http://turnitin.com/static/grademark.html (www.tinyurl.com/oxeq97) Denton, P. (2001). Generating coursework feedback for large groups of students using MS Excel & MS Word. University Chemistry Education 5, 1-8. Denton, P. (2003). Evaluation of the ‘electronic feedback’ marking assistant ... Proceedings of the 7th International Computer Aided Assessment Conference (pp 157-173), Learning and Teaching Development: Loughborough. Denton, P., Roberts M., Madden J., Rowe P. (2008) Students’ response to traditional and computer-assisted formative feedback: A comparative case study. British Journal of Educational Technology 39, 486-500.

More Related