1 / 16

Workshop The M 2 AGIC Wand for Coursework

Workshop The M 2 AGIC Wand for Coursework. 7th Annual Conference on the Teaching of Computing August 2006 Eur Ing Dr Peter Nicholl. Common VLEs. WebCT Blackboard Moodle Good at Content Delivery and Individual Grade Activities. G roup E nabled T ools.

ganya
Download Presentation

Workshop The M 2 AGIC Wand for Coursework

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. WorkshopThe M2AGIC Wand for Coursework 7thAnnual Conference on the Teaching of Computing August 2006 Eur Ing Dr Peter Nicholl

  2. Common VLEs WebCT Blackboard Moodle Good at Content Delivery and Individual Grade Activities

  3. Group Enabled Tools Tools that allow students to review each others work and give a grade WebCOM - ACM Journal of Educational Resources in Computing, Vol. 3, No. 1, March 2003, Article 3. PG System - Proceedings of the 2003 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition 11, 2003, American Society for Engineering Education

  4. Requiremnts Not Metby VLEs • Group work for large cohorts needs: • Group allocation approaches • Assignment submission by the group • Marking of the group • Feedback to • Group • Individual

  5. Typical Lecturer Concerns Biggest challenge - dealing with larger cohorts Tracking of submissions ‘But I gave it to you in class’ Chasing non-submissions Recording of marks Turn-round time and (meaningful) feedback

  6. TheM2AGICWand for Coursework M2 A G I C anagementand arking of ssessments for roups and ndividuals on Large ohorts Tool

  7. Student Interaction Group Preferences Assignment Uploads (optional) Peer / Self Evaluation Automated Feedback Assignments Individual or Group related M²AGIC™ Server Lecturer Interaction Group Creation Assignment Marking / Recording Review of Students Evaluations Feedback Students Choice of components from the system to use Lecturer

  8. M2AGIC • Lecturer control for the group allocation process • Using Belbin (profiling) or • Student Lead Reporting of Team Selection method

  9. M2AGIC • Full audit information to allow tracking of an individual student's progress through an assignment: • Bonus marks can automatically be allocated for completing tasks on time • Logins and collection of feedback • Typical information on each group member • Photograph • Personal statements • Mobile numbers • Alternate email addresses

  10. Magic Users

  11. Peer Contribution ApproachesSpark (open source project - comments) • Group projects aren't fair ! • Students common complaint • Equal marks for unequal contributions • 'Free-riders' known also as 'social loafers' and 'passengers' not penalised • Better students inadequately rewarded and de-motivated • Staff common concerns • Staff dilemma of developing collaboration and peer learning without undesirable side effects • Paper-based attempts in self and peer assessment unable to overcome confidentiality concerns • Paper-based self and peer assessment impossible workload if large classes (i.e. huge data collection, collation and calculations)

  12. Peer Contribution Approaches CHENG & MARTIN, Making a Difference: using peers to assess individual students’ contributions to a group project, Teaching in Higher Education, Vol. 5, No. 2, 2000

  13. Nursing Evaluation 61 evaluation forms were returned out of a possible 70 Use of Magic to Create Groups: 51/61 felt it was a fair and effective way to organise groups, making comments like: • Able to interact with people we wouldn't normally work with • Easy way to assign oneself to a group • Good idea to create groups outside of ones normal social circles • Choosing people with different skills helped in forming different opinions • Good for team building • Gave the opportunity to select groups and meet a wider range of people 5/61 were less happy. • 3 felt they did not get the selection they requested • 2 thought magic was not beneficial and would rather have self-selection for groups

  14. Nursing Evaluation Attitudes to Peer and Self Evaluation: 48/61 felt it was a good idea making the comments below: • Good way to analyse information & contributions made by peers. • No problems as long as scores can be justified. • Useful. • Worked well with effective groups. • Helped to be able to give scores corresponding to levels of contributions. • Allowed you to compare yourself with others. • Fears of consequences if comments made about those who did not contribute. • Positive feedback a motivator & helps pinpoint areas for professional development. • Helped me to be more assertive. • A good learning opportunity to evaluate self and peers. • Rather do this than have a lecturer give me a mark. • 4 Were very uncomfortable with the process. • 3 Didn't assess as they didn't want to offend. • 1 Felt it very hard to judge others. • 1 More guidance needed as peers just give each other good marks.  Nursing Lecturer - From our perspective it was also a very good leaning opportunity thank you for facilitating us.

  15. Staff Benefits of usingMagic Greater Student engagement Active learning Improved performance Proper use of technology Effective use of groups Economy – best possible outcome with least use of least resource OR Maximising output (student learning/achievement) with least input (my time!)

More Related