Enhancing feedback using eGrids and ‘driving tests’

1. Enhancing feedback using eGrids and ‘driving tests’ Matthew Dean Faculty of Technology mjdean@dmu.ac.uk www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mjdean (Teaching and Learning)

2. Research Questions • Can a combination of electronic marking grids (eGrids) and viva based driving tests… • Improve the quality of student feedback? • Optimise staff time spent in assessment?

3. Background “How will I cope?” • Voluntary severance • New duties • Potentially excessive marking load

4. Methodology • Action Research Approach • Mock NSS Results  • Entire year minus module • Module only • Access logs • Student and Staff Focus Groups • Observation and Reflection  • eGrids used on two second year modules

5. The Modules • Multimedia and Internet Technology • Existing module modified to eGrid assessment • 4 x assessment points • Internet Software Development • New module written with eGrids in mind • 3 x assessment points • Both Modules • 100% Coursework • Extensive use of on-line videos • 1 x 2hr Lab, 1 x Lecture • All TLA provided at the start

6. The Driving Test • Viva based assessment • Allows multiple attempts • Peer learning • Limiting factors • One test a week • Three “time outs” • Sliding scale of marks • Only assessed in taught session • Used so far only on “small” assessments

7. The eGrid (Spreadsheet) • Confidentiality – G6.77 Account • Server creates the grids • Read only access for student • Students may model grades • Read write access for staff • Staff update grid with grades + feedback • Split into “credit categories” • Grades may be 0, 25, 50, 70 or 100% • Grade is time sensitive

8. The eGrid

9. Claims for Credit • Claims for Credit • Self + peer assessment • May be limited to a single credit category • Formative Claims • (25% claims) • Review weeks • Time built into taught sessions for assessment • Summative Claims • After assignment deadline (time sensitive grade) • Continuous Claims • Theoretical aspects (time sensitive grade)

10. NSS Results A = Definitely Agree, B = Mostly Agree, C= Neither Agree Nor Disagree, D = Disagree, E= Definitely Disagree (60 Students over 2 Programmes involving 3 Staff)

11. Observations • Staff Perspective • Marking a lonely and boring activity – this approach is anything but • Significant reduction in marking out of class • Quite an intense process • Get to know students • Sensitive to staff absence • Can be quite hard to tell a student to their face their work is not up to scratch • Feedback must be constructive and positive • Possibly demanding for staff new to teaching / new to module content

12. Observations • Teaching and Learning • Mechanism is initially alien to both staff and students – some confusion, conflict and anxiety • Positive impact on plagiarism – ownership of work • Staff and students develop consensus on quality • Moderation of work possibly an issue

13. Oservations • Management • Time to plan prior to delivery (not a luxury I had this time) • Timing of assessments, we need to provide time for students to reflect and engage – less may well be more! • Number and nature of credit categories need to be thought through in advance • Changing grids once teaching has started is a problem • Collating grades needs addressing • Update of staff data entry

14. Observations • Student Perspective • Students become active participants in assessment • Loud cheer of “yes” when asked if they like this approach • Reduced impact on loss of work • Not all students engage with the process • (true of whatever we do!)

15. Where Next? • Carry out remaining research activities • (Focus groups etc.) • Obtain views of non engaging students

16. Tips on Applying for Funding • Seek the advice of others • Action research • Obtain copies of successful applications • Focus on one topic • Research something you were going to do anyway • Make it sexy