1 / 26

Sounds Good: reflections, challenges

Sounds Good: reflections, challenges. Bob Rotheram E: b.rotheram@leedsmet.ac.uk. Sounds Good. ‘Quicker, better assessment using audio feedback’ Coursework: formative, summative, individual, group Leeds Met Leeds Met, Newman, Northampton, York St John [Subject centres: Engineering, GEES].

deiter
Download Presentation

Sounds Good: reflections, challenges

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. Sounds Good:reflections, challenges Bob Rotheram E: b.rotheram@leedsmet.ac.uk

  2. Sounds Good • ‘Quicker, better assessment using audio feedback’ • Coursework: • formative, summative, individual, group • Leeds Met • Leeds Met, Newman, Northampton, York St John • [Subject centres: Engineering, GEES]

  3. Some numbers • £35k + £15k (JISC) • 4 HEIs • 38 lecturers • 1200+ students • Cohort sizes: 3 to 151 • Levels: 1 to doctoral • 34 presentations!

  4. Tools, techniques • Digital audio feedback • MP3 recorders • ‘Audacity’ software • ‘WIMBA’ voice tools • Audio files via: • Email • VLE

  5. Student opinions • Students like audio feedback! • personal, detail, careful consideration • “Very helpful. It felt like the tutor was able to expand more… . Often when you read feedback, things can get misunderstood or meant in a different way. I felt this way was very clear.”

  6. On the other hand… Some students prefer written feedback Should staff oblige? Effort to produce, student ‘skimming’… Some want audio + written Whether/how to do it?

  7. Staff opinions • Staff like audio feedback: • Quality, quantity… • “I was able to give … more detailed and pertinent feedback … [It] became almost an online tutorial.” • “An ideal medium to assist in the development of skills and confidence of students.” • Project manager

  8. From the PGCHE… • (New lecturer, on group feedback) “Never have I 'listened' so intently to others' comments on any work I've done. … And it sounded better than I recalled it from the actual session!”

  9. Time saving? • Don’t expect to save time immediately • Time to send audio files • Problem if many students • Best chance of saving staff time if: • give lots of feedback • write slowly but record speech quickly • comfortable with technology • easy to send audio feedback

  10. Practice guidelines Handheld recorder more convenient? record direct to MP3; USB port Keep files short (<5 mins?) ‘Good enough’ sound quality (32kbps mono?) Get approval for audio use See www.soundsgood.org.uk

  11. Is audio feedback worth it? Experienced practitioner Better, but may not be quicker Give an extended trial Worth it for some assessment, esp. if detail, personal touch valuable to groups Other uses of audio!

  12. Simple idea Sharp focus Everyone benefits Kit easy to use Capable enthusiasts Favourable climate Money no problem Catchy title Me? It wasn’t me, guv! (Comments, questions) Success factors(Rotheram, 2009)

  13. Successful, but… • Will ‘they’ use it? • Worrying precedents • TEL projects die, leaving little trace • Previous flop of audio feedback • JISC countermeasures: • ‘sustainability’, ‘embedding’, ‘widening stakeholder engagement’… • ‘critical friend’

  14. Change: 3-step process(Collis & Moonen, 2001) • Initiation • Implementation • Institutionalisation • 5-year process?

  15. Gartner ‘hype cycle’

  16. Pioneer to mainstream(Collis & Moonen) Often: • Pioneers not high on influence ladder • Pioneers seen as a liability, excluded • Scaling-up given to central L&T group • New stakeholders, lacking experience • Reinvention of wheels • Frustrated pioneers

  17. ‘4-E model’(Collis and Moonen) • Environment • institutional context • Educational effectiveness • perceived or expected • Ease of use • Engagement • personal response to ICT and change

  18. Pioneers and the 4 Es • High expectation of educational gain • Good fit to own setting • Engagement high • able to override negative ‘ease of use’ • ‘Mainstream’ not like this!

  19. Environment • Your institution and TEL: • Vision, leadership, support, level of use, readiness to change?? • Collis & Moonen: • Key figures to recognise, fund, use ICT • Implementation strategy to respect teachers’ concerns, practice, constraints… • Appoint, fund strong, credible, ICT-using leader, able to make own appointments

  20. Educational effectiveness • Audio feedback is rich. Effectiveness? • Collis & Moonen: • Be clear on benefits for teachers • Be clear on institutional benefits • Reward participation

  21. Ease of use • Handheld MP3 recorders: simple to use • Headsets + Audacity: not difficult • Where to record? • Collis & Moonen: • Fund enough support staff • Adequate, readily-available kit • Subsidise home and office ICT use

  22. Engagement • First phase staff engaged, but then… • Collis & Moonen: • Limitations of short courses, workshops: • Staff development better if: • Meaningful context (teacher’s own class…) • Opportunity for practice • Just-in-time

  23. Some questions • Validity of analysis? • How to overcome obstacles? • What next?

  24. References • Collis, B and Moonen, J (2001) Flexible Learning in a digital world, London, Kogan Page. • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype_cycle • Rotheram, B (2009) ‘It wasn’t me, guv!’ Educational Developments, Issue 10.1 http://sites.google.com/site/soundsgooduk/downloads/It_wasnt_me_guv.pdf

More Related