1 / 13

DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING

DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING. Presented by: Mercedes Douglas, Senior Tutor, mercedes.douglas@strath.ac.uk Other Reap Team Members: Michael Harker, Lecturer, michael.harker@strath.ac.uk Martin Smith, TLTO, ms@strath.ac.uk Sean Ennis, Director of Teaching, sean.ennis@strath.ac.uk.

dustin-cote
Download Presentation

DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING

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. DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING Presented by: Mercedes Douglas, Senior Tutor, mercedes.douglas@strath.ac.uk Other Reap Team Members: Michael Harker, Lecturer, michael.harker@strath.ac.uk Martin Smith, TLTO, ms@strath.ac.uk Sean Ennis, Director of Teaching, sean.ennis@strath.ac.uk

  2. PRINCIPLES OF MARKETING CLASS 422 STUDENTS – FIRST YEAR 1 LECTURER 10 TUTORS 39 TUTORIAL GROUPS

  3. OBJECTIVES • ASSESSMENT TO IMPROVE READING, SELF/PEER ASSESSMENT – ENGAGE IN LEARNING PROCESS • IMPROVE STUDENT AND TUTORS DIALOGUE • IMPROVE FEEDBACK PROCESSES • ACHIEVE EFFICIENCY GAINS IN ADMINISTRATION, MARKING AND NUMBER OF TUTORIAL HOURS

  4. USE OF TECHNOLOGY • ADOPTED WEBCT: ALL LECTURE TEMPLATES, TEXTBOOK SUPPORT MATERIALS: CASE STUDIES AND TESTS • IN-HOUSE DESIGN OF FEEDBACK TEMPLATE

  5. Reap Project Activities: MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION TESTS ON-LINE MARKING AND FEEDBACK FOR ESSAY AND REPORT

  6. MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION TESTS • FORMATIVE MCQs OVER 2 WEEKS: TAKEN BY 59% OF STUDENTS • TUTORIAL PRACTICE: ALL GROUPS • SUMMATIVE RANDOMISED MCQs: TAKEN BY 90% OF STUDENTS

  7. FORMAL TEST • 954 questions – randomised • 50 questions each for each student • Over two weeks • Two hours • Open book • 60% obtained pass mark (40%) and above

  8. LEARNING IMPROVEMENTS • MCQ Tests • Closing loop by repetition • Immediate feedback/open book: self-correcting, reflection • Peer dialogue: tutorials, outside classrooms • Data from students to be collected

  9. PILOT GROUPS (8 Tutorial groups) : Submission, Assessment and Feedback on-line • IN-HOUSE DEVELOPED TEMPLATE using Visual Basics Software • Submission using WebCt • Tutors download assignment (Word), assess, add comments • Tutors use Template to select comments and award mark • Tutors upload edited version, feedback form and mark on to WebCt

  10. LEARNING IMPROVEMENTS • USE OF TEMPLATE – PILOT GROUP • Used criterion-referenced grid: standard and specific comments (based Price & Rust, 1999; O’Donovan et al, 2000; Rust et al, 2005) • Lecturer defined subject specific criteria • Template allows for automatic selection of comments which are transferred onto Word document - time efficiency • Typed comments – better to read than handwritten comments • More detailed and relevant comments • Data from students still to be collected

  11. ISSUES • With MCQ Tests: participation of students to construct some questions • With Templates – online marking and providing feedback: • Students participation on setting criteria • Using template for students to peer assess • Tutors’ attitude to marking large numbers on-line (bus/train/garden/bed)

  12. WHAT NEXT? IMPROVEMENTS • IMPROVE ON MCQ TESTS • Smaller summative tests • Integration to Electronic Voting System • STANDARD TEMPLATE to be used in all classes in the Department

  13. References • Price, M & Rust, C (1999) The Experience of introducing a common criteria assessment grid across an academic department, Quality in Higher Education, 5, (2), 133-144 • O’Donovan, B; Price, M & Rust, C (2000) The Student Experience of Criterion-Referenced Assessment (Through the Introduction of a Common Criteria Assessment Grid), Innovation in Education and Teaching International, 38, (1), 74-85 • Rust, C, O’Donovan, B & Price, M (2005) A social constructivist assessment process model: how the research literature shows us this could be best practice, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, (3), June, 231-240 • Nicol, D & Milligan, C (2006) Rethinking technology-supported assessment practices in relation to the seven principles of good feedback practice, In C Bryan and K Clegg (Eds) Innovative Assessment in Higher Education, Taylor and Francis Group Ltd, London

More Related