170 likes | 273 Views
USING FLIP CAMERA IN ASSESSMENT. ANY A HIGGINS a.higgins@herts.ac.uk Senior Lecturer Sport Studies. OUTCOMES. To overview the rationale and logistical implementation of a new assessment mechanism with a Year 1 mixed cohort with the aim of improving pass rates.
E N D
USING FLIP CAMERA IN ASSESSMENT ANY A HIGGINS a.higgins@herts.ac.uk Senior Lecturer Sport Studies
OUTCOMES • To overview the rationale and logistical implementation of a new assessment mechanism with a Year 1 mixed cohort with the aim of improving pass rates. • To provide some critical reflections of using camera based assessment processes
OVERVIEW • Year 1 Mixed Cohort of 125 registered students • Introduction to Sport Management • 1 Module Coordinator • High fail rates • BSc Sport Studies & Joint Honours students- noticeable differences in performance
PPPREVIOUS PERFORMANCE 2008-2009 P PREVIOUS CW PERFORMANCES
ISSUES & ACTIONS • 15 Credit Module • Previous assessment strategy = 2 x CW & 1 EX • Timing of Feedback & Assessment Overload? • Increasing numbers • Minimising Size of Assessment 1 & Incorporating Group Assessment Strategy • 2009 MEF Video Peer Assessment
Chickering & Gamson (1987) • Encouraging contact between student & lecturer • Developing reciprocity and cooperation among students • Gives prompt feedback • Emphasises time on task • Respects diverse talents and ways of learning
Nicol & MacFarlane-Dick (2005) • 7 Principles of Good Feedback Practice • Delivers high quality information to students about learning • Encourage peer dialogue with lecturer • Clarify what good performance is • Facilitate self-assessment • Encourages positivity & self esteem • Closes gap between current & desired performance • Informs teachers to help shape teaching
INTRODUCING FLIP CAMERA • Semester A- used informally with Level 2 Module • Record mini lectures/ uploaded to Studynet/ Generic summative assessment feedback clips • Control measure in large “ lively” groups • Lecturer orientated/focused • Issues with file conversion • Semester B • Student orientated/focus • Gradually introduced to students during workshops over the semester.... • Started by recording workshop discussion activity- voice only • Leading up to..... Formative assessment..
SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW • Panel Interview for a Sport Management position of choice • Group Work – 5 members allocated by Module Coordinator based upon attendance patterns • 1 Interviewee & 4 Panel Members • Academic content – leadership theory & management skills
FLIP CAMERA • Students given option to rehearse interview role play 1 week in advance of summative assessment date. • Groups were emailed video clip to view performance • Although uptake was poor- only 2 groups opted • Consent gained verbally from all members before hand
ASSESSMENT DAY LOGISTICS • One group performed role play scenario whilst being video recorded and peer assessed by one other group. • Both groups would agree a peer group mark before providing each other with verbal feedback. • 126 students allocated into 25 groups of 5 (5x25) • 19 groups were assessed and 14 recorded ....
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS • Positive feedback was received on lecturer allocation of grouping rather than peer group choices. • Being videoed revealed differences in attitudes amongst students • Some juggling of membership but largely group membership adhered to rigorously • Some students were initially very uncomfortable in presence of camera but became less with more exposure • Students displayed more professional behaviour patterns in diligence and performance • Presented professionally- most made effort with dress & appearance • Average mark higher than initial CW mean ( +6%) • Novelty factor high
BENEFITS • 95 students were formatively assessed in the space of 4 hours • All were given peer group feedback which was agreed /moderated by the lecturer only at point of assessment but not via formal moderation process... • Efficient & economical use of time for assessment & moderation • High level of engagement with the assessment process • Most students groups were accurate in their peer assessments * • Although some were generous and unwilling to be critical of peers
OUTCOMES OUTCOMES • Group CW Mean 47% • + 7% difference from CW1* – CW2 • 57% increase in CW grade • 26% decrease in CW grade • 14% (n=17) DNS CW 1 • 17% (n=21) DNS CW 2 • (NB* CW1 1000wd individual essay)
Lessons Learnt LESSONS LEARNT • More assistance needed with recording assessments. • Timing- 15 mins allocated x 2 groups, most groups ran over- 30 min time slot in future. • Issues with file conversion & studynet upload • Some moderation could also be conducted • Implement camera from first lecture onwards to increase familiarity. • Peer group feedback was valuable learning tool
AREAS FOR CONCERN • Although easy to use and to record learning events • Subsequent utilisation and implementation still poses hurdles • Conversion of media files to those supported by Studynet • Gaining admin rights to the right software • Once media files uploaded- access depends on individual student PC system configurations!
REFERENCES • Nicol, J & MacFarlane-Dick, D. (2005) Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: A model and seven principles of good feedback practice. University of Strathclyde