1 / 14

Looking back to take things forward

Looking back to take things forward. Reflections on a language portfolio. Ruth Hatcher, Laurence Millard & David Tual Language Unit , Engineering Department. Presentation overview. Context + problem WHAT AND HOW FEEDBACK from staff and students WHAT NEXT? Conclusion. Introduction.

sriley
Download Presentation

Looking back to take things forward

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. Looking back to take things forward Reflections on a language portfolio Ruth Hatcher, Laurence Millard & David Tual Language Unit , Engineering Department

  2. Presentation overview • Context + problem • WHAT AND HOW • FEEDBACK from staff and students • WHAT NEXT? • Conclusion

  3. Introduction • The Language Unit & the Language Programme for Engineers • Our students • Previous assessment methods (homework and participation)

  4. Our portfolio • 6 pieces of homework to be submitted either electronically (Google Drive or email) or on paper • Corrections (following a colour code) and reflections • Autonomous learning log

  5. Students’ feedback

  6. Students’ feedback

  7. Students’ feedback on using Google Drive

  8. Students’ feedback on using Google Drive

  9. Comments from students who would prefer an alternative means of handing in their work • “Easier to write German than type it, not good interface” • “By hand – actually get a feel of writing before the exams – easier + no autocorrect” • “Prefer to hand write, by completing it online I spent too much time editing it” • “Submitting written homework is more useful as you can make side notes and easier to refer back” • “Typed and printed to the teacher, because the feedback in the margin can be useful”

  10. Feedback PROS CONS Time consuming (Time spent on marking homework: average 10.9 minutes, double checking: 5.9, using G drive: 13.5 and 6.7 respectively) Requires training of teachers and students Allows student to copy and paste from external resources More impersonal • Easy-to-access repository • Immediate feedback • Empowers the students

  11. What next? • Add a variety of tasks (covering all 4 skills) • Moodle vs. Google • Change the attitude of students and teachers • Carrying on with monitoring control quality and student satisfaction

  12. Conclusion What we have learnt: • The need to explain and train staff & students to use Google Drive (or any other virtual platform) • The value of continuous assessment • Set the right expectations Arising questions to explore further: • How to best use contact and non-contact time?

  13. Readings • Cadd, M. (2012). The Electronic Portfolio as Assessment Tool and More: The Drake University Model. IALLT Journal of Language Learning Technologies 42(1), 96-126. http://www.iallt.org/iallt_journal/the_electronic_portfolio_as_assessment_tool_and_more_the_drake_university_model • Cavanaugh, A.J. & Song, L. (2014). Audio Feedback versus Written Feedback: Instructors and Students’ Perspectives. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 10(1), 122-138. http://jolt.merlot.org/vol10no1/cavanaugh_0314.pdf • Edwards, D. (2014). Pedagogy First – Technology… Learning and Innovation [weblog]. Retrieved July 2014 from http://dedwards.me/2014/02/15/pedagogy-first-technology/

More Related