Transcript LEN: SU Marketing Pilot Experiences

DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING
Presented by: Mercedes Douglas, Senior
Tutor, [email protected]
Other Reap Team Members:
Michael Harker, Lecturer, [email protected]
Martin Smith, TLTO, [email protected]
Sean Ennis, Director of Teaching, [email protected]
PRINCIPLES OF MARKETING
CLASS
•422 STUDENTS – FIRST YEAR
•1 LECTURER
•10 TUTORS
•39 TUTORIAL GROUPS
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
USE OF TECHNOLOGY
• ADOPTED WEBCT: ALL LECTURE
TEMPLATES, TEXTBOOK SUPPORT
MATERIALS: CASE STUDIES AND TESTS
• IN-HOUSE DESIGN OF FEEDBACK
TEMPLATE
Reap Project Activities:
1. MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTION TESTS
2. ON-LINE MARKING AND FEEDBACK FOR
ESSAY AND REPORT
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
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
LEARNING IMPROVEMENTS
MCQ Tests
– Closing loop by repetition
– Immediate feedback/open book: selfcorrecting, reflection
– Peer dialogue: tutorials, outside
classrooms
– Data from students to be collected
PILOT GROUPS (8 Tutorial groups) :
Submission, Assessment and Feedback online
• 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
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
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)
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
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