Are you drowning in marking? I know I am.
With over 350 assignments and half a dozen dissertations to mark this year I find myself constantly under pressure to meet tight deadlines, ensure academic integrity and provide students with the appropriate level of feedback to allow them to progress. At its peak I find myself questioning whether I can be more effective - during January and February this year I reached a breaking point - I needed a solution that would provide better levels of feedback whilst meeting the students needs (including having unlimited access to feedback sheets). The solutions seemed wide and varied.
It is widely reported that what is assessed and how it is assessed drives student behavior (Biggs & Tang, 2007; Boud & Falchikov, 2007). It is argued that a move to using web-based technologies can “compensate for increased student numbers within established traditions of design education” (Jeffries, 2007, p. 488). Where as Taylor and McCormack (2008) and France and Wheeler (2007) argue the merits of pre-recorded MP3 files or podcasts. I have implemented this approach combing computer screen capture technology where I can simultaneously voice record and illustrate points on the students work. This video is then uploaded to my skydrive and the linked shared with the student. Feedback form the students is very positive as they are having a highly personalised video. I found this useful and it provided a permanent resource for my students. I undertook this with my dissertation students but at times could be time consuming and may not be practical with large classes (Jeffries, 2007)
Henderson (2008) reports that the use of the Turnitin program as an anti-plagiarism tool is widespread and can assist marking and grading essays through its Grademark function. Henderson (2008) suggests that Grademark offers a number of functions analogous to hand marking. such as;
Running an initial pilot with one of my groups I found grademark to be very effective. The interface is straight forward and found when reading I could quickly annotate the students work with existing and pre-prepared comments and still had the flexibility to add personal comments to the work. This was faster that trying to write comment yet retained a high degree of information (if not more). I have been experimenting with grading rubrics and students have reacted positively - using the grademark rubrics function added a secondary level of feedback and once constructed was an easy and positive tool. The final level of feedback allowed me to add a section for a personal comment. This feedback was available within the allotted timescales and students could access their grade and feedback remotely and they can return to their feedback on a regular basis - which students have reported is useful especially where there maybe a large gap between assignments.
For my module management gardemark provided downloadable reports which collate the rubrics and drop and drag comments to provide feedback on positive and problem areas across the group. These reports exported to excel have enabled me to construct more detailed reports for my end of module reviews which should enhance the external examination process. All in all this was a positive experience and the system clearly offers more than just test for plagiarism. and As part of a broader system of feedback tools I am experimenting with this will certainly enhance my ability to provide effective feedback.
References
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long term learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31 (4), 399-413.
France, D., & Wheeler, A. (2007). Reflections on using podcasting for student feedback. Planet 18, 9-11
Henderson, P (2008). Electronic Grading and Marking - A Note on Turnitin Grademark Function. History Australia, VOLUME 5, NUMBER 1.
Jeffries, K.K. (2007). Diagnosing the creativity of designers: individual feedback within mass higher education. Design Studies, 28 (5), 485-497.
Oxman, R. (2008). Digital architecture as a challenge for design pedagogy: theory, knowledge, models and medium. Design Studies, 29, 99-120.
Rust, C. (2002). The Impact of Assessment on Student Learning: How Can the Research Literature Practically Help to Inform the Development of Departmental Assessment Strategies and LearnerCentred Assessment Practices? Active Learning in Higher Education, 3, 145-158. Retrieved January 6, 2009, from http://alh.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/3/2/145.
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 and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30 (3), 233-241.
Taylor M., & McCormack C. (2008) What happens when design feedback moves across the digital divide? Paper presented at the Australian Council of University Art and Design Schools (ACUADS) Annual Conference.
With over 350 assignments and half a dozen dissertations to mark this year I find myself constantly under pressure to meet tight deadlines, ensure academic integrity and provide students with the appropriate level of feedback to allow them to progress. At its peak I find myself questioning whether I can be more effective - during January and February this year I reached a breaking point - I needed a solution that would provide better levels of feedback whilst meeting the students needs (including having unlimited access to feedback sheets). The solutions seemed wide and varied.
It is widely reported that what is assessed and how it is assessed drives student behavior (Biggs & Tang, 2007; Boud & Falchikov, 2007). It is argued that a move to using web-based technologies can “compensate for increased student numbers within established traditions of design education” (Jeffries, 2007, p. 488). Where as Taylor and McCormack (2008) and France and Wheeler (2007) argue the merits of pre-recorded MP3 files or podcasts. I have implemented this approach combing computer screen capture technology where I can simultaneously voice record and illustrate points on the students work. This video is then uploaded to my skydrive and the linked shared with the student. Feedback form the students is very positive as they are having a highly personalised video. I found this useful and it provided a permanent resource for my students. I undertook this with my dissertation students but at times could be time consuming and may not be practical with large classes (Jeffries, 2007)
Henderson (2008) reports that the use of the Turnitin program as an anti-plagiarism tool is widespread and can assist marking and grading essays through its Grademark function. Henderson (2008) suggests that Grademark offers a number of functions analogous to hand marking. such as;
- Highlight, underline or strike through text and add comments on the essay.
- Students can access the marker’s comments remotely
- Grademark also has a number of in-built comments for common problems
- A section for general comments on the essay
- A rubric scorecard which is quick to design and flexible.
- Class statistics can be provided to identify specific whole group issues
- Files can be exported for second marking and reporting for external examiners
Oxman (2008) points out that for technology to take hold and be embedded in the assessment process, any digitisation of the design environment will require radical pedagogical change accompanied by a “process of adjustment to the new cultural and technological conditions of the digital age”.
Running an initial pilot with one of my groups I found grademark to be very effective. The interface is straight forward and found when reading I could quickly annotate the students work with existing and pre-prepared comments and still had the flexibility to add personal comments to the work. This was faster that trying to write comment yet retained a high degree of information (if not more). I have been experimenting with grading rubrics and students have reacted positively - using the grademark rubrics function added a secondary level of feedback and once constructed was an easy and positive tool. The final level of feedback allowed me to add a section for a personal comment. This feedback was available within the allotted timescales and students could access their grade and feedback remotely and they can return to their feedback on a regular basis - which students have reported is useful especially where there maybe a large gap between assignments.
For my module management gardemark provided downloadable reports which collate the rubrics and drop and drag comments to provide feedback on positive and problem areas across the group. These reports exported to excel have enabled me to construct more detailed reports for my end of module reviews which should enhance the external examination process. All in all this was a positive experience and the system clearly offers more than just test for plagiarism. and As part of a broader system of feedback tools I am experimenting with this will certainly enhance my ability to provide effective feedback.
References
Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.
Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long term learning. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 31 (4), 399-413.
France, D., & Wheeler, A. (2007). Reflections on using podcasting for student feedback. Planet 18, 9-11
Henderson, P (2008). Electronic Grading and Marking - A Note on Turnitin Grademark Function. History Australia, VOLUME 5, NUMBER 1.
Jeffries, K.K. (2007). Diagnosing the creativity of designers: individual feedback within mass higher education. Design Studies, 28 (5), 485-497.
Oxman, R. (2008). Digital architecture as a challenge for design pedagogy: theory, knowledge, models and medium. Design Studies, 29, 99-120.
Rust, C. (2002). The Impact of Assessment on Student Learning: How Can the Research Literature Practically Help to Inform the Development of Departmental Assessment Strategies and LearnerCentred Assessment Practices? Active Learning in Higher Education, 3, 145-158. Retrieved January 6, 2009, from http://alh.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/3/2/145.
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 and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30 (3), 233-241.
Taylor M., & McCormack C. (2008) What happens when design feedback moves across the digital divide? Paper presented at the Australian Council of University Art and Design Schools (ACUADS) Annual Conference.
No comments:
Post a Comment