The following is the raw data (responses) when I asked people at the recent DoS meeting to write down their what questions they’d like answered, or issues addressed in the forthcoming e-assessment review (2010).
These are in no order (typos are all mine) ….
21 responses 🙂
- we might like a system that collects video clips and combine these with other assessments (MCQ, papers) for marking
- use of writing tablets, in exams and part of the marking process
- overcoming the issue of downloading 100+ short assignments from Moodle and providing feedback is a very slow process
- central OMR service?
- e-assessment for mathematics: Maple TA or STACK
- provision of specific central support for departments (not just training workshops, FAQs and helplines) so staff able to work with academics over a sustained period on a one-to-one basis as a new system is introoduced
- are there models of e-learning in which learning and assessment are intregrated, i.e., not having to set aside tutorials for tests only
- tie up and impact with rest of teaching process (i.e., unit assessment redesigned away from high stakes terminal exam during dedicated assessment period and towards smaller value tests given throughout the semester).
- what support (i.e. workshops) will be made available?
- does the review assume that the university will move towards on-line marking of all coursework?
- e-feedback, for example could a submittted piece of electronic work be annotated (eg using a tablet) electronically and the feedback made available to students
- MCQ for large classes and infrastructure needed
- automated addition of other tools eg plagiarism detection or automated tester for programming assignments
- what about following the OU model of e-TMA’s Quick marking with feedback .
- Integration with TurnitIn
- issues about assessing free text work, eg PhD disserations
- is there a danger of the move to introduce e-assessment tools driving the pedagogy?
- routine and automatic incorporation of plagiarism detection software
- effective ways of providing e-feedback, formatively and summatively, to individuals and groups
- don’t neglect printing costs of printing assessed work submitted online for marking At present met by students !! Parallel paper and e-submission better?
- is moodle the best/most flexible system for organising and running forum discussions for groups of different sizes and abilities
- other technologies (e-portfolios)
- technologies for batch processing of assignments within moodle (batch downloading and storage)
- e-assessment of large MCQs would be extremely useful
- anomymised peer assessment
- student attendance at lectures
- electronic tutorials – students generated unique question, complete online, monitored and assessed
- professional placement portfolios – possibility of submission of reports from external agencies
- anonymous marking / procedures – are they working?
- not sure if audience response system counts as part of e-assessment
- Moodle performance
- automated assessment that goes beyond MCQs, natural language processing, diagram recognition
The following are the outcomes from the SMS meeting with Geraldine & David. Guys, please add your comments.
A few key decisions were made. The back drop is the need to promote SMS in T&L at the University, and develop a model which sustainable, transparent and scales.
The broad model is as follows;
When Dept / Schools want to use SMS they purchase the texts and incoming number from BUCS (David Mullings). They can purchase various models, however, the financial commitment will be around £250 pounds. This might include, one incoming number and a 1000 sms texts. At the end of each year, BUCS (David Mullings) will contact the individuals to discuss future need, and the renewal of the incoming number (if appropriate). The method of payment will be discussed with David Mullings.
To help people get started before having to commit money, then e-learning (Geraldine Jones) will provide 100 texts and an incoming number (shared, using key words – academics UoB username). This will last until the end of the semester they are in, or the end of the texts whcih ever is sooner.
To provide the texts, we will contact those who originally showed interest and re-allocate their SMS messages, on the assumption that they’ll not be using them this academic year.
ACTION >> ANDY contact Sue etc.,
ACTION >> ANDY update SMS group
ACTION >> ANDY contact John Howell about SMS Guidelines
ACTION >> GERALDINE ensure a scaleable process is in place
ACTION >> DAVID confirm which in coming numbers have been used. We will need to re-allocate a number to support roll out
ACTION >> GERALDINE once conform re-allcoation of texts, then remove allocation from indivdiuals (Sue etc.,)
ACTION >> GERALDINE & DAVID streamline the account structure on EduTxt so that we standardise to naming conventions etc.,
Rannia Naguib starts on the 20th April – need to arrange an induction activity. Sounds like she’ll be leading (driving through) Moodle use, online submission project and audience response system.
Jane French – arrange meeting with concerning roles in moodle, and her plans about where next
looks like they’ll move to an online submission for all first year students next acadmeic year. So need plagiarism block, plus a how to guide w.r.t to managing submission and gradebook. Within this something about using a tablet pc for onscreen marking.
Check out Marie Pullen’s placement course – get a cae study from her. Then combine with case study from Louise Oliver – Placements support through Moodle is covered 🙂
• What are the alternatives to SMS? (JFH/AR)
In the sense of SMS being short text messages delivered to a handheld device then there are few current of future alternatives. From the perspective of the end user, then the delivery mechanism may change for some people, i.e., the growth of wi-fi connected spaces. However, in terms of coverage, and ease of use then SMS via the phone network is likely to be viable for a number of years.
• Are departments running projects involving SMS which are not being administered through the University’s systems? (ALL)
• How far SMS could be seen as an academic learning tool, rather than just a method for prompting (AR)
It can be viewed that there is significant potential as long as it is appropriately embedded within learning activities. For instance,
1. An e-assessment (formative) system. Where students are texted a multiple choice question, true/false, or open question which they needed to respond to (via SMS). This is then used to feed into the next face to face lecture or seminar. This method is superior to many other approaches because it requires little from the student (don’t need to find a computer). The results are collated electronically.
2. Asking questions in large lectures. Students can SMS questions during a lecture which the lecture can then review in the last 5 minutes of the lecture. They may select to answer a few then, or move these to a discussion board for future discussion and input from other students.
3. A reflective tool. For instance, an eportfolio system. Students can be on placement or other non-campus sites and recorded a short view or seed an idea which they can revisit later.
• The potential and limitations of SMS in an academic environment; what is the appropriate direction for its development? (AR/GE)
Firstly there are a few technical issues that need to be addressed in terms of;
• how it can be used within other e-learning tools (Moodle, Confluence, LMF etc.,) The focus on the technical aspect is that the it has to be made very easy to use for staff who will be managing the bulk emails. Also we need to ensure that the integration is two way, i.e., students can text back to discussion boards.
• people will need to be able to choose how to receive this information. For instance, some students might prefer to receive the text message as an email, or an rss infeed to their home page.
Then interms of the appropriate direction then at the moment it would be suggested that we should support the use of SMS within a “let a thousand flowers bloom” model. Therefore, after the guidance documentation has been released we might be able to coordinate a number of SMS initiatives. This approach does require that these need to be evaluated. We should also appreciate that this is a continuum for the individual. For instance, an academic might use it as an admin tool today, but then think about it’s application in for other uses in the future.