Setting the context: The changing assessment and feedback eco - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Setting the context: The changing assessment and feedback eco system:

Exploring changing roles, practices, environments and expectations

• Dr. Ziene Mottiar, School of Hospitality, Tourism and Leisure

Assessment and Feedback

The power of assessment in shaping what and how students learn is well recognised in the literature on assessment (Brown and Knight, 1994; Ramsden, 1997; Price, Carroll, O’Donovan and Rust, 2011; Jackal, Pearce, Radloff and Edwards, 2017). As Sadler (2010, p. 536) asserts, ‘feedback is central to the development of effective learning, partly because assessment procedures play a key role in shaping learning’.

Students may find the academic terminology of feedback difficult to understand (Carless 2015), fail to act on feedback received (Pitt & Norton 2017)

• r fail to feed-forward for future learning and close the feedback loop (Boud &

Molloy 2013a). W ith Increased student numbers and an increasingly diverse student population (Carless 2017), the time and effort required by staff in the provision

• f feedback may create barriers to the feedback process.

As noted by Pitt & Norton (2017), emotional responses can have an important impact on how students react to feedback.

The literature identifies many challenges

Societal i issu ssues Inc ncreased no.

• no. of
• f student

nts Educatio ional p polic icie ies Cha hang nging ng expectations

• ns

Cha hang nging ng rol

• les

Graduate te A Attr ttribute tes

Assessment and Feedback Eco-system

Highe her e education m

• n mgt

Student nt w wor

• rk l

life Technol hnolog

• gy

New ew t tea eaching p practices es Cha hang nging ng student nt p prof

• file

Learners

The LEAF (Learning from and Engaging with Assessment and Feedback) Project

Be Inspired!

Peer Assessment Early Feedback Successive Assessment W eightings Feedback in place of assessment Feedback in place of grade Assessment calendars TESTA Feedback by video Video assessments Assessment rubrics Class based polling Co-creation in assessment

Gasta L Light htni ning ng Present ntations

• ns on
• n assessment

nt and nd feedback practices es at t the e module e and programme e lev evel el

Speakers: Emma Robinson/ Jane Courtney

• Motivation: Engagement, Consistency, Transparency, Perspective
• Emma: Peer Learning Using PeerW ise
• Jane: Self & Peer Assessment (Google Forms & Brightspace)

Peer Learning

Peer Learning: Who used it?

• Speaker: Emma Robinson
• Motivation: Student engagement, Consistency across multiple lab groups
• PeerW ise: Platform for MCQ generation peerwise.cs.auckland.ac.nz

(W ebsite HERE)

• W ho

○ 160 first year students (5 Lecturers) ○ Level 8, General Engineering

• How

○ W eek 6-12 Semester 1 ○ Basic Requirements each week for engagement (1Q, 2A, 1R) ○ Final quiz using questions as a bank within webcourses (Further details here: https:/ / tudeep.home.blog/ 2019/ 02/ 07/ peer-learning-using-peerwise/ )

PeerWise

Feedback on PeerWise

Student Feedback on Peer Wise

Speaker: Jane Courtney

Peer & Self Assessment

Test 2: Cohort: Engineering second years ~ 35 students Work: Individually submitted Research Articles Method: Brightspace “Video Assignment” (Bongo) Test 1: Cohort: Multi-disciplinary (Computer Science / Engineering) final years ~ 30 students Work: Group Project Presentation and Individual Blogs Method: Google Forms Grading Rubric

Peer & Self Assessment

Outcomes: Blog: A record with a handy how-to guide for Google Forms:

Feedback: Rich detailed feedback from all sides - self, lecturer and peers Grades: No grade queries!

Peer & Self Assessment

Outcomes: Blog: A record with a handy how-to guide for Google Forms:

Feedback: Rich detailed feedback from all sides - self, lecturer and peers Grades: No grade queries!

Peer & Self Assessment

Outcomes: Blog: A record with a handy how-to guide for Google Forms:

Feedback: Rich detailed feedback from all sides - self, lecturer and peers Grades: No grade queries!

SUCCESS!

Early Feedback

Lean anne Har arris - School hool of

• f Biol
• log
• gical and

nd Health h Scienc nces

What does this tool address?

• Students need feedback on work in progress.
• Students are unaware if they are falling behind.
• Students feel they do not receive prompt and detailed feedback.

Types of tools trialled:

• In-class tests
• Online assessments – MCQ
• Low weighted assignments/submissions
• Use previous assessments as examples prior to assessment:
• Students mark assessments from previous year; Students highlight errors and points of excellence;

Students discuss in groups how they marked previous assessments

Early Feedback

“… .students continually rate timely, useful feedback high amongst their preferences” (Li & De Luca, 2014)

Accounting & Finance

• Helen O’Brien Gately
• Level 6
• DT315/1
• 80 students

Mechanical & Design Engineering

• Keith Colton
• Level 8
• DT022/2
• 25 students

Mechanical & Design Engineering

• Noel O’Neill
• Level 7
• DT005/3 + DT013/1
• 21 students
• 1. In-class test & reflection
• 2. Low weighted in-class test
• 3. Online multichoice test

• Students responded well
• Reassurance that they were up to speed
• Allowed others to catch up
• It was easy to engage with
• Quick
• More time needed
• Instant feedback

“Information only becomes feedback when it is used productively” (Carless 2005)

• Marks awarded for engagement which made for a

more captive audience

• Opportunity to clarify points of difficulty
• Assessment after material was delivered - quick

repetition of material

• Initial set-up is time consuming
• Easy to use
• Can create a number of different quizzes
• Quick and fast response to quizzes

Early Feedback - Previous Assessments

Hospitality Management & Tourism

• Geraldine Gorham
• Level 7 & 8
• DT406T/1, DT411/2,

DT596B/2

• 85 students

Hospitality Management & Tourism

• Louise Bellew
• Level 6
• DT458/1
• 16 students

Biological & Health Sciences

• Natalie Hopkins
• Level
• DT223/2, DT225/2,

DT229/2

• 54 students

Hospitality Management & Tourism

• Ziene Mottiar
• Level 8
• DT412/4
• 50 students
• 1. Email students with

early feedback

• 2. Students mark

previous year’s CAs

• 3. Previous year’s CAs

uploaded with common errors

• 4. Students mark

previous year’s CAs

• Varied student response to early

feedback

• Students who engaged benefited from

the feedback

• Improvement in overall summative

grades

• Worked well with particular cohort of mature students
• Stimulated dialogue
• Good supportive group work environment created
• Quick
• Cannot give individual feedback - Suits large groups
• Few or little queries after assessment
• Didn’t improve grades compared to previous years
• Aids delivery of complex content
• Familiarity with a marking scheme
• Understanding of grade bands
• Dialogue and discussion
• Improved engagement

“The role of the student in the assessment and feedback process has become a focal point of sustainable feedback, with a move from the traditional ‘monologue’ model of feedback to a more ‘dialogue’ model” (Boud & Molloy, 2013a; Orsmond, Maw, Park, Gomez, & Crook, 2013)

• Generation of a list of assessment tips useful
• Feedback shared on Webcourses with all students
• Assessment clinics were useful
• Useful to know structure of CA and level of difficulty
• Reduced anxiety
• No individual feedback
• Very useful tool
• Helpful to get feedback before the CA rather than after
• Useful assessment

“A dialogue model creates a more active, engaged role for students in the generation and use of feedback” (Carless, 2015)

Successive Assessment Weighting

Lean anne Har arris - School hool of

• f Biol
• log
• gical and

nd Health h Scienc nces

Biological and Health Sciences

• Leanne Harris
• Level 7
• DT259/1 Biosciences
• 110 students

Low weighted Lab Report 1, detailed feedback, and higher weighted Lab Report 2.

= 8% = 12% +

Biology Lab Report 1

WHAT AT DOES ES TH THIS IS TOOL OOL ADDRESS? SS?

• Students

struggle to gauge the required ac acade demic stan andar dards and identifying how to improve.

• Students feel assessments are not helping them

• Students

feel the qua quality of

• f

• Students are unaware if they are falli

• Students feel they do not receive prom
• mpt and

Successive Assessment Weighting

• To pass this module you must achieve 40% in the

practical component.

• Lab report 1 is worth 8% while Lab report 2 is worth

12% of the marks.

• This allows you to take on board feedback and

comments from Report 1 to help improve Lab report 2 which is worth more marks.

Practical Assessment breakdown

“In my opinion we would benefit in more assignments with each carrying less marks” “I found it really advantageous as it meant I could better prepare for the second lab report and learn from mistakes I made in the first lab report. It gave us a better idea

• n the marking schemes lecturers have and

what level of work/material they expect from us” “Gave time to work on the lab report technique between the first and last lab report” “I liked that they were weighted differently but it would be better had they weighted the first one even lower and maybe had a bit more instructions” “Could be weighted lower” “Less weighting” “It’s a good tool to revise the course” “Should be more direction in the first at to layout” “I think the lab reports were very beneficial to me as I learned from my mistakes” “Very advantages because the feedback from the 1st report helped a lot for the 2nd

• ne“

“It’s a handy way to engage students to participate in class and also interactive learning is the best way to study”

Feedback before or in place of grade

Natalie Hop

• pkins

ns ( (School hool of

• f Biol
• log
• gical and

nd Health S h Scienc nces) Mairea ead Stack, Hel elen en O’Brien en G Gatel ely, N Noel el O’Nei eill, a and L Louise e Bel ellew ew Why u hy use thi his method hod?

• Students feel that they don’t have sufficient discussion with lecturing staff.
• Assessment feedback is monologue rather than dialogue.
• Staff feel students do not read/ incorporate given feedback.
• Students are not developing their graduate attributes from provided feedback.

How

• w c

can n you you u use it?

• Feedback only
• Feedback initially, with percentage grade/ letter grade following at a later stage.

Schools and courses where this was used

Feedback in place

• f grade

Natalie Hopkins & Mairead Stack, Biological and Health Sciences. DT223 and DT225 yr 2 Noel O’Neill, Mechanical and Design Engineering. DT005 yr 3, DT7013 yr 2 Helen O’Brien Gately, Accounting and Finance. DT315 yr 1. Louise Bellew, Hospitality, Management and Tourism. DT458 yr1

Examples of Tool used

Feedback in place

• f grade

Students complete group disease project following guidelines given. Students given feedback initially, percentage mark following later. Direct feedback (one to

• ne) on their Stage 1

submission of their Final Year Project

• Portfolios. Submit corrected

attempts at end of semester. Grade student receives for work across semester reflects their engagement with feedback Students submit report for feedback (one to one written and verbal). Allow to resubmit taking feedback into account for final mark.

Student Feedback

• Prefer direct feedback given
• n their work.
• Helps them to develop their
• wn skills.
• Applies to them as the

student

• Better than general class

feedback.

What did the students think?

• Helps them to know where

problem areas are, rather that grade alone

• Helps them improve in

subsequent submissions.

• Like direct feedback which is

specific to their submission, rather than general feedback.

• Students appreciate receiving

feedback without risk of being penalised for mistakes.

• Students also valued the
• pportunity to get timely feedback.
• Opportunity for trial submission
• f first piece of work, with no

risk appealed to them.

• Found the individual feedback

(verbal and written) very helpful.

Lecturers?

Lecturer Feedback

• Works well for smaller class

groups and group projects.

• Encourages open discussion

and engagement.

• Helps to develop learning

relationship between lecturer and student.

• Time consuming for larger

groups.

• Some students don’t take

feedback on board.

• Some students don’t take

feedback on board for improvement in subsequent submissions.

• Going forward - must show how

feedback was used.

• Practical way to provide ongoing

feedback to students.

• Marking portfolios less time

consuming than in class tests.

• Good for larger groups.
• Focus is on learning rather than

losing marks while learning.

• Tool worked very well for first year

group.

• Worked well for students on part

time programme - coming from industry.

Lo Louis ise Ly Lynch (School of Civil & Structural Engineering)

Feedback by audio or video

Issu ssues s to address: ss:

• Students feel that they are not receiving

adequate prompt and detailed feedback.

• Assessments are not helping students determine

if they are getting on ok, or falling behind.

• Staff find that large class sizes and inadequate

available time restrict their ability to provide prompt and detailed feedback.

• Greg Byrne (Biological & Health Sciences)

○ Screen capture with voice over through question, highlighting common mistakes.

• Ziene Mottiar (Hospitality Management & Tourism)

○ Kaizena with Google docs - reuse common feedback phrases.

• Anne Hurley (Hospitality Management & Tourism)

○ individual feedback with Voice Recorder app.

• Louise Lynch (Civil & Structural Engineering)

○ Brightspace - individual recording possible, “Insert Stuff” - allows reuse of common feedback statements.

• Louise Bellew (Hospitality Management & Tourism)

○ unique group feedback with Voice Recorder app.

Feedback by audio or video

Feedback by audio or video

Advan antag ages:

• “More of this please.”
• “Answers are better explained verbally, visually

aided and can be referred back to if you want to see it again.”

• “Effective way of providing feedback that is

easily understood.”

• “...Feels personal to each student.”
• “Should be used in other modules as well.”
• “...really useful and makes the feedback more

easy to understand.”

Feedback by audio or video

Di Disa sadvantages: s:

• Lecturers found it was slow to set up at first: Reuse

in subsequent years could see time saving.

• Kaizena only available in google docs.
• Learning curve to produce good quality

○ “...Too quiet” ○ “...Hard to understand at times”

• “The voice only doesn't always do it for me, I need

visual support.”

• “Would be better with video feedback to also see

where we went wrong.”

Feedback by audio or video

• 78%

% - “I wou

• uld like to
• see thi

his tool

• ol used in

n ot

• the

her modules.” .”

• 78%

% - “I feel eel that this will hel elp me e with future e asse ssessm ssments. s.”

• 77%

77% - “I enj njoy

• yed the

he tool

• ol used in

n thi his mod

• dule.”
• 72%

72% - “The he tool

• ol he

helped me und nderstand nd the he subject m t matte tter.”

• 16%

% - “I felt it ha had no no bene nefit to

• my studies.”
• 11%

11% - “I fel elt the t e tool was not ef effec ectivel ely del eliver ered ed.”

Feedback by audio or video

• 58%

% - “The e tool made m e me m e more en e engaged ed w with the e module. e.” [30% neutral]

• 47%

% - “The he tool

• ol made m

me m mor

• re m

mot

• tivated to
• study.”

.” [41% neutral]

• Why use TurningPoint?

○ Engagement, Interactive ○ Assessment (formative, summative), Feedback ○ Polling

• Student Feedback

○ Tool Survey - Agree, Strongly Agree ○ +‘I found it very useful and engaging’ ○ +‘Very good way of learning’ ○

• ‘Uses up too much phone battery when

used for too long’

• Lecturer feedback

○ Training required, portability

• Multidisciplinary uses
• Training & Support - Turning

Technologies, TU Dublin (Dolores McManus)

• Source:

Anne Hurley (School of Hospitality Management & Tourism)

Speaker: C Clíona

• na Dor
• ris, Conservatory of Music and Drama

Met ethod u used ed:

• Biological and Health Sciences, Level 8, (Leanne Harris): 3-minute videos for large groups
• Civil Engineering, Level 8 (Louise Lynch): mathematical solutions (group)
• Marketing, Level 8 (Leslie Murphy): 10- minute marketing management (group)
• Music Career Management, Level 9, (Clíona Doris): 3-5 minute business proposal pitch (individual)
• Second Study Piano, Level 8 (Paula Hughes): final performance exam (individual)
• Teaching Observation, Level 8 (Clíona Doris): 10-minute final presentation (individual)

Why hy use thi his method hod?

• Addresses Graduate Attributes, e.g. reflective practitioners, digitally literate, excellent communicators, innovators

etc.

• Improves quality of communication, presentation and/ or performance skills
• Embraces technology and digital literacy skills within assessment
• Reinforces learning and understanding (ensures learning is taking place)
• Encourages self-reflection and more thorough preparation
• Student-focused and can accommodate group assessment and large group sizes

Assessments submitted by video

Assessments submitted by video

Fin indin ings:

Biological & & Hea ealth Scien ences es

• Student perspective: encouraged group work across programmes, enhanced digital literacy,

student-focused and allowed flipping of content.

• Lecturer perspective: quick to mark 3-minute videos for large groups, once set up easy to

continue in subsequent years and videos can be used as future learning tools Civ ivil il E Engin ineerin ing

• In mathematical solutions, it reinforced student learning as students had to understand each

step to create the video.

Assessments submitted by video

Mar arketing

• Student perspective: enhanced digital literacy skills, but ‘how to make a video’ needed.
• Lecturer perspective: took time to assess as 25 groups with 10-minute videos.
• What is best practice in this area? TU Dublin rubric for this method? How is creativity assessed?

Musi sic

• Most successful in music business context as a variety of student approaches and more scope for

innovation and creativity.

• Perhaps inhibited communication skills in standard presentation (powerpoint-style presentation).
• In music performance context, evidence of improved quality (marks improved).

Fut utur ure: Video submission tool available in Brightspace. Supporting mixed approaches.

Assessments submitted by video

Mai airead ad Stac ack (School of Biological and Health Sciences)

Natalie Hopkins Why hy u use t e thi his met etho hod?

• Students feel the quality of feedback is not suitable (legible, language, too general).
• Staff find it difficult to find the time to give prompt and detailed feedback.
• To foster Fee

eedback L Liter eracy.

• To close the Fee

eedback L Loop. How c can y n you use e it?

• Provide the assignment description with task specific criteria
• Build Rubric (with Student inputs) with evaluation criteria.
• Provide student with mark and feedback in grade centre.

Using Rubrics in Assessment and Feedback

Assessment Description with Task Specific Criteria

• f the Disease

School of Biological and Health Sciences

Medical Physiology (2 stage assessment) Optometry, Clinical Measurement Science and Medical Physics and Bioengineering Biological Basis of disease (Group assessment) Biomedical Science, Biomolecular Diagnostics Pathophysiology (Group assessments) Human Nutrition and Dietetics, Public Health Nutrition DT225 (Programme Level) Food Studies (1) Nutrition Science (2) Nutritional Epidemiology (2) Pathophysiology (2) Applied Nutrition (3)

Level 8 Degree courses

What did students think of webcourses Rubric?

Rubric was set up with specific set percentages per topic of discussion. Students had a higher chance of a lower grade, skewing it towards students performing poorly. The feedback although useful for future projects didn’t help for the current module to improve my grades. I think use of the Rubric is very useful in most subjects. For this assignment it was helpful in guiding me to my final submission.

Mixed feelings on this tool!

I feel that it (feedback) will help me to be more successful in future assignments I want feedback as this mark will contribute to my degree classification

Lecturers - Webcourses Rubric?

Easy to use Efficient Paperless Marking scheme in the webcourses rubric somewhat restrictive.

• Natalie
• Easy to set up, to edit, can be reused
• Can be combined with the

Assignment and SafeAssign tools of VLE

• Marks added up and entered into

the gradebook

• Mairead

I've found it very helpful in terms of ensuring consistency with grading. It's also easier than making notations For assignments with multiple parts, it got a little bit tedious setting up the rubric

Gre reg Byrn rne Provision of a detailed and up-to-date assessment calendar is essential to allow students to plan their studies Ideally, an assessment calendar should be…

• Collaborative/ transparent
• Easily accessed from any device
• Live and easily updated
• Detailed (time, place, format, weighting)

A year long assessment calendar can also be a useful tool during programme reviews.

Assessment calendars

In my role as a Teaching Champion for the College of Sciences & Health I have been reviewing best practice and promoting the use of a Google calendar

• Lecturers are invited to edit and students are invited to view
• The timetable can be accessed through Google drive, a shared link or

bookmark

• Students can be automatically emailed whenever an edit is made
• W eek numbers correspond to the academic calendar

Assessment calendars

Assessment calendars

T ransforming the E xperience of S tudents T hrough A ssessment

TESTA

Louise Bellew, School of Hospitality Management & Tourism

• An evidenced-led approach to

understanding asse ssessm ssment patterns on whole degree programmes.

• The purpose of TESTA is to help

programme teams id identif ify enha nhanc ncement nts f for

• r student

nt learni ning ng based on evidence and assessment principles.

• Connected curriculum
• Consistency in assessment and

feedback

Why use TESTA?

Why use TESTA?

Tansy Jessop, DIT 2018

Why use TESTA?

Tansy Jessop, DIT 2018

TESTA

Programme Audit Assessment Experience Questionnaire (AED) Focus Group

TESTA Masterclass

• School Review – TESTA

Masterclass with Tansy Jessop, October 2018 - all staff

• TESTA trial: DT406T (Dan King,

Geraldine Gorham), DT412 (Louise Bellew) and DT406A, DT408A (Ziene Mottiar)

Tansy Jessop, DIT 2018

• The Assessment Experience

Questionnaire is used to understand how students learn from assessment and feedback.

• Data gathered (online) in class

time, facilitated by staff.

AEQ

• Module authors were invited to give feedback as to the

○ Type of assessment formative and summative ○ Breakdown in terms of assessment and exam ○ Example of the type / range of assessment ○ Type and quantity of feedback oral (in minutes) and written (in words) ○ Time to return feedback

Programme Audit

Next step

• Staff and student feedback

○ TESTA workshop with programme team, to be facilitated by Tansy Jessop May 2019 (AED findings & programme audit), May 2019 ○ Types of issues for programme team ■

Balance of summative formative

■

Review connections within/ across modules

■

Feedback as dialogue

• Dr. Barry Ryan

College of Sciences and Health

CoCREATE Assessment and Feedback

Are students consumers or producers?

An age old question…..

Consuming?

Are our students….

Creating?

Biggs (2003): “Learning cannot be transmitted by direct instruction, but is created by the students learning activities”.

Creation as an alternative paradigm?

Neary (2009): “Real Life, Complex and Unstructured research-like activities”

Authe hent ntic A Assessment nt a and nd Learni ning ng Advanced topic, assessment student specific and student centred.

Students as Creators (of Assessment)

Peer Discussion Reflections on and as learning Student negotiated assessment

Authe hent ntic L Learni ning ng and nd Assessment nt

Students as Creators (of Learning)

Students as Creators (of Feedback)

Peer Feedback: ‘Two Stars and a Wish’

PAL and PAF: Student designed learning activities Authen entic L Lea earning, Asses essmen ent a and Feed eedback

Students as Creators….does it work?

Group-based learning “I really enjoyed the team

• meetings. Hearing other group

members give their ideas, taking them in and giving my

• pinion was what I found to

be the rea eal hi highl hlight ht of the project”. Authe hent ntic L Learni ning ng and nd Assessment nt

Students as Creators….does it work?

To effectively create, or re-design, as part of an student centred learning, assessment and feedback approach, a student must:

• Analyse

se and sy synthesi size ze several mu multimo modal sources on the subject content.

• Br

Brai ainstorm, conc

• nceptualize, creat

ate, implem emen ent and eval aluat ate their idea(s).

• Ref

eflec ect and refin ine not only their design, but also their understanding.

Are these not some of the key skills lls we want every student to develop in every module?

Authen entic L Lea earning, Asses essmen ent a and Feed eedback

Col

• llege of
• f Scienc

nces and nd Health h Teachi hing ng Cha hampion

• n 2019 (TEPI)

Students as Creators….how to?

TU D Dublin T n Team T Teachi hing ng Fellow

• wshi

hip 2 2019-20 2020 20

Students as Creators….how to?

www.cocreatetudublin.wordpress.com @CTUDublin

‘Assignment Mapping’

Alan McDonnell M.Sc. (Eng.), Pg.Dip. (2018)

School of Mechanical & Design Engineering City Campus (Bolton St.) DIT/ IT/ TU TU D Dublin L Lecturer (since 2002) DT001 ( (Product Desi sign) Y Year 1 C Class ss Tutor (since 2016)

“

Developing a ‘colour-coded outline progression’

• f all assignments from all modules delivered

in a single semester.

76

Inspiration

I w was delivering ng cont

• ntent

nt on

• n the

he prog

• gramme f

for

• r 10 y

years… . “Wha hat c cou

• uld I d

do a

• as a (ne

new) Year 1 C Class Tutor

• r to he
• help ne

new s student nts improv

• ve t

the heir p planni nning ng a and nd t time m mana nagement nt?” Based on ‘practicality’, not ‘pedagogy’ or ‘research’ (..yet)

Inspiration

Gantt C tt Charts ts (I a am an en engineer er!) Based on ‘practicality’, not ‘pedagogy’ or ‘research’ (..yet)

Inspiration

No

• ot
• the

her prog

• gramme in

n my School hool ha has develop

• ped a gran

anular ar, visu sual str trate tegy f for stu tudents ts! Based on ‘practicality’, not ‘pedagogy’ or ‘research’ (..yet)

Inspiration

(Inactive) Map apMyProgram amme proje ject [ https:/ / sites.google.com/ site/ mapmyprogramme/ home ] Based on ‘practicality’, not ‘pedagogy’ or ‘research’ (..yet)

81

Sample

Rationale

Identify assignment 'pinch points‘, typically in Week 12 and Week 13 Collaborate to revise issue/ submission dates Offload responsibility of appreciation of assignment time frames… … to the students [PRE-ISSUE of map document] For the programme team...

Rationale

Appreciate assignment time frames (each has a start, middle and end) Identify 'pinch points' in assignment submissions Identify lecturing breaks + additional capacity for assignment completion Improve their general planning ability

83

[POST-ISSUE of map document] For the students...

Preparation &

• n & R

Rol

• llou
• ut

Week 1 call Week 3 reminder Week 4 review Week 4 rollout

Current nt Implement ntation

• n

Excel Spreadsheet Variety of tedious reformatting sessions Custom VBA macros (to develop the timeline colour-coding)

Development W orkload (p

(per-sem emes ester er)

Advan antag ages

Semester-wide assignment design & implementation Higher quality, semester-wide data visualisation for students Re-tasking for other assessment strategies (e.g. Year 2 Super- assessment)

Disad advan antag ages

Complete Programme Team buy-in ** Developer buy-in Self-imposed formatting + presentation standards Lack of automation in document development

85

Perception

Inc ncreased autom

• mation
• n (withi

hin n Excel) Alter ernate e database e dev evel elopmen ent s system em Pro rogra ramme-wid ide im implementatio ion Onl nline ne a access f for

• r prog
• gramme t

team and nd student nts (via alter ernate e dev evel elopmen ent system em)

Development Potential

Any q quest stions… s… ?

alan.mcdonnell@ dit.ie

Thanks for listening… !