Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Engaging students with formative assessment (and feedback). Margaret Price. 10 December 2013. This session aims to :. To examine the factors that influence levels of student engagement with formative assessment and feedback
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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
10 December 2013
How to help the students engage ( overload? partying? boredom?)
Check assumptions. Setting expectations, modelling and influencing culture (tolerance of ‘laziness’)
Audit - relevance, how interesting, have students got a chance of developing expertise
Downsides of engagement methods (surface learning)
Level of assessment literacy e.g peer assessment
Use the cards to create effective ‘formulae’ that lead to student engagement.
Actions to take
Alert cards (red) highlight further issues to be addressed.
Don’t start here – part of the assessment and learning package.
ability to understand feedback (legibility and interpretation)
expectations of the utility of feedback
perception of self efficacy
Self and peer assessment need to be seen as essential graduate attributes (i.e. learning outcomes themselves, rather than simply processes)
Feedback needs to be seen as a dialogue (rather than a monologue)
Identify them within each programme
Radical movement involving zones of discomfort, ‘threshold concepts and troublesome knowledge’ (Meyer and Land, 2006)
Changes in ‘epistemology and knowledge structures’ (Basil Bernstein in Moore et al, 2006)
Staff: Traditional – personal, generic.
Feedback on Self Assessment
e.g. 5mins oral feedback for 140 students
Personal tutor consultation
Self: Require self assessment
Outcome: Much better essays
The Praktomat system allows students to read, review, and assess each other’s programs in order to improve quality and style. After a successful submission, the student can retrieve and review a program of some fellow student selected by Praktomat. After the review is complete, the student may obtain reviews and re-submit improved versions of his program. The reviewing process is independent of grading; the risk of plagiarism is narrowed by personalized assignments and automatic testing of submitted programs.
In a survey, more than two thirds of the students affirmed that reading each other’s programs improved their program quality; this is also confirmed by statistical data. An evaluation shows that program readability improved significantly for students that had written or received reviews.
[*Available at: http://www.infosun.fim.unipassau.de/st/papers/iticse2000/iticse2000.pdf]
Figure 1: Peer-review as a method of encouraging students to discuss and compare their understanding of assessment criteria
Figure 2: the use of 'exemplars' as amechanism for encouraging dialogue about assessment criteria
Anticipate arguments or factors that will militate against change – how will you counter them
Begin to develop a checklists for programme teams to use in the process of developing assessment strategies at programme and module level.