1 / 16

ULTSEC Innovation Fund

ULTSEC Innovation Fund. Ruth Valentine School of Dental Sciences Simon Cotterill Learning and Teaching Support Unit, Faculty of Medical Sciences. ULSEC Innovation Fund. Overview of project. What we did. Who helped. Impact. Ensuring fairness in group work assessment. Background

landry
Download Presentation

ULTSEC Innovation Fund

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation 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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ULTSEC Innovation Fund Ruth Valentine School of Dental Sciences Simon Cotterill Learning and Teaching Support Unit, Faculty of Medical Sciences

  2. ULSEC Innovation Fund • Overview of project What we did Who helped Impact

  3. Ensuring fairness in group work assessment Background • Stage 1: Poster group exercise • Work as a group, produce a poster, group mark, statement of contribution, peer assess • Ensure fairness in the mark • Facilitate working in a team – and signpost why this is important (GDC guidance) • Use of ‘Identity’ in Stage 1 Priority Theme: Assessment and feedback

  4. Overview of project idea • To develop and pilot an on-line facility for groups to record meetings and discussions, building on an e-Portfolio platform (Vernazza et al., 2011). • to record team meetings in real time • allow easier monitoring of individual contributions • promote reflective peer review by individuals in the group • Promote engagement with students at a later stage in the degree programme, through use of ‘team peer mentors’ • provide feedback throughout the planning stages - feed forward mechanism in the overall team work process • Introduce the use of Web peer assessment (WebPA; formatively), a peer assessment tool for allocating peer group marks for team working, to allow moderation of the group mark.

  5. What we did….. • Costed in to have two student interns (half money from ULTSEC, half from careers service) • Interviewed and appointed two stage 3 students (Nicola Gallagher and Daniel Mall) • They initially carried out a series of focus groups with Stage 2 students (students who carried out the traditional poster exercise) • 44 (56%) Stage 2 students attended • Feedback of last years poster exercise • Feedback on ‘use’ of identity • Feedforward on the new facility • We also recruited several stage 3 students (unpaid) to act as peer mentors • Introduced WebPA (formatively) to allow peer assessment

  6. Last year’s feedback Some people in the groups share work last minute – the group then had to work together to improve it. All grades were lowered if one person didn’t contribute as much – not fair Peer marking is good – definitely before hand in. Needs to be done separately to be truthful. Each person could make a statement of contribution some people need to take it more seriously by the end you forget what everyone does

  7. Feedback on ‘use’ of identity • Only used for [reporting] illness I have used /heard of it – Yes, for tutor meetings, not useful Used to view any negative [feedback] comments • Easy enough to use, not needed in first two years though. Easy to report illness. • App would be easier

  8. We then showed them ‘Mock up’

  9. Mock up

  10. Mock up

  11. Feedback on the new facility Looks good, good idea, attendance record is great All in one place – avoids email, facebook • File section – good idea for a message board too! Could have a flag up system if someone doesn’t attend more than say 3 sessions without reason. Then only if there is a problem allow access to tutors. • Make it compulsory • Make it available to the marker • Space for personal reflection!!

  12. Second focus groups • Stage 1 students, n = 55 (60%): • The e-portfolio facility had been engaged with by all students in all poster groups • Students in general liked the ‘up-load’ facility and the area for sharing information. • They really appreciated the help from their peer mentors although some peer mentors had engaged more than others • Interestingly, when posed with WebPA marks contributing 10-20% of the overall individual grade, students wanted this mark to be incorporated summatively and would prefer a larger proportion weighted.

  13. Conclusions • Benefits • The e-portfolio will continue to be developed based upon student feedback and we will introduce a summative proportion of 20% based upon the peer evaluation. • Encouraged use of ePortfolio by Dental students in Stage 1, prior to intense use in Stages 3-5 for clinical recording and reflection. • Software enhancements for group-work were incorporated into the University-wide portfolio for wider benefit. • Draw Backs • Adding everyone onto a community was time consuming • Engaging peer mentors • Some peer mentors more active than others – how to manage this in future: training, to ensure a consistent approach

  14. Impact • Three Rivers Conference • Submission to EJDE Advice ??? • Only got a small amount of funding and short time frame – so don’t be too ambitious • Use students – really helpful – getting funding, really engaged, good to get students motivated

More Related