Feedback on summative assessment group pres

Action learning set 3 Feedback on summative assessment Presentation outline John Cocksedge – Using a Hybrid approach to feedback and summative assessment Tahira Majothi – The impracticalities of summative assessment in careers guidance and planning Jaime Pardo – Investigating feedback on summative assessment within MMP and exploring possible alternate approaches to provide better feedback to students Monica Casey – Using Clickers for feedback on summative assessment in library sessions

Product design dept The Hybrid approach to feedback on summative assessment John Cocksedge

“ Summative contrasts with formative assessment in that [the former] is concerned with summing up or summarizing the achievement status of a student, and is geared towards reporting at the end of a course of study especially for purposes of certification; it is essentially passive and does not normally have immediate impact on learning, although it often influences decisions which may have profound educational and personal consequences for the student” (Sadler 1989)

The nature of product design students Designers Produce novel, unexpected solutions Tolerate uncertainty, working with incomplete information Apply imagination and constructive forethought to practical problems Modelling media as means of problem solving Resolve ill-defined problems Adopt solution-focussing strategies Employ abductive/productive/appositional thinking Use non verbal graphical/spatial modelling media ‘ The Nature and Nurture of Design Ability’, (Cross 1990)

So how do we assess & feedback to product designers “ Whilst the value of process, personality traits and the social environment, is clearly important, creative output is the final benchmark on which judgments' are made and upon which consensus is achieved or disputed regarding the merit of the work”. (Karl K Jeffries, 2007)

We do feedback on summative assessment - BUT Outgoing method is time consuming and produces assessment/feedback fatigue Does not capture the individual learning journey Does not capture/identify student diversity Does not identify deep learning Danger of influencing teaching methods/material Could motivate students to only pass and not to learn

We use a hybrid approach of formative (feed forward) and summative assessment to produce feedback Why? To facilitate learning To monitor learning in progress Provide feedback/feed forward to learners Provide feedback to colleagues Diagnose learners needs or obstacles to learning

The hybrid approach and Kolb’s experiential learning cycle Concrete experiences Forming abstract concepts Observation & reflection Testing in new situations

The hybrid approach and Kolb’s experiential learning cycle Concrete experiences Forming abstract concepts Observation & reflection Testing in new situations Formative feedback / feed forward Feedback & observation – the learner considers the formative feedback received and decides what next The learner tries out the new approach Tutor activity Student activity

“ Formative assessment must be pursued for its main purpose of feedback into the learning process; it can also produce information which can be used to meet summative purposes” (Black 1995, cited in Brown 2007)

How do we do this in product design Align our ILO’s with the Module plan and the assessable tasks (Constructive alignment, Biggs 1999) Atelier model of learning (Design Council, Creative and Cultural Skills, 2006) – Personalise the curriculum Sequence the modules, tasks and ILO’s along a consistent design process framework – Research, Ideation & verification Weight the assessment tasks in relation to the ILO’s – Focus Sustained frequency of one to one feedback Capture and record formative feedback – ‘Doctors notes’, consistency Criterion referencing – ‘Detailed module maps’ Encourage Ipsative assessment – Self awareness Encourage Diagnostic self assessment - Motivation

The formative and summative assessment engine – the Module Map A consistent framework and point of reference for student feedback

How does this help us with feedback It allows us to assess work on the fly It allows us to monitor the flow of the module and adjust accordingly It allows students to have full sight of and plan for assessable tasks It allows us to develop/plan for appropriate resources It allows us to develop timely feedback It allows us to give very specific feedback It is non threatening to students It encourages students to ask questions / seek guidance It allows students to experience success It allows us to improve

Development in response to student feedback

What next ? ‘ As we use formative and summative assessment on our learners we must also use it on ourselves and our methods’

What next ? Task mapping ‘power bulge’ Module maps Exemplars Feedback groups Peer to peer Self assessment (pre and post module) Dynamic online self report diagnostics Statement banks Personalised development plans ‘ As we use formative and summative assessment on our learners we must also use it on ourselves and our methods’

“ The indispensable conditions for improvement are that the student comes to hold a concept of quality roughly similar to that held by the teacher, is able to monitor continuously the quality of what is being produced during the act of production itself, and has a repertoire of alternative moves or strategies from which to draw at any given point. In other words students have to be able to judge the quality of what they are producing and be able to regulate what they are doing during the doing of it ” (Sadler 1989)

Challenges of Summative Assessment in a Careers Context Stand alone careers workshops Singular interactions Diversity and the diverse range of students Limited input into formal assessments © mylot.com, Google images

Self awareness: Gain knowledge and understanding about your career-related interests, skills, aptitudes, preferences and goals. Transition learning: Implement your career decisions and put your plans into effect. Produce CVs, apply for jobs and gain work experience . Decision-making: Evaluate opportunities, make decisions, action plan and set goals. Opportunity awareness: Identify sources of information and opportunities in training, education and work. SODT Model: Career Planning

Assessment activities within Careers Salford Student Life Award 1:1 QQ or long appointments Workshops Filmed mock interviews Graduate Gateway Career planning exercises MBTI/Belbin How does this meet UK Professional Standards Framework (Areas of activity, Core Knowledge and Professional values) ? © Salford Careers and Employability Service

Fluidity of assessments Associative perspective (acquiring competence) – voting pads Constructivist ( learning as achieving understanding)– construct own learning, self reflection – SSLA, Graduate Gateway Social constructivist (learning as achieving understanding) – workshops, peer learning Situative (learning as social practice) – ‘learning as arising from participation in communities of practice’ e.g. GG placements, SIFE, employer-led assessments etc JISC (2010), Effective Assessment in a Digital Age. (p9-11) © elated.com Google Images.

Future Plans: Patchwork Text (Winter 2003) Methodology Employability modules/Bespoke delivery: Blackboard/Elluminate/VDS Camtasia/Meebo YouTube Peer reviews/student observations Case studies Work experience Specific support for care leaver graduates This will involve: Variety of assessments Small working groups Little and often – assessments “… online tools can support peer and self-assessment in any location and at times to suit learners – the value of peer and self-assessment in developing learners’ ability to regulate their own learning is increasingly recognised.” JISC (2010), Effective Assessment in a Digital Age. © Flickr. Nicky Perryman

Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy Remembering – recalling relevant knowledge Understanding – constructing meaning Applying – implementing Analyzing – differentiating Evaluating – critiquing, self reflection Creating – putting elements together in coherent steps Revised version of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) cited in Forehand 2010) © boohewerdinesblogthing.blogspot.com

Working towards Constructive Alignment: Biggs (1999) Biggs, J (1999). The chapter above was taken from Houghton, Warren (2004) Engineering Subject Centre Guide: Learning and Teaching Theory for Engineering Academics. Loughborough: HEA Engineering Subject Centre. http://www.engsc.ac.uk/learning-and-teaching-theory-guide/constructive-alignment

References Biggs, J (1999). ‘Teaching for Quality Learning at University’, in Houghton, W (ed) (2004) Engineering Subject Centre Guide: Learning and Teaching Theory for Engineering Academics. Loughborough: HEA Engineering Subject Centre. Forehand, M. (2010) Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Technology. University of Georgia website http:// projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title =Bloom%27s_Taxonomy [Accessed 20/03/11] JISC (2010), Effective Assessment in a Digital Age, A guide to technology-enhanced assessment and feedback . JISC pp9-11. Law, B. and Watts, A.G. (1977) DOTS Model. London: Schools, Careers and Community. Church Information Office. The Higher Education Academy (2006) The UK Professional Standards Framework for teaching and supporting learning in higher education. Winter, R. (2003) ‘Alternative to the Essay’, on Guardian Education website http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/jun/10/highereducation.uk [Accessed 23/03/11]

“ Feedback on paper is the most dangerous, most widely-used, yet least effective way of helping students to learn from their triumphs and disasters. Face-to-face feedback helps students to make sense of their thinking, aided by tone of voice, facial expression, body language, encouraging smiles, speed of speech, emphasis on particular words, and the ability to fine-tune the feedback on the basis of how it is being received. Paper-based feedback allows for none of these.” http://phil-race.co.uk/if-i-were-in-charge/

Equality & Diversity According to the Subject benchmark Statements from the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education: “ Research indicates that dyslexia is more prevalent amongst students of art and design than in other subjects…” Umran Ali, Equality and Diversity Coordinator for School of MMP: “ The percentage of students on support plans within the school of MMP has been as high as 30% but is usually somewhere around the 10% mark. Compared to an average of a round 4% across the University as a whole.”

Group: Students with learning difficulties such as dyslexia Measures: Use of a variety of different teaching methods, including workshops and one on one tutorials Use of staged handouts to support verbal delivery (handouts throughout the lecture instead of one big clump at the end) Blackboard & other electronic resources used for notes and exercises One on one tutorials for support & guidance

Group: Students with physical difficulties Measures: One on one tutorials for support & guidance Careful choice of room/access Use of a variety of audio/visual/text based content (for visually/hearing impaired students) Pre planning for external visits to ensure disabled access/support.

Group: Students with mental health/personality disorders Measures: ‘ Opt out’ option for presentations, alternative provided(private or other form of assessment) Small group presentations & gradual introduction of potentially difficult tasks (i.e. weekly practise of presentations building up to final formatively assessed task) Sensitivity to personal needs: Not drawing accidental undue attention to student by asking questions to individual students during lectures/seminars.

We know from week 6: “ The dialogic feedback system puts the students at the centre of learning, providing them with a series of opportunities to act on feedback.” (Duhs, 2010, 5) Underlying my account is the view that: “ The single, strongest influence on learning is surely the assessment procedures …even the form of an examination question or essay topics set can affect how students study … It is also important to remember that entrenched attitudes which support traditional methods of teaching and assessment are hard to change.” (Entwistle,1996, pp. 111–12)

Student Feedback What was most useful? “ Tutor support, comments and information on handouts was provided nice and early on.” “ The tutor and peer help.” “ The group discussions, well organised.” “ The guidance throughout assignments.” Are there any changes you would recommend making to the module? “ To be longer, the whole year perhaps?”

“ Emphasis is placed on active rather than passive uses of the tool to encourage an ethos of independent learning: students set up their own blog, invite others to join, and upload images and other digital resources to support one another in research activities.” (p3.) “… now marks recorded in Turnitin are only visible to the individual student and his or her tutor. Students are also more likely to return to the feedback they have been given: grades and feedback remain stored in the system and are not lost by the time of the next assignment. ” (p3.) JISC Case study 3: Supporting The Transition To Degree Level Study, Loughborough College. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearning/digiassess_supportingtrans.pdf

“ While it is difficult to establish that oral feedback has a greater impact on students’ cognitive development than written feedback, students on the MSc Occupational Psychology course appear to be more attentive to spoken feedback; most respond positively to the intimacy of the spoken word and perceive tutors’ advice as being clearer and more detailed. Audio-recorded feedback is also helping to reduce the isolation of learning remotely; early evidence from course data suggests that there may have been a positive impact on retention rates, although this has yet to be empirically evaluated: ‘ Podcasts made me feel closer to my tutors and I think they help you to build a relationship with them.’ Student, MSc Occupational Psychology, University of Leicester” (p3.) JISC Case study 6: Enhancing The Experience of Feedback, University of Leicester http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearning/digiassess_enhancingfeedbk.pdf

Conclusion “ Feedback is a worthy focus of academic effort since it focuses students on what they need to improve.” ( Blayney and Freeman, 2004:2) Written Feedback on Summative Assessment is widely used yet ineffective. Technology can enhance the experience of feedback Audio Feedback – podcasting Use of blogs and e-portfolios

Using Clickers for summative assessment and feedback What are Clickers? Clickers* are similar to the technology used on the TV program “Who Wants To Be a Millionaire” during ‘ask the audience’. A teacher asks questions in-class and students use a ‘clicker’ to respond. The students’ responses can be viewed immediately on projector screen and/or scores can be captured then reports generated for further analysis. * Clickers are also known as Personal Response Systems (PRS), Audience Response Systems (ARS), Electronic Response Systems (ERS), Student Response Systems (SRS), Interactive Response Systems (IRS), Electronic Voting Systems (EVS), Classroom Response Systems (CRS), Zappers, Voting Pads …. and more. Taken from Dunleavy, C (no date)

Using Clickers in Library Inductions Context: Information Literacy strategy aims to provide students with transferable skills Wide range of students ‘ One shot’ sessions Inductions: Student centred Clickers used for immediate summative assessment and feedback (links with UK PSF Core Knowledge 4, ‘Use of appropriate learning technologies’)

What are the benefits for the learners? Anonymous Caldwell (2007) indicates they like to know they are not alone in their thinking Responding to questions ‘encourages all students to think actively’ (McCune, no date) Immediate face to face feedback Enables feedback to be accessible and inclusive

Student Feedback “ The voting pods were awesome” “ Enjoyed the session with the interactive key pad and made me engage and learn more from the session” “ Who knew being in a library could be so much fun!” “ Overall, clickers have the potential to improve classroom learning, especially in large classes. Students and instructors find their use stimulating, revealing, motivating, and – as an added benefit – just plain fun” (Caldwell, 2007, p19)

Implications for ongoing practice ‘ As we use formative and summative assessment on our learners we must also use it on ourselves and our methods’ Exemplars Feedback groups Peer to peer Self assessment (pre and post module) Dynamic online self report diagnostics Statement banks Personalised development plans Use of technology for feedback/summative assessment Student feedback Hybrid formative/summative approach Feedback on assessment should be about putting students at the centre of their own learning and equipping them with the tools for lifelong engagement

References & Bibliography Biggs, J (1999). ‘Teaching for Quality Learning at University’, in Houghton, W (ed) (2004) Engineering Subject Centre Guide: Learning and Teaching Theory for Engineering Academics. Loughborough: HEA Engineering Subject Centre. Brown, S. (1997) ‘Using formative assessment to promote student learning’, www.ldu.leeds.ac.uk/news/events/documents/BrownPowerPoint.pdf , accessed on 09/03/11 Cross N.G. (1990) ‘The nature and nurture of design ability’, Design Studies, Vol. 11, No 3, pp.127-140 Jeffries, K. (2007) ‘Diagnosing the creativity of designers: individual feedback within mass higher education’, Design Studies , vol. 28, issue 5, pp.485-497 Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development , Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice-Hall Sadler, D. R. (1989) ‘Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems’, Instructional Science, vol. 18, 119-144

Biggs, J (1999). ‘Teaching for Quality Learning at University’, in Houghton, W (ed) (2004) Engineering Subject Centre Guide: Learning and Teaching Theory for Engineering Academics. Loughborough: HEA Engineering Subject Centre. Forehand, M. (2010) Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching and Technology. University of Georgia website http:// projects.coe.uga.edu/epltt/index.php?title =Bloom%27s_Taxonomy [Accessed 20/03/11] JISC (2010), Effective Assessment in a Digital Age, A guide to technology-enhanced assessment and feedback . JISC pp9-11. Law, B. and Watts, A.G. (1977) DOTS Model. London: Schools, Careers and Community. Church Information Office. The Higher Education Academy (2006) The UK Professional Standards Framework for teaching and supporting learning in higher education. Winter, R. (2003) ‘Alternative to the Essay’, on Guardian Education website http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003/jun/10/highereducation.uk [Accessed 23/03/11]

Biggs, J. and Tang, C. (2007) Teaching for Quality Learning at University. Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press. Duhs, R. (2010) „Please, no exam”‟ Assessment strategies for international students, in: SEDA Educational Developments, Issue 11.4, Dec, pp. 3-6 Hattie, J. and Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Education Research , 77, 81-112. Knight, Peter T.(2002) 'Summative Assessment in Higher Education: Practices in disarray', Studies in Higher Education, 27: 3, 275 — 286 Entwistle, N. (1996) Recent research on student learning, in: J. TAIT & P. KNIGHT (Eds) The Management of Independent Learning , pp. 97–112 (London, Kogan Page) JISC Case study 3: Supporting The Transition To Degree Level Study, Loughborough College. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearning/digiassess_supportingtrans.pdf JISC Case study 6: Enhancing The Experience of Feedback, University of Leicester. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearning/digiassess_enhancingfeedbk.pdf JISC Case study 8: Reflecting on Feedback, University of Westminster. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearning/digiassess_rereflectingfdback.pdf Subject benchmark Statements, Art and Design (2008). http://www.qaa.ac.uk/academicinfrastructure/benchmark/honours/artanddesign.asp

Biggs, J.B. (2003) Teaching for quality learning at university (2nd edition). Buckingham, Open University Press Caldwell, J. E. (2007) “Clickers in the large classroom: current research and best-practice tips” CBE-Life Sciences Education , Vol 6, Spring, pp 9 – 20 Deleo, P., Eichenholtz, S. and Sosin, A. A.(2009) “Bridging the information literacy gap with clickers”, The Journal of Academic Librarianship , 35 (5) pp438 - 444 Dunleavy, C (no date) Enhancing face-to-face teaching with Clickers . <www.ldu.salford.ac.uk/html/tel/tools/clickers.html> [accessed 20/03/2010] Julian, S. and Benson, K. (2008) “Clicking your way to library instruction assessment”, C&RL News , May, pp 258 – 260 McCune, V. (no date) “Effective use of clickers in the College of Science and Engineering”, one The College of Science and Engineering , Edinburgh University website. <www.scieng.ed.ac.uk/LTStrategy/clickers_effectiveUse.html> [accessed 21/03/2010]

Feedback on summative assessment group pres

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Feedback on summative assessment group pres (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Feedback on summative assessment group pres

Editor's Notes