Frances Chetwynd EATING th June 2011 Marking Guides and Effective Feedback

Talk outline My COLMSCT Project Proposal for TU100 new Assessment and Tutor Guides A TU100 example 9/5/2015 EATING 2011

COLMSCT Project Assessment feedback – a new taxonomy The survey: tutor attitudes to feedback and marking guides The current T175 assignments, marking guides and feedback – a brief analysis: 9/5/2015 EATING 2011

9/5/2015 EATING 2011 The Taxonomy

A possible taxonomy of feedback September 5, 2015 EATING 2011 Retrospective-on-content Retrospective-on-skillsFuture-altering-on-skills Future-altering-on-content Content Skills Concepts Theories etc. Verbal Numerical Planning Study etc. (Brown & Glover 2006) Refer to assignment just completed Points out omissions, misconceptions, etc. Explain how answer could have been improved Retrospective Future-altering How concepts and skills can be applied in future Clarify concepts and avoid future errors (Walker 2009)

9/5/2015 EATING 2011 The survey T175 tutors – 140 distributed, 70 respondents

The survey Background 91% OU tutor for 5+ years, 29% 10+ years experience Tutors’ methods Primary aim of PT3 comments to improve grade on next TMA (60%) On-script comments most effective future-altering device (71%) Additional home-made templates (54%) Duplication and triplication of comments (35%) 9/5/2015 EATING 2011

The survey Relative importance of feedback categories 9/5/2015 EATING 2011

9/5/2015 EATING 2011 Marking guides – a brief analysis

Feedback – Retrospective on Content September 5, 2015 EATING 2011 Mainly checklists Ideal minus approach Excludes other possible, or arguable answers Generally no help for tutors in closing the gap, correcting misapprehensions, clarifying concepts Used principally for mark allocation Students are simply asked to list these components so bullets are acceptable here. Award 1 mark per ICT component listed below:  The touch screen  RFID reader  RFID tag  Computer terminal  Library computer network  Library database  Sensor gates  Alarm

Feedback – Retrospective on Skills September 5, 2015 EATING 2011 Tend to fall back on model answers Underlying concepts may be implied only No specific help on corrections and typical errors Award up to 4 marks. 1 mark for correct use of scientific notation, 2 for correct conversions of KB and Mbps and 1 for answer. File size = 42KB = 42 x 1024 x 8bits = bits Download speed = 0.9Mbps = 0.9 x 10 6 bps Time to download = file size/ speed = /(0.9 x 10 6 ) = x s = 3.82 x s

Feedback – Future altering on Skills September 5, 2015 EATING 2011 Again, tutors are left very much on their own Language skills?? To what extent should we expect tutors to be tutors in basic skills? Award high marks for clear and well structured notes suitable for intended audience. Give fewer marks if students use jargon, acronyms or unexplained technical concepts, but also use this as a teaching point about writing for specific audiences. Also do not award full marks to students that use full sentences rather than notes, as required. Do not deduct any marks if students go over the suggested 200 word limit but explain the importance of word limits in TMAs and generally.

Analysis of feedback opportunities September 5, 2015 EATING 2011 T175 – 1 Marking Guide

9/5/2015 EATING 2011 TU100 – the proposal

TU100 TMAs – general principles Assessment for learning not assessment of learning Support tutors in giving highest quality feedback TMAs have a clear thread of progression and achievement Promote re-use by CT Can grow to match developments in the digital world. 9/5/2015 EATING 2011

TU100 Tutor Guides - general principles Skills criteria properly flagged Overall mark and comment on skills Generic advice and documentation Should look forward and back 9/5/2015 EATING 2011

Detailed TMA principles TMAs need to explicitly develop skills, with skills requirements clearly stated Should offer an opportunity to showcase achievement Questions on SENSE should be, initially, a set of independent tasks TMAs should focus on tutor feedback for learning; All retrospective-on-skills marks should be gathered together into single mark 9/5/2015 EATING 2011

Detailed Tutor Guide principles Advice on future-altering feedback presented separately from the retrospective-on-content and marks Information on how each question links to other TMAs and module skills development Granularity of marks reduced and simplified Clear notes included on language skills 9/5/2015 EATING 2011

TMA01 & TMA02 Now an opportunity to discuss the first two TMAs and Tutor Guides. Have we achieved our aims? Has it worked?? How can we make the skills strands more explicit? EATING 2011

Future plans eSTEeM project led by Chris Dobbyn: Transforming retention and progression in a new Level 1 course Staged interviews with group of 15 tutors Feedback on assessment and tutor guides Establish leakage points and threshold concepts EATING 2011

References September 5, 2015 EATING 2011 Brown, E. and Glover, C. (2006) ‘Evaluating written feedback’, in Bryan, C. & Clegg, K. (Eds) Innovative Assessment in Higher Education Abingdon, Routledge, pp 81 – 91 Gibbs, G & Simpson, C. (2004) ‘Conditions under which assessment supports students’ learning’. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education 1 pp3 – 31 Hounsell, D. (2007)‘Towards more sustainable feedback’, in Boud, D. & Falchikov, N. (Eds) Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education. Abingdon, Routledge, pp Huxham, M. (2007) ‘Fast and effective feedback: are model answers the answer?’ Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32:6 pp 601 – 611 Nicol, R. & Macfarlane-Dick, D. (2006) ‘Formative assessment and self-regulated learning: a model and seven principles of good feedback practice.’ Studies in Higher Education. 31:2 pp 199 – 218 Nicol, R. (2008) ‘Transforming assessment and feedback: Enhancing integration and empowerment in the first year.’ Quality Assurance Agency, Scotland. Sadler, D. R. (1989) ‘Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems’. Instructional Science 18 pp Walker, M. (2009) ‘An investigation into written comments on assignments: do students find them usable?’ Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 34:1 pp